Re: weird posts Even though I completely agree with you, I'd like to point out that there is
quite a bit of overlap between the two domains, and that, for the majority
of amateurs, digital serves their requirements for the majority of their
shooting.
Let me offer one example. I shoot a lot of cityscapes, especially
buildings. Convergence often made my shots look amateurish, and I couldn't
justify the expense of investing in a PC lens. Now I can correct those
falling buildings in my editor, and the results are perfectly acceptable for
my purposes. And I am not limited to one single focal length. I can
correct for convergence distortion on any lens.
Professionals like you have your own unique requirements, but many of us can
get the results we want with digital. I confess that, if I were not already
so heavily invested in film bodies and lenses, I'd never have remained with
film. My needs are much more modest than those of a professional. I do
like the classic feel of heavier metal cameras and lens barrels, but that
does not necessarily equate to producing better photographs.
Especially for the more mundane stuff--the home inventory shots, the
"grab-shots," the vacation photos--I find myself reaching for the digital
more often than the film gear. And, much as I don't like to admit it, I
find that there is a degree of freedom in not having to agonize over which
bodies and lenses to take along. There was a point when my children were
young that it was just too much of a hassle to carry around a body, a gadget
bag and a couple of extra lenses, along with shades, filters, caps, extra
film etc. It got to the point that I'd just say, "Why bother?" and not take
anything!
Simply put, my "hobby" had grown onerous, and what started out as a pleasant
diversion had morphed into a big burden. Remember, I'm an amateur. I don't
make a living at this.
Sometimes, it is "freeing" to be able to take one small camera with zoom
lens, rather than having to lug around those screwmount lenses, that take a
long time to change in the field. When I read people complaining about
shutter lag, I laugh. They should try switching M42 lenses on a windy
afternoon! Take lens off body, put into camera bag, take another lens out
of its case, screw it in, Don't lose cap. Watch the camera bag, lest anyone
steal it. Then switch lenses all over again for the next round of shots.
Try to plan your shots so you're not constantly switching focal lengths.
Etc.
Pain in the butt sometimes. . .
Meanwhile the digital user is shooting. There is something to be said for
that. I remember many occasions when I took along several lenses but ended
up using only one--the one that was mounted on my camera--because it was too
much of a bother to fiddle around with the equipment. In fact, I have found
myself using the 50mm normal lens for perhaps 85% of all my film shooting.
I'd have switched to a zoom, but they are slow and the image in the
viewfinder is unacceptably too dark for me.
That overlap factor is becoming bigger all the time--to the point that a guy
like me really does not need to trot out all that film gear. If the trend
continues, will there be any need at all for me to use film in another 5
years? Perhaps only if I want to be different--like someone that drives
about in an antique automobile.
Jeremy
|
|
