On the uselessness of dating photographic technology:
[Y]our 50 year old view camera or your 22 year old M6 have gotten many, many technology upgrades. You can put E6 film in them that incorporates the very latest advances in film, and your technology chain will be newer than someone working with a two year old Canon EOS-1ds. In contrast, once you buy a digital camera, you’re locked into the “film” that can be used with it, forever. (the obvious exceptions would be removable digital backs like those for medium format cameras, and things like the Leica DMR).
So don’t tell me how old your camera is. Tell me when the manufacturer last revised the film you use. Because if you’re loading your Leica CL with Fujichrome 64T, your technology chain is newer than my digital Canon EOS-5d by about five months.
Something has been nagging at me about the pace of digital camera technology and I think this nails it.
I’d be happier with a camera body that took upgradeable sensor modules (ie, digital film) than with upgrading the entire camera body each time a significant upgrade came along. My old N8008 does all I need in a 35mm camera and I think I get better images than with my Nikon 5400: the difference is immediacy. If I wasn’t so lazy, my old FM2 would probably suffice and I would only need batteries for the digital components (don’t need a winder for digital now, do you?)
If I could have the image quality (ie, controls) of the olde skool film camera with straight to digital recording technology, that would be useful. But I guess this is the old hybrid approach of the mid-90s with digital backs on studio cameras. My guess is the same idea could be made more compact and reliable/rugged these days.
For some things film is still better (some organizations insist on film for it’s superior resolution: a 4×5 negative at 4000 lines per inch = 320 megapixels). Wonder how long that will last?