Do digital cameras have a soul?

[Simpo Two]

I was pondering my old D70 and 18-70 lens this morning. It got me started in 2004, it went to NZ with me in 2005-6, I learned a lot with it, I did my first paid work with it and it's been a faithful camera throughout. And yet it's soon going to be totally redundant and I'm thinking of swapping it with an artist for one of his paintings.

Did we feel this way about film SLRs? They'd last for 10 or 20 years and became part of the family, they somehow seem more 'keepable' objects. Or is it just me?

[chris.mapey]

Simpo Two said:

And yet it's soon going to be totally redundant

Worst "I'm getting a new camera thread ever"

[Simpo Two]

Doh, you're so materialistic Chris I was trying to be deep and meaningful for once and you go and spoil it!

[SGirl]

It's only a camera, Simpo. It wouldn't think twice about dumping you for a younger, prettier model. Don't give it a thought.

[bramley]

I guess I'm fairly attached to my 5D, moreso than the 350d before it. I've learnt a lot from both cameras, but I think I'd attribute much more in the way of progress to the 5D. When it comes to upgrade time (a long way off) I'll probably look at the 5D with great memories.

[agent006]

I always thought soul (like personality) is a term reserved for the owners of unreliable cars to justify their continuing ownership to themselves.

[350Wedge]

Interesting topic.....

Do digital camera's have soul.....no i dont think so as a rule (as always a few exceptions will apply).

Yes they are incredible tools for taking photo's, very efficient and most of the time you are guaranteed a good shot thanks to autofocus, auto exposure, various idiot mode's etc etc etc....

Compact digital camera's are even worse, lacking the 'soul' of a DSLR due to having things like a noise in place of a proper shutter, no viewfinder etc. Again its foolproof for getting a good shot if you use it properly.

The quote from Sgirl above typifies that we have now become a 'throwaway' society.

I do use a digital SLR, a Canon 1D which i've been using for over 4 years now i. I will however never sell it because it does all i want it to, and despite packing only a paltry 4 million pixels it punches well above its weight in terms of quality.

Despite using this as my everyday tool I also have a collection of Ziess Contaflex camera's dating from the mid to late 1960's. And yes i do still use them from time to time.

Do these camera's have soul?....... Definatly yes..... There is nothing auto in sight and even on the later models the only thing that requires power from a single button battery is the light meter.

They are totally mechanical camera's though and even if the battery meter fails you can still use it. The earliest one i have is 49 years old and the newest a mere 40 years old. They all still work properly and still have super sharp Ziess optics.

I wonder how many DLSR's will still be in full working order after nearly 50 years....? None i'm guessing...!

You can hear every gear and wheel turning when you wind the film on, super smooth but a purely mechanical action. The same with the shutter, a positive action of a non mistakable mechanical shutter making a satisfying click as it fires. The contaflex's shutter though makes the most wonderful noise unlike any other film camera.

These camera's require the user to work to get the best out of it. Being German made they have a build quality and solidity that are second to none. They are heavier than a lot of todays compact DSLR's.

Anyway enough of my ramblings.... here is a picture just for comparison of my current 1D with the much earlier and rarer Contaflex S in black. Interestingly the contaflex is worth the same as the 1D !!!

[SGirl]

350Wedge said:

The quote from Sgirl above typifies that we have now become a 'throwaway' society.

I didn't throw away my D70. I gave it to my brother when I traded up.

No need to throw away a perfectly good camera. Just trade it in or give it to someone or keep it as a spare.

[Andy M]

Simpo Two said:

I was pondering my old D70 and 18-70 lens this morning. It got me started in 2004, it went to NZ with me in 2005-6, I learned a lot with it, I did my first paid work with it...

Never knew you had a D70 John?!

[Flip Martian]

One should always feel free to upgrade their camera - be it an old SLR or a digital one. Just don't do it in the mistaken belief that it will give you better pictures. Some of the worst pics I've seen come from people with expensive cameras.

I think its the photographer that has the soul (and the talent), not the camera...

[le gravy noire]

I've never developed any attachment to a digital camera, but if the house was burning down the hasselblad is one of the first things I'd grab on my way out.

I don't think it's the digital/analogue thing that gives it a soul, I think it's the experience of using it. Film cameras, especially MF/LF tend to be much purer experiences as there is very little between you and the photograph, the interaction with the instrument is simple and mechanical in nature and the entire process of shooting is more immersive. By contrast digital slrs and compacts are all buttons and flashing lights. I suppose for want of a better analogy it's the difference between a caterham or classic and something like an evo or subaru. All have four wheels but the experience of using them is totally different.

