I don't know about "slowing me down" or "thinking more before the shot", but I certainly work better with film cameras than with their digital counterparts, which I still find clumsy and cumbersome. I was reminded of this earlier this afternoon when, emerging from J & R's Computer Store on Park Row, I saw one of the stranger camera-demo presentations I've ever seen: an oversized, cushman-like truck with an open bed displaying most of Olympus' current digital camera lineup, right up to the pro E-3, parked on the sidewalk. Weird.
I walked up and picked up an E-3 with what I remember being a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 zoom. I had a hard time remembering that this was supposed to be a four-thirds sensor machine, because it felt at least as big as a Canon 5D. I really don't like that size of camera anymore, especially with a big-ass zoom bolted on. The camera's AF seemed responsive enough in the overcast daylight, but everything seemed huge. This was what Olympus was supposed to be going against, at least once upon a time.
I talked to one of the reps while snapping away. (I think the images I left on the CF card were a good deal more interesting than the ones I had to erase to make more room.) I asked pointedly about how the E-3 was doing against the Usual Suspects, and complained about Olympus dragging its heels in terms or delivering one or two good, killer primes for their dSLRs. He said that the E-3 was "holding its own, for what it is" (i.e., a smaller-sensor camera than its pro counterparts?), and that he admitted the lack of primes was "an issue", but that they would have to charge some serious coin for them to make the effort worthwhile (have they had a word with Zeiss lately?). I had a real hard time grokking with the E-3, but I have a hard time grokking with most any dSLR that feels overfed in my hands. So many things felt wrong to me that I could fill half a journal. Maybe the micro-four-thirds thing can have a positive influence, but I think that camp had better move fast before the big dogs eat their lunch.
Of course, I largely shoot film, so (allegedly) none of this should concern me. But I would say one-half the reason for sticking with film is my understanding of how film works and reacts in general (and certain favorite emulsions of mine in particular), but the other half, again, is how the cameras i load the film up in actually work. There's an avalanche of difference between the simplest digicam I use and the film cameras I work with on a daily basis, and it's this gestalt that looms largest for me. I'm somewhat convinced that this issue can be dealt with in the digital world, and will likely happen eventually, but, near as I can tell, nobody has bothered thus far, never mind the price. This doesn't mean there aren't digicams I don't like, it just means there are film-based cameras I like more, usually a lot more, in day-to-day work.
- Barrett
