One thing that I've noticed that surprised me is that the LEG (one of the Leica lists) has a substantial number of photographers shooting more digital than I'd have expected, and from what I can see, the cameras of choice are Canon and ... Pentax! Canon has been chosen because a lot of Leica lenses can be used with the bodies, plus a lot of the Leica photogs are pros of one sort or another and use the Canons in their "day jobs" quite a bit. Pentax has been chosen because either the user has a lot of old pentax glass <remember, almost everyone learned photography on a Spotmatic or K1000 ;-))> or, upon trying one, loved the ergonomics and small size. While I've not really kept a tally, it seems that more people on the Leica list are shooting other branded digital than Leica cameras film cameras these days. Some people have given up their Leica M bodies .... the very same people who just a year or so back argued so strongly for the strengths of the camera.
However, there's another interesting trend, and that is subject matter. More and more I'm seeing flower pictures and snaps of the back yard and the neighborhood instead of what used to be the more prevalent people pics, architectural and "found object" studies. Well, maybe it's not a trend in the true sense of the word, but still, flowers are appearing with greater regularity by more and more people posting PAWs and pics to the list. Finally, as here, some photogs using digital are posting greater numbers of pics, which is, of course, understandable. However, just like here and in other venues, more pics does not equate with greater quality. Is it just me, or do others see the quality of the photos posted here diminishing. I don't necessarily mean technical quality, but subject matter and choice of images posted seem to be of less impact and deliver less meaning. Would some photogs be choosing their subjects and framing with a better eye towards composition if they's be shooting film where they'd be paying per exposure, and perhaps limited in the number of exposures they could make on a walk about? Again, I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I did want to share what may be some valid observations. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Shel Belinkoff > I'm not sure about "here," but I do recall a few people mentioning that they've either returned to film or are using more film rather than shooting all digital. Of course, that changes nothing: crap is crap, good work is still good work, and digital is going to be around a long time. I'd just like to see a higher level of quality produced, regardless of the format. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From Rob Studdert > > > Digital imaging obviously isn't mature but it isn't utter crap > > either, who here has dumped their DSLR to go back to > > shooting 35mm film?
