Digital technology offered a number  of advantages.  It equalled the image quality of 35m film,   it was far more convenient re work flow,  and  it was  far more  cost  effective to use  to making photos on a daily basis. The downside of digital technology is the limited lifespan or built in obsolescence of  the camera body.   These are akin to computers--you can get 3-5 years wear and tear and that is it.  Unlike  the  bodies  of film cameras the bodies of digital cameras are not built to last.   I continued  to use the  Leica M4-P. 

However, since digital  technology  allowed me  to take lots of snapshot photos regularly,  using  a  Sony NEX-7 mirrorless camera  that I could use with my Leica lenses allowed me to use my  snapshot photography to experiment,   play around and  to scope for the large format film photography.   

 The need to use manual focus on the Sony NEX-7 meant that the camera could be used  like a Leica rangefinder  where the emphasis is on the photographer's ability to make the photo and so  shifts   the emphasis away from the camera to the observer.  

This is a rupture from  the camera industry's view of photography as the camera  (a DSLR by definition)  doing all the work.  On this account  you just pick it up, turn it on, point it at a scene,  it automatically focuses and exposes correctly, and bingo,  there is another great photo  ready  to be uploaded to the computer's hard drive.   

The implication is that we literally, if indirectly, see through photographs to what they are photographs of because photographs do not depend on the mental states of the photographer but simply record how things stood in a given portion of the world at a given time.  The assumption is that an image of the world is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of  the photographer.