UKH

21yrs ago I was in Bermingham Cameras in Dublin and faced with a decision. I had been taking pictures for many years at this point and was in a position to treat myself.

I had always admired Leica cameras from the beautiful craftsmanship perspective and the incredible lenses that come out of their factory. I was also desperate to explore digital photography and this was a chance to dip my toe in the water.

I was torn between a Leica M6 and a Nikon Coolpix 990. The former, obviously film, and the latter clearly digital. They were both approximately the same price. The Nikon SLR body at that time was way out of my league, at twice the budget I had. 

I went for the Nikon Coolpix 990 with its whopping 3.1 mp sensor. 

Leap forwards to today and I am again in a position to treat myself. I am still using Nikon cameras in both digital and film, a D850 and an F2AS (which I bought second hand in 1983). My thinking was to look at Leica again. It seems a decent M6 is going to cost me twice what I would have bought it for in yr 2000. I didn't bother checking on my Coolpix 990! 

So the upshot of my thinking is basically that until technology plateaus out, there will not be a digital equivalent to the Leica M6 (or in fact any Leica film camera) or the medium format Hasselblads. I was thinking in terms of not only treating myself but also leaving something to my son that is going to be of value (thereby relinquishing me of treat guilt!).

Thoughts anyone?    

In reply to jim robertson:

My thoughts are that beyond technology plateauing, the physical longevity of all the components in a digital camera are going to stop any single unit lasting decades. 

Again, taking the technology plateau out of the equation, and throwing in some personal experience. 

Circa 2005-2013 I had a Fujifilm F30, a neat little compact digital which in its day was very well respected for its combination of build quality (semi-metal body), good sensor (acceptable at ISO 800), nice form factor, good lens. It was declared "future design classic". 
Mostly by now the screens or sensors have simply died of old age on these. I think the screen has died on mine. Replaceable maybe, but not economically. 

In 2009 I saw a Sony Cybershot DSC F717, a model that had retailed at around £1000 in late 2002 when digital SLRs were still way out of reach of the £1000 budget. I saw it in a shop window for £55 which was very cheap, it should have been more like £200 even second hand. The technology was outdated already of course, with the tiny 5MP sensor which wasn't much use at more than ISO 200, but the camera was a modern classic, with a superb lens and a brilliant form factor. I put up with it not exactly being dSLR "quality" because when used in the right conditions, it was a pleasure to use and the pictures WERE good within limits. 
It's pretty much dead now, the pictures mostly come out mono green unless I store the camera in the freezer overnight and then only use it for half an hour.

obviously, as you well know, a Leica M6 doesn't have a screen or sensor to worry about....

Anyway, just some thoughts. 
 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You've pretty much distilled my thoughts... it seems that an M6 equivalent is not on the horizon in digital terms

In reply to Blue Straggler:

How does the freezer business work ? ( In simple terms   )

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I don’t know. I meant to write “I don’t know how or why that worked or where I got the idea from” but I got lazy and had been on the forums too long already (two decades too long in some people’s opinion)

 I don’t think that camera really works at all now, it won’t hold charge. Haven’t tested it for a while. 

In reply to jim robertson:

My 22 year old Kodak DC120 still works though! But it’s more a museum “live demo” piece, than a useable bit of tech 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

You are right, film cameras were made to last - F100 and previous F2 was fine until I traded it in,  but D2H on last legs, D100 dead as a dodo. The CP990 did well, in a busy clinic 4 years only! The only problem is getting films developed may get more difficult. I have not developed a film myself for 30 years.

In reply to SouthernSteve:

“Interestingly” (or not!) even the film cameras you might expect not to have been built to last, seem to be doing just fine. I have a small sub-collection of “auto everything” plastic body point-and-clicks, the type that started to get popular around 1987 and probably peaked around 10 years later and then tailed off as APS turned consumers off from photography for a few years until digital compacts seemed attractive. Nikon LF35, Samsung AiBorg, Canon Epoca, Pentax Espio 105 SW all working fine despite all the tiny motors and IR focus triangulation and film auto wind and rewind all of which you’d think would somehow die with age. Admittedly some of more ridiculous ones like a Minolta one with a max zoom of 160mm, have died but most of them work well. 

