Author: badengineer

This morning I went on a cold photo walk equipped with two cameras, both built by Olympus (okay, one by OM Systems but just about the same). The cameras are many generations apart and newer one is demonstrably better than the older one. So how come I hate the new one and love the old one?

On the left is the amazingly capable and complicated OM Systems OM-1 from 2022. This is a interchangeable lens digital camera with a multitude of advanced features. On the right is the Olympus IS-3 DLX “bridge” camera from 1992. This film camera has a fixed zoom lens, a very limited number of features, and very different ergonomics than today’s cameras.

Picture Quality: Let’s get this out of the way right now. The OM-1 will produce better quality pictures more often than the IS-3 will. But the IS-3 is no slouch (in good light) as you can see below on the right. Keep in mind the different lighting for each photo.

So why do I love the IS-3 and dislike (hate, sometimes) the OM-1? Why do I hate what many consider close to perfection? Because I am human. And, perhaps, because I am an old human. I think for people of my generation (yes, boomers) there is a sort of uncanny valley where technology is enjoyed up to a certain point of complexity and then it rapidly becomes an annoyance and we start to look backwards to simpler devices. The OM-1 is a complex camera and though I like the fact that the camera is capable of doing incredible things (subject detection and tracking, hand held high resolution, star focusing, etc.), none of those things make me want to pick it up and go do photography because I have to deal with all that technology every single time (settings, menus, etc.).

On the other hand, just picking up the IS-3 makes me want to use it. I can just point and shoot, or I can be more deliberate but even then I only have to deal with shutter speed and aperture. The auto focus works okay, for 1992, and the auto focus point stays in the middle and doesn’t wander off into the edges of the frame. [I do wish modern cameras had the capability for locking the focus point]. The camera doesn’t get in the way and lets me concentrate on the composition of the photograph. It lets me enjoy the process of photography instead of the process of setting up a computer to take a picture and then pressing the button like a trained chimp.

I suppose this is just me being fed up with the barrage of technology. My car (9 year old BMW) is another example. The infotainment screen can be retracted into the dashboard so I can enjoy a drive without being told how to drive. Bliss.

I am sure other people would argue just the opposite. So perhaps it is all up to personal choice and preference. Perhaps I have just reached the point where I am willing to sacrifice the perfection of the result (i.e., perfect picture quality) for more pleasure in a more perfect (to me) process.

…for me.

Okay, before I go any further and to forestall any of you guys poised on the comment button to reignite film versus digital, I will admit that digital is now “better” than film in most cases. I fully admit that my modest digital cameras are amazing devices that can produce amazing results that would be hard or impossible to produce with most of my film cameras. And that is precisely why digital has spoiled photography for me.

I know people have differing opinions of photography, but for me the goal is not to get the perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, perfectly color rendered, perfectly sharp photograph. Perfection isn’t my goal. And the digital camera builders are obsessed with giving me just that. Sorry, but perfection is boring. As is the constant search for sharpness. And hand in hand with the boredom of perfection is the curse of menus and the realization that you are pointing a lens that is connected to a powerful computer. Essentially the human photographer is relegated to the monkey pushing the shutter button. And if that isn’t quite perfect enough, then the monkey can push a few more buttons and move some sliders in post-production to make the photograph even more perfect.

Easy, right? Well photography, like baseball, isn’t supposed to be easy. It is its difficulty that makes it satisfying and rewarding to do. Because when you get a fine picture out of a film camera, you were the one who did it and you can take most of the credit and pride. You weren’t a monkey pressing a button, you were a photographer composing, calculating the exposure, choosing the film stock, and waiting for the right conditions instead of changing them in lightroom or photoshop later.

So why don’t I just keep using film cameras and not put out a rant like this one. Well, I intend to. But every time I go out with a film camera in hand, even with my most sophisticated film camera, the amazing Minolta Alpha 9, I know that my little compact digital camera could do a better job. And old Uncle Fred with his Nikon D850 can produce something ten times better than that. So that has spoiled photography for me because I can’t compete. And each time I have to make that choice between the easy path with great results or the hard path with lesser results. It is a hard choice that gets harder every time a new fancy digital camera comes out.

So what to do? Well, I will continue to use both as situations warrant. In general, I’ll use digital for color snaps and film for more thoughtful black and white photographs. I’ll play the monkey sometimes and the human being trying to be an artist the other times. But I won’t look for perfection in either case. Perfection isn’t the right goal.