Cameras are tools: they do some things well and others not so well. There's a kind of mystique (no doubt promulgated by camera company marketing depts.) that if you buy a Nikon, or Canon, or Leica or whatever, suddenly, all problems are solved.

But even expensive cameras have strengths and weaknesses. When I bought my first Leica M4, a film-burning model, in the 1980s, I had all sorts of misadventures. The focusing wasn't as accurate as my SLR Nikons, especially with telephotos. Changing lenses quickly would sometimes knock the focusing cam out of whack, and whole rolls of film would be out of focus.

It wasn't until I began accepting the Leica for what it was - quiet, inconspicuous and with a lens quality that revealed as much that was bad about my technique as was good in the image - that I began getting images that I liked.

So it's not that the correctness and extremely fine resolution of digital is bad (or good): it just is what it is. Digital cameras are tools, and each one has its strengths and weaknesses. The photog's job is to somehow manage all of the variables - light, shadow, composition, choice of camera, lens, emulsion or CCD and technique into a magic moment that speaks to others. And sometimes, 'better image' doesn't translate to 'technically superior specifications.' Photo taken with a Leica Digilux 2, B&W mode, ISO 100, high-quality compression...
Comments 3:23:41 PM    

Chris Gulker's view from Silicon Valley - in words and pictures