In reply to jim robertson:

I’m sure if I put film in my old Nikon f301 it would still take a picture, I know my Nikon FM2 will because my daughter and I are working through some FP4 film at the moment, I do have a draw with a number of “good” digital compacts that bit the dust.

on a good note I must put my Olympus Mju up on eBay 😏their worth a lot I recently discovered 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think only the classic non-zoom with the 35mm f/2.8 are worth a lot but as it’s you I expect that’s what you mean. There was a decade when you couldn’t even get one second hand, then when everyone was “clearing out” if you were lucky like me you could pick one up for a fiver in a charity shop, then a few years later more like £20 and only on eBay, and then about two years a climbing buddy said they were over £100. Which is nice as I have two....but a shame to break up the “museum”

In reply to jim robertson:

Leica M9? Available used (from dealers) for around 2k€ in Germany, maybe a bit less pricey from private sellers.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Very very nice but again, how will those sensors and screens be holding up - physically as opposed to "vs latest technology specifications" - in a further 15 years from now? Hopefully "very well"...and from the looks of it, even with a dead screen, the M9 should be a very useable camera

In reply to Blue Straggler:

<SNIP>

Odd that, I've had a handful of digital cameras (starting in 2000 with the with the Olympus C3000Z) and haven't lost a screen or sensor on any of them. The main culprit has usually been the limited lifetime of the Li-ion batteries and the fact that you can no longer get replacements for some of the obscure proprietary form factors.

But the main reason for replacement has been progress in sensor technology (relative to affordability) and changing usage (from holiday snaps and landscapes to astrophotography and wildlife).

As for 'design classics', I'm not even sure how that applies. For me, a camera is a tool for a job. I pick ones that are good at the time and when the time moves on, so do I. I have no particular affection (for want of a better word) for my old cameras (or any other ones), any more than for that screwdriver I was using last year. They were all good tools at the time I needed them. That's all. The only concept I have of a 'design classic' is for something - usually very simple - which is so good that it simply can't be improved on. Like a paper clip. But that's never going to apply to technology which almost by definition is constantly evolving.

In reply to Marek:

Good points, "design classic" wasn't quite the term I wanted but I couldn't neatly express what I meant, which was more "should be fondly remembered even when no longer in use". The (35mm) Olympus Mju II ("Stylus Epic") fits into this category too IMHO, and a few other 35mm cameras that may not be as "legacy" as the OP is after, but which were super neat and a pleasure to use. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

For me the original Olympus Trip was a classically good design and looking on line seems to have retained a good resale price (I suspect more than was originally paid). If only it hadn't gone to  the toy box.

In reply to jim robertson:

I still have my OM10 bought for me for my 21st birthday.  I'm pretty certain it would work if I put a film in it. 

Since the digital era I have tried several camera's.  Every one has failed after a few years of hard use.  My last one barely lasted a year, before an error message started flashing up and I have not been able to sort it or use it since.  For most of the snaps I take, landscapes and family, a cheap modern phone takes expectable pictures now. Not certain I will buy another dedicated camera. They are simply not made to last any more.  

In reply to BuzyG:

I have still got my OM1 purchased in the 1970's. It's quite battered but still works.  I have also got several OM1 that belonged to my father together with several Olympus lenses. They are all in excellent condition. My daughter, who is studying Fine Art at Oxford has been using them for a couple of years. Apparently, film photography is making a comeback.

In reply to BuzyG:

That does seem odd. As I said earlier I've not had a single digital camera fail in 20 years (except for aging batteries). Some of them (Canon 300d and 550d) have been taken apart and modded (various optical filters removed from the sensor) and they're still working fine years on.

Depends on what you want from them. I've just gone through a quick exercise to see if I can get away with just a camera phone instead of a proper camera when I go on cycling trips. For WhatApping the odd picture it's fine, but the picture quality compared even to my venerable Lumix LX3 is woeful (over-processed, too much sharpening, too much noise reduction). I'll try a different camera app tomorrow which should allow me to control the in-phone post-processing a bit or even output a raw file, but based on what I saw today, I think the phone's a non-starter if I want A4+ printable pictures.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ah, fondly remembered, indeed. The trouble is those fond memories tend to be more to do with the adventures we had together rather than whether the camera was particularly well designed (or not). In general every camera I had was better (in most ways) than the ones before and there were no 'duds'. A bit different now that my photography has split: I've Micro 4/3 for wildlife and video and full-frame for astro and landscape. Both system are great tool for their respective jobs, but I must admit that however good the Lumix G9 is, it does come across a bit as a computer-for-taking -pictures rather than a 'camera'. And that's for me is a bit less endearing.

