gb hill said:
Yes many stay at this stage, but there are some that remember the old slr film days & are also getting pretty tired of sitting in front of their computers having to shop their prints all the time because the quality isn't the same.
Interesting perspective... lil anecdote illustrating your point.
1. Last summer, a student in the electronics department where I work was carrying around a late model Sony DSLR in a small cardboard box. Asked him about it, he gave me a long customer service (all too familiar) sob story about how his camera never worked right out of the box... several repair attempts... warranty now expired... etc., etc., etc.. He was walking around with it hoping one of the Profs in electronics would take a look at it. A desperate move. He had sunk, he said, $1800 into the system, which now is paperweight.
2. This winter, I took a bunch of candids with a $40 Yashica GSN and had them blown up to 8x10 and posted them on a corkboard in the college where I work. One was a candid by this same student (coincidence) working in an electronics lab. He was "blown away" by the 8x10, so much so that he took the pic off the wall, went to my office and asked if he could have it. Sure/flattered. He asked me what camera it was, it had "a different more natural look"... That's because at least 1/2 the time they don't even know I took their picture, and shoot nearly always without a flash. These are capabilities most suited to rangefinders (smallish cameras, though not the GSN... fast lenses, no flash, quick focus, silent shutters...) I mostly use Kodak UC Pro 400 for color, which is a nice rich film, colors pop, and it's good with skin tones.
I showed him the GSN I keep in my drawer. We had a quick chat, he was intrigued by it... built solid, feels good in your hand. I explained that that f1.7 + 400 speed = no flash. Therefore no redeye, and that although this is a big camera, you're not jabbing a giant zoom lens with a pedal hood in people's faces. He seemed sold, and for $50 for a decent working sample, why not? (He was amazed at the "battery life" 6 months, a year... and the GSN sucks batteries compared to other fixed lens rangefinders...)
I get complimented a lot on the photos I take, and have two large cork board devoted to them. I get "they look different" or words to that effect. Truth is? I'm a mediocre average amateur photographer. About all I know from formal composition is "rule of thirds" and I now have a good feel for how to use a rangefinder. Pre-meter, pre-focus, decisivive moment. For people shots I open up the aperture a little wider for some bokeh. Stop it down if I'm wanting everything in focus. Click. That about sums up my photographic knowledge.
I attribute these compliments to having a very, very good camera and that people in these digital days never saw an honest to goodness natural light candid snap shot in their life. Nor have they ever had one taken of them. It's aways "say cheese" from a crappy angle looking down on the subject, blinded by a flash... or being rudely jabbed in the face with a giant digital zoom lens, posed shots where they're blinded even worse by a big flash.
Realize that there is millions and millions of PR and ad dollars selling gullible (imo) consumers on the "advantages" of digital cameras. Compare that to film cameras, where virtually "nothing" is spent... If the ad dollars were put back into film, you would see more on the shelves at the camera shop. And that won't happen until digital sales drop off - perhaps because consumers are too lazy to sit in front of their PC, or because "why should I buy a digital camera, I can take just as good a shot with my cell phone. My new cell has a 3x digital zoom!". Consumers, as always being played like a flute.
