>>3380259TL;DR disposable electronic junk of the modern age has made people desire purely mechanical processes out of a sense of nostalgia, whether or not their fears of electronic failure are well founded or not
It might be due to the fear of the notion that electronics are seemingly more prone to failure over time than "basic" mechanical processes.
This age of junk electronics, that are literally designed to stop working at a certain date, has perhaps instilled in modern buyers this anxiety towards all electronics, whether or not it uses lead-free solder or the old fashioned good stuff etc.
>"Oh I better buy something that will last"(how long? who's going to fix your shit in 30 years? will you even still give a shit?)
Perhaps similar to why people today will spend much more on automatic mechanical watches rather than the profusion of quartz and other electronic shitters out there despite the latter being more accurate, possessing more features and generally being less finicky to service (they just rip the movement out, throw it away, and replace the module with a new one). You don't fix modern electronics, you replace them. Old stuff wasn't designed like this, for the most part, back in the age when things were generally built to be repaired rather than discarded.
Purely mechanical cameras exude a sense of longevity.
>"Batteries run out. What if they stop making ones that work with ___ camera?" (however unfounded this thought is)
>"What if shit corrodes, who will fix 40 year old electronics?" tbf, there are popular meme cameras like the contax t2 and the old ricoh gr's that are pretty much "unfixable" isn't that right?
The notion that even mechanical cameras need to be serviced, and not at any small cost, tends to be elided over in the mentality of such buyers.
