The cost of the cameras has been caused by the increase in the popularity of the medium – and that’s no bad thing. I’m also not going to get on my soapbox about the cost of film cameras or the film they take. It felt more fun.ĭon’t get me wrong, I still really enjoy shooting film. And because it was accessible, it felt less serious. This made film photography feel more accessible. Charity shops had piles of boxes of film cameras you could dig through too. Yes there were expensive film cameras, but expensive meant £200 for a Contax T2 or £350 for a Leica M3. Back then I bought a Yashica T5 for £30, I could buy rolls of colour film from Poundland for £2 each and could even have them developed and scanned for a further £2. There are other factors too – not least fashion – but the idea that film photography could be quite cheap and the fact that the cameras were comparatively simple was certainly what drove me more heavily in the direction of film in 2013. I’d pin both of these factors as playing a part in the increase in popularity of film photography. For others, it means cameras that feel overwhelming and somehow unsatisfying to use. For some this means they can perfectly customise camera to their individual needs.

I’ve frequently moaned about the overpopulation of buttons and menu items on more modern kit. It’s squeezed all the big brands out of the entry-level market, forced them to concentrate on high spec, all-singing all-dancing cameras which has pushed the price consistently upward.Ĭameras have become increasingly complex too. The rise of the smartphone camera has put tremendous pressure on the digital camera marketplace. Over the last few years, the price of digital cameras has gone up quite dramatically. Of course, what’s objectively good for photography might not be good for the individual photographer. Both fairly thin measures of quality, but not bad for a decade old camera… Also the fist image I have had on flickr explore for a long time. Referred to by the marketing person at the landlord of The Arches as “the best picture of them that I have seen”. The fact is, bang up to date technology is good for photography – at least that is if you measure what’s good by the merits by which we are sold cameras. But you won’t hear me making any sort of strong argument that ultimately they don’t help take objectively “better” photos, easier. I’ve been vocally critical of a lot of these “advances” for a long time. And then there’s the race for faster autofocus, greater functionality, increased customisation options, etc. That’s not to mention the race for more dynamic range, higher ISO/lower noise output and better colour accuracy. Photographers, it seems, are increasingly turning to the vintage digital camera!įor a long while, each new generation of digital cameras was defined by the pixel-count race. It’s true too, objectively speaking – but with a good few caveats, that idea can, and is increasingly being challenged. Newer digital cameras take better photos – at least that’s the line we are sold by the manufacturers. Of course, in the world of digital cameras where the image making technology is built into the camera, how long ago the camera was made will have an impact on the potential photographic outcome. A good camera is a good camera, right? That’s how it should be.

Baixar app camera retro 1970