In reply to Marek:

Re phone cameras, I’ve certainly read that there are some professional photographers that specialise in using iPhones for taking at least some of their professional shots, one even for wedding photos (though I don’t know if that was regularly done). Also, there are now photographic competitions with phone camera subcategory apparently.

I’m just a hobbyist photographer so easy pleased, but I’ve been amazed as some phone photos I’ve seen.

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

I'm sure, but they probably need a special category to themselves otherwise they wouldn't win any prizes. OK, I jest - I probably take more pictures on my phone than on any other camera these days, but if I want a picture that's intended to go big on a wall or is taken in low light or is a Kingfisher diving off a perch or... , then the phone doesn't come out to play.

In reply to Climbing Pieman:

I know what you mean Jim. Still got my last film SLR - Nikon FE2, a thing of beauty. The sound of the wind-on lever is something so wonderfully "mechanical" that can never be replicated in digital. Still run the occasional film through it, but digital is so... convenient.

In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

Good to see the appropriate CCS case being used. 

In reply to jim robertson:

Before the digital revolution I had a brace of Nikon FA's and a Hasselblad c500. Switched to digital when I was introduced to PS2 late 90's and sold all my cameras and enlargers. Still with Nikon and probably time to update my d300. But it is still working well after 10 years of rough treatment. I find it is the lenses that take all the hammer and now need to yet again replace my 3rd 18-70 lens. I am quite impressed with the new Z7 but no decision made yet.

In reply to wilkesley:

Yes, my daughter became interested in Photography a few years ago and was using my OM10 for a time.  I still have all my lenses, adaptors flashes, bits and bobs for it and they certainly worked then.  She has since bought an digital SLR. though it's not full frame.

In reply to Marek:

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh my first Digital Camera Still works, but my aging S5 phone that cost me £37.50 off flea bay, certainly takes better pictures now.  My second digital camera, was a disappointment from the off and then the exposure when daft on it one day and it went in the bin. My Third I loved, only a small censor but a long zoom and I used it for a few years for surf photos. Alas I spilt a tiny bit of turps on it one day, photographing the redecorating we were doing at the time.  It died a slow death over 4 days following that.

It's replacement was the biggest disappointment., in terms of reliability. Bought just ahead of a trip to NZ in late 2019, it took the best pictures of any camera I have owned during it's short life. If you take a peek at the picture in my profile called, "It's windy up here" you will notice the shadow lower middle left. That appeared first on that very picture and every one after it. I think it was caused by too much lubricant at manufacture getting on to the IR filter over the censor.  I may never know though.  I was planning to take it back but, first Covid hit, then I accidently switched the camera on on the case and have, ever since, had an operating system error come up and it shuts down. So not all the cameras fault, but I really need something more robust and able to fit in my pocket and personal experience tends to have great influence. My personal experience being, modern travel type cameras are not robust enough.

Interested to know how you get on.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Funny that you mention the Olympus Mju II as a classic.

While it had a nice "fast" lens (when most comparable pocket cameras mostly had beer bottle f/8 optics and the pro compacts from Zeiss and Ricoh were ten times as expensive), it was quite an accidental "classic". It had a big flaw - you couldn't turn off the flash (well you could, but it reset every time you turned the camera off). Much hated for that shortcoming at first among older "real documentary photographers" (who never used flash). It took the skint photography schools students who couldn't afford a Leica to put it to great use.

Eventually it gave rise to a sort of a casual aesthetic seen in many portraits and documentary photos up to this day... 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Great things. I still have my 30+ year old one which a XT-2 and short lens will fit in. There's a repair and vintage camera shop round the corner from me who still sells them, they are not cheap! However I got an ancient but unused Warthog with the pale 'snow hood' cover for about a tenner on eBay. 

