The great majority of amateur photographers in the UK do indeed use digital, so it's not surprising that a magazine avowedly catering to that audience has reflected that change. I expect that 50 or 60 years ago, some of its readers were unhappy about the increased coverage of 35mm - roll-film was the real thing! And some decades before that, I imagine that the increased coverage of roll-film cameras was bemoaned by those still using cut film.
AP reflects the times, it doesn't make them. It's interesting to look back over old issues: I have copies of some of their annual 'glamour photography' special issue; very redolent of their time, but I think Gary Coward-Williams made the right decision to stop them in the early noughties.
It's interesting that several of the AP team, including editor Damien Demolder, have got experience using Leicas. There have been a number of articles over the last ten years covering RF issues, including reviews of the CV and Zeiss cameras, a comparative review of Leica vs CV vs Zeiss, a number of lens reviews, and reviews of the M7 and MP, as well as review of the M8, M8.2 and M9. Given the comparatively slow pace of change in the RF world, I think AP has if anything given our favourite cameras favoured coverage. And of course there are Roger Hicks' columns most weeks.
I understand that for those who stick exclusively to film, there is less and less in AP to interest them. As someone who uses both film and digital I still find it a very interesting magazine. This week's issue has a good review of the latest Micro4/3 camera (and AP has covered this interesting technology in considerable depth since it appeared), along with one of Ivor Matanle's historical articles, this time about the Canon FT range. I ever had one of these, but I remember badly wanting a FTQL in the early 70s.
I'll stick with AP.