Matt

[Simpo Two]

le gravy noire said:

I think it's the experience of using it. Film cameras, especially MF/LF tend to be much purer experiences as there is very little between you and the photograph, the interaction with the instrument is simple and mechanical in nature and the entire process of shooting is more immersive. By contrast digital slrs and compacts are all buttons and flashing lights. I suppose for want of a better analogy it's the difference between a caterham or classic and something like an evo or subaru. All have four wheels but the experience of using them is totally different.

Yes, I think that could be it. Porsche vs TVR would be similiar.

[le gravy noire]

Simpo Two said:

le gravy noire said:

I think it's the experience of using it. Film cameras, especially MF/LF tend to be much purer experiences as there is very little between you and the photograph, the interaction with the instrument is simple and mechanical in nature and the entire process of shooting is more immersive. By contrast digital slrs and compacts are all buttons and flashing lights. I suppose for want of a better analogy it's the difference between a caterham or classic and something like an evo or subaru. All have four wheels but the experience of using them is totally different.

Yes, I think that could be it. Porsche vs TVR would be similiar.

Surely that would be more Hasselblad vs Holga?

[Simpo Two]

le gravy noire said:

Surely that would be more Hasselblad vs Holga?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were a car snob.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 15th July 18:46

[CVP]

Simpo Two said:

le gravy noire said:

I think it's the experience of using it. Film cameras, especially MF/LF tend to be much purer experiences as there is very little between you and the photograph, the interaction with the instrument is simple and mechanical in nature and the entire process of shooting is more immersive. By contrast digital slrs and compacts are all buttons and flashing lights. I suppose for want of a better analogy it's the difference between a caterham or classic and something like an evo or subaru. All have four wheels but the experience of using them is totally different.

Yes, I think that could be it. Porsche vs TVR would be similiar.

Not sure there, my old Stuttgart machine had soul. Yes it was only a Boxster S but the mearest hint of a winding country road or short piece of dual carriageway and you'd feel the car champing at the bit and shouting in best Derestrictor style "Schnell, schnell". There are some times in that car I'll never forget and for a machine to make that kind of impression and evoke those memories I reckon it had soul.

Will I feel the same way about my Nikons, not sure, I guess it depends on what we go through together. I had real pangs getting shot of the D100 but it is currently still cliking away in the hands of one of my sisters so it's still in the family as it were.

Chris

[le gravy noire]

Simpo Two said:

le gravy noire said:

Surely that would be more Hasselblad vs Holga?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were a car snob.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 15th July 18:46

I'm not a car snob, but my analogy is more accurate. Hasselblad and porsche (V series and 911 anyway) are both timeless designs that have stood the test of time and are renowned for their precision engineering along with some idiosyncrasies. The Holga suffers from questionable build quality and is therefore a relatively unpredictable experience. I'm pretty sure few would dispute the that. I'm not saying one is better than the other, as "better" particularly with regard to cars and cameras is highly subjective. It just depends what you want!

[Joey Deacon]

Simpo Two said:

I was pondering my old D70 and 18-70 lens this morning. It got me started in 2004, it went to NZ with me in 2005-6, I learned a lot with it, I did my first paid work with it and it's been a faithful camera throughout. And yet it's soon going to be totally redundant and I'm thinking of swapping it with an artist for one of his paintings.

Did we feel this way about film SLRs? They'd last for 10 or 20 years and became part of the family, they somehow seem more 'keepable' objects. Or is it just me?

has anyone done the your camera has a soul joke? Not read, digital has as much soul (purlease, disappointed simpo) as any other medium. GIGO. It is no different a skill to film its just a different interpretation

[le gravy noire]

Joey Deacon said:

Simpo Two said:

I was pondering my old D70 and 18-70 lens this morning. It got me started in 2004, it went to NZ with me in 2005-6, I learned a lot with it, I did my first paid work with it and it's been a faithful camera throughout. And yet it's soon going to be totally redundant and I'm thinking of swapping it with an artist for one of his paintings.

Did we feel this way about film SLRs? They'd last for 10 or 20 years and became part of the family, they somehow seem more 'keepable' objects. Or is it just me?

has anyone done the your camera has a soul joke? Not read, digital has as much soul (purlease, disappointed simpo) as any other medium. GIGO. It is no different a skill to film its just a different interpretation

I would contest that. While some of the skills are the same, such as composition, the execution and workflows have many differences, such as working within the confines of a narrow dynamic range, adjusting for reciprocity failure, filtration for different colour temperatures, working with fixed ISO... In fact, not being able to see the result instantly, tends to affect the whole approach to the construction and execution of the shot. This is before the film even comes to be developed when the real chaos starts
.

[Joey Deacon]

doesnt give it soul though!

[le gravy noire]

True, my point was just that saying "It is no different a skill to film its just a different interpretation" is not necessarily correct. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it's not the film vs. digital that is the measure of soul, it's the interaction you have with the camera that encourages you to embody a camera with that particular characteristic.

Edited by le gravy noire on Tuesday 15th July 22:26