In reply to jim robertson:

I think I sold mine at the MRT fundraiser a few years ago 😏

In reply to BuzyG:

... My personal experience being, modern travel type cameras are not robust enough.

It might be to do the type of camera - Decent DSLRs seem to be more robust than compacts.

Disappointingly. Turned down the edge enhancement and noise reduction as low as they would go and the improvement was minimal. Looks like I'll be taking the LX3 (or or perhaps a small MFT body) on biking trips.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I had the one in the photo for about 33 years until I unfortunately lost it 2 years ago. It showed little sign of wear other than the velcro. I tried and failed to replace it. I was very pleased to pick up an unused compact one a few years ago. I was told they went out of business because the cases were so bomproof that hardly anyone ever had to replace them!

In reply to Frank R.:

I totally agree about that little shortcoming of the Mju II. I think there were a couple of other things that stopped it from being perfect and I also agree that its status was a bit lucky. It just hit a combination of aesthetics, form factor, quality, reliability, branding, and pricing, that made it ALMOST perfect. I conditioned myself to include "turn off the flash" as part of the tactile motion of turning the camera on, even adding a "pointy thing" (cut from plastic) to the strap to make this easier with gloves. 
FWIW one of my own cameras that I really find a joy to use, is the Olympus RC35 (or is it 35RC) but I have to admit that it has numerous shortcomings!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Bombproof indeed - wonderful piece of kit. Another thing this thread has highlighted is the increase in size/bulk of modern the dslr. No wonder mirrorless is the way to go.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Got one gathering dust if you want it.  It has been sitting in the wardrobe over 10 years holding an unwanted MP108. e mail me if you're interested. I think it might be a Warthog. 

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Don't rule out the Z6 II and maybe spend the difference on a nice lens, the Nikon D200 and F801 were probably the cameras that I got the most bang for buck with and will always have fond memories of the adventures we had, the FM2 was more of a contemplative camera beautiful in its simplicity and I will keep it for ever and still use occasionally, and the Nikon Z6 I'm still growing into (quite intuitive for a Nikon user) and is definitely  an evolutionary step forward in what you can do with a Nikon camera.

In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

Ha! If only that was true. My G9 (mirrorless MFT) is slightly bigger and considerably heavier than my 550d (APS-C DSLR) - both with standard zoom lens. Of course once you mount a big wildlife lens, the G9 wins in the portability stakes by a mile, but that's more to do with the sensor size that the mirrorless aspect. Nothing comes for free though - the G9 isn't a patch on the 550d (never mind a full frame 6d) in poor light.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Interesting comment about the Nikon Z. I have a D850 - should I have been more patient? I could not face another lens set change, hoping as my granddad did to keep my lenses for a very long time, or do they work very well on the converter. I use the Nikon ring flash system and Nikon 105 macro as my main system at work (most of my photography), but do have have an older, but decent 'set of three'.
 

In reply to SouthernSteve:

I had the D810 before hand, I found it slightly flawed in as much as it could be very susceptible to camera shake/mirror slap, something that didn’t work for me in some of my low light photography shooting situations . The IBS of the Z series is good and I feel better about getting more shots in the bag in low light situations. I did consider the D850 as I didn’t want to change lenses however the Z adapter is okay for now, I’ll maybe change lenses over time but it’s not urgent and the Z6 and 14-30z lens make a pretty compact and light landscape set up. The D850 is widely acknowledged to be the best DSLR that there will ever be (if it had IBS I would have gone for it 😏) so you haven’t missed out.

In reply to SouthernSteve:

Just for reference, I have a 85mm 1.8G, 20mm 1.8G, 70-200mm f4 G and the 14-30Z lens

the adapter is fine opticaly it’s just a small faff factor 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Or anyone else, now I've tussled with the stuff in the wardrobe and got it out.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I have the 24-70 F2.8 (older one without VR), 50mm, and 70-200 F2.8 (2 generations old) and although I hardly ever use them an old 55mm 2.8 Macro (really stiff and manual focus - good on a copy stand rubbish at work) and an older 18-35mm f5.6 lens. So not much resonance. Although I occasionally think I need a new lens or 2, I definitely don't and hope these will go on for a long time, although I would love a really fast 24mm. Nikon lenses seem very expensive these days - not sure if its a weak pound / strong yen or that I am getting old. My colleague uses my old D300 very successfully, although the pop-up flash is now superglued down after refusing to stay down and a ridiculous quote for repair.

