Please explain me something.
See that tiny lens, on a tiny camera?
Why can’t optical engineers today design the same tiny lenses and bodies for exactly the same size digital sensor as they did film sensors sixty years ago?
Leica still makes tiny full frame lenses.
Why can’t others?
The Rollei Sonnar 2.8/40 mm Lens is stunning. It’s so tiny because it’s a fix focal length and all functions like focussing or setting the aperture is done by hand. And it had to fit into the concept of one of the most tiniest 35mm cameras ever built.
When it comes to Leica we are talking about another dog. Yes they also produce all the best for professionals, and their small lenses are still the best. But when it comes to digital they are outdated by those that made the best of sensors and computing resources.
And most people don’t want to carry around a lot of heavy equipment. So if two more bulky zoom lenses with build in autofocus function, electronics most of the time is all you need, why get into several fixed focal length lenses, which in summary weight as much.
And why still photographing film? The approach is different, slower, maybe more thoughtful, more composing, more to make the best out of “only” 36 shots you’ll get with one roll of film. Or only 12 exposures if you move on to 6x6. It comes to questioning what do I want to show and Is it worth it anyways.
It’s more about sensibility and imagination than getting involved in the speed of digital processing.
When it comes to quality you can blow up a 25x36mm negative to wall like pictures in it’s own cloudy structured grain quality of course and limited sharpness. For me it is a change to my professional work, which is exhaustively done digital.