Tim Gray
Well-known
It's all in your head then
The shot is there or it is not. Digital may lead to more clicks the first weeks but after that, it's back to basics of shot selection.
I agree with you in principle. A lot of people never seem to get past those first couple weeks and just click away for their whole photographic career since there is no *need* for restraint.
MCTuomey
Veteran
A few hours at a monitor doing deletes will cure poor or overly numerous shot selection pretty quickly, I would think. Then it's "back to basics," yes.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Correction:
Digital may lead to more clicks the first weeks but after that, it's back to the forums speculating on the next big (insert your favorite brand) digital offerings.
:angel:
user237428934
User deletion pending
What do you expect when you don't have experience with a camera or medium/technology? Even if you are a rf professional you have to practice again when switching from film M to digital M.
aldobonnard
Well-known
The trouble with the M8 are inaccurate frames, IR filters which degrade the quality (as any filter), batteries and charger, where the simple M is running without all of this. I've got digital and silver M's, but I have to admit that I'm using (1) the CL (2) the M7 (3) Yashica 6x6 TLR (4) very occasionally the digital (for shots I feel "unimportant", or for ordered sessions for someone requesting explicitely digital). There is something missing in the digital; maybe shooting film forces me to frame with more attention, think over exposure more, and prepare and catch with economy. That's my case anyway ! I assume it's all down to everyone's taste (I let the search for "truth" to philosophers...). Or am I a luddite?...
mikenic
BundyBro
I would like to share my own "far fetched" analogy in that I tend to think of the M rangefinder as a kind of "Samurai Sword" of photography.
There is a long history at work here. It has uniqueness in its manufacture and functionality. There are the manufacturing details and idiosyncratic traits and characteristics of "your" particular camera.
They are as hand-made as you can get these days and we choose to possess them and make them identifiably our own.
There is also the dignity of the tradition of skilled use of the M rangefinder through a well established history.
I am convinced these things have a bearing on the mindset I have when I shoot film M rangefinders and I am working on making the digital M fit into this mould for me.
Many other digital camera options trend toward pump-action shotguns rather than swords. I have owned some of them. They are extremely effective; but are difficult to "respect" in the same way when they are picked up.
FWIW
There is a long history at work here. It has uniqueness in its manufacture and functionality. There are the manufacturing details and idiosyncratic traits and characteristics of "your" particular camera.
They are as hand-made as you can get these days and we choose to possess them and make them identifiably our own.
There is also the dignity of the tradition of skilled use of the M rangefinder through a well established history.
I am convinced these things have a bearing on the mindset I have when I shoot film M rangefinders and I am working on making the digital M fit into this mould for me.
Many other digital camera options trend toward pump-action shotguns rather than swords. I have owned some of them. They are extremely effective; but are difficult to "respect" in the same way when they are picked up.
FWIW
kshapero
South Florida Man
Down to only a Ricoh GX200 for digital. But for pure joy (isn't that what its all about), my M7 rocks.
HenningW
Well-known
The trouble with the M8 are inaccurate frames, IR filters which degrade the quality (as any filter), batteries and charger, where the simple M is running without all of this. I've got digital and silver M's, but I have to admit that I'm using (1) the CL (2) the M7 (3) Yashica 6x6 TLR (4) very occasionally the digital (for shots I feel "unimportant", or for ordered sessions for someone requesting explicitely digital). There is something missing in the digital; maybe shooting film forces me to frame with more attention, think over exposure more, and prepare and catch with economy. That's my case anyway ! I assume it's all down to everyone's taste (I let the search for "truth" to philosophers...). Or am I a luddite?...
Yup. A luddite.
Your first bunch of 'reasons' are for the most part not accurate or not relevant, but as with most of people posting in this thread, whatever conclusion you come to should be your own, whether you've formulated your reasons 'accurately' or not. It really doesn't matter that the M7 framelines are of the same accuracy as the M8 ones, etc. If the M7, 6, 5, 4-2 or 3 makes you happy, use that.
My highest technical quality results from 35 gear comes from digital. So, where I need the highest technical quality, I use that digital system.
Most of the time I don't need the highest technical quality, so I use other stuff; sometimes digital, sometimes film. I happen to have the luxury of not having to give up one for the other, so I have a variety but each has its purpose and I choose the equipment that (I hope) will allow me to take the pictures that I will be happiest with from any given outing.
Also, most of the time I don't want to carry the equipment that will give me the utmost quality, because a) it's too big and heavy and b) I can't set it up and get the shot in time.
So I, as most others, take the pictures that the camera I have with me can take, and I try to do the most with what I have with me. Digital or not. In fact, digital or not has little to do with it.