I wonder if I would have stayed with Olympus (OM10 for my 18th but some toe rag stole it when I was at college) if I had not been forced to go to 2nd hand Nikon. I also wonder whether Olympus will survive since being sold last year? Nikon's financials were hardly good recently either. Our camera's might be last of their kind for other reasons!

However, the reason I think this thread has attracted comment is that a camera is definitely something that you grow into and want to keep more often than say a phone, laptop or other technological marvel. It was a good 18th present. 

In reply to SouthernSteve:

My Nikon f301 was my 18th 😏I still have it in a draw somewhere 

In reply to SouthernSteve:

I think that's because cameras (even modern DSLRs) have 'character'. A phone is a phone is a phone - they're all very much the same, perhaps a bit quicker, better displays, but much the same. With cameras, they all have there foibles that you have to learn, different UIs, different limitations. Canon is quite different than Nikon, my 550d is different than my 6d. If you want to make the best use of them, you have to invest time and effort into each one and that forms an (logical as well as emotional) attachment*. There's also an element of the camera 'sharing' and being a part of your adventures (if you're that way inclined) in a way that a phone doesn't. The camera may well be why you are out there in the hills - the phone is more likely just an intrusion.

* That's even more so with cameras which have lots of physical knobs, button and rings. You develop muscle-memory for a particular camera which makes it's use a more visceral experience. It becomes 'part of you' in a way that touch-screen & menu driven tools never can.

In reply to Marek:

I was messing around with my old Yashica yesterday and enjoying the feel of it ( completely mechanical, battery only needed for the exposure meter) and decided to read up on the possibility of fitting a digital back to it. There are options but the one that got me excited was a gadget shaped like a half opened film cartridge ( imagine it with a length of just over a frame pulled out, but rigid, this tail containing the sensor ).

I was over the moon, thinking how much I would be prepared to pay, trying to remember where all my old lenses are stashed away and clicked the Next button.

Turns out to be an elaborate April Fool's joke created by a company who do actually have an interest in the field. Bastards!

In reply to Tom Valentine:

20-25 years ago these really were being developed (no pun intended), not as a hoax or April Fool's joke AFAIK, unless the same joke has been rattling around all this time (possible!).

What I'd read was that they simply never took off, developmentally, for many reasons. The major one probably a lack of "mechanical stability", an underestimation of how precise a well tensioned film really was, and the inability to match this (so the focal plane wasn't well enough fixed). 
I don't know why other sorts of "digital backs" where you replace the whole "back door" of a film SLR with a similar one mounted with a sensor, didn't take off. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Earlier today I was looking for something else in a cupboard when I found a box with my old Rollei 35B & OM1 (in a CSS 'pouch'). Fairly sure both would still work if I put a film in them although I haven't used either for close to 20 years.

In reply to Doug:

On Saturday I created a little camera museum in a display cabinet at home. Stuff from up to 70 years ago, almost. There's a 1958 Agfa Silette something or other which I am sure will work. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The main one on offer now seems to be a great ugly thing which looks a power pack fitted under the camera. I notice they add a rider about the results having a "retro" quality about them which made me start thinking about Lomos and the like.

Could you post a pic of your mini museum?  Is there a Halina Paulette in there?

In reply to jim robertson:

I switched from film (Nikkormat FTn & Nikon FM2) to digital in 2009, after experiencing x-ray damaged film on a trip to Nepal. After a Nikon D40 and a Lumix LX5, I started using film again about four years ago, initially with my FM2 and then with an F3HP, F2AS, Nikkormat FT2, Mamiya C220 and Minolta Autocord. The F2AS is a "never sell" camera; I had it serviced and the resistor replaced with a modern one by Sover Wong, a technician who works exclusively on F2's, and I am sure it will outlast me.

I have a D700 for digital, which is handy as I can use the same lenses as my old Nikons, but I prefer the process of shooting film. I think the D700 is probably physically tougher than the old cameras, but electronics will eventually fail, CF cards become obsolete, or batteries die.