35mm point and shoot vs phone

JamieB · Jul 29, 2017

Now, I know this is an analogue only place and I don't want to offend anyone but since most of us have mobile phones with a camera we probably consider it to be a useful point and shoot in itself. My friend asked me an apples and pears question about the benefits are of using a pocketable point and shoot 35mm camera over a phone. I thought I'd put it to you here. Aside from the obvious case for the look of film and the love people have of the process. I guess we would be talking about quality most of all. Surely the lenses are superior and detail extractable from the negative is on a whole other level.

iakustov · Jul 29, 2017

well, I think it is all about the medium, rather than the size of the sensor, at least for me. IMO you cannot match the shot on a traditional negative film with a shot on phone converted to black and white.
For me an iPhone is always handy and appears to be really what point and shoot were designed for, although I don't use phone camera for pictures to be printed, rather than document scan, etc. For colour inkjet prints up to 10x15 cm I would choose iPhone as more handy tool, but for prints to be shown to grandchildren and later grand grandchildren - there is no choice, only silver gelatin print.
That is why I had Olympus XA as a small pocket camera to produce very nice prints and hardly use phone camera for taking photographs, rather than snaps, etc.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 29, 2017

All of the above, plus the 35mm will never annoy you with a phone call.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 29, 2017

Phone is digital camera in terms of photography. This is it. It is digital camera. What is benefit from using of digital camera vs film camera? Do we need this kind of thread again? I don't think so.

So, if some one can't hold it, they should use mobile phone to dump live video from event on FB. Or dump slightly later 30+ of crappy snapshots of same event while it is not even finished. All shots are crap, but you are the first one. You feel as exclusive reporter.
If on event now, I'm taking one picture with mobile phone and taking it to stand out from the rest of many other mobile phone pictures taken by others. And I'm using film Leica to take images worth of the print. Not for reportage, but for history. Where I live it is going to be different, very different and this change is coming sooner than later.

I always have mobile phone as most of us do. I always like to have small film camera as well. Yes, where are some even at APUG who were flaming on me by PM at this and other forum for refusing to accept so called DAH made statement about how iPhone is good for photo books. In terms of technical quality of prints in the larger book, for DAH mobile phone is good. Yes, where are big names publishing mobile phone pictures in books and asking big money for it. And where is aggressive and rude on-line group of those photogs followers. But to me, if picture is worth of the print it is on film. Small 35 film camera is sufficient for the classic print, IMO. Phone is sofficient for FB social and Instagram conceptual pictures.
I have no problem to use and have both with me on every day and make my choice.

ozphoto · Jul 29, 2017

Quality is the number one difference IMHO - nothing beats an image shot on film.

Add to this the ability to access all these d*****l images in 30 years - will it still be possible? I have negatives from 100 years ago - can still print them up without any problems whatsoever, can the same be said for all the millions of iPhone etc images that have been produced?

Additionally, last time I checked, if I accidentally filed negative #10 in with another #10, I still have both - one isn't overwritten by the other. Nor am I able to accidentally erase or format my negative binders - they sit on my shelf waiting for me to create another masterpiece, whenever I feel like it.

You nailed it on the head - it is like comparing apples to oranges, both have a place in today's society, and as Ko.Fe. pointed out FB & IG are ideal platforms for the "instant" image shot on the iPhone, but they are also good for analog images as well. The difference is, it takes more time to produce from film for upload; the feeling of instant gratification isn't forthcoming when you shoot film, it takes time to create and post, something that many today don't get.

I'm looking at buying a little 35mm Rollei 35 so that I can shoot as easily when I'm out and about, as I do now on my iPhone. A friend was left one by their grandfather and I'm rather jealous - I really need to organise one ASAP.

Svenedin · Jul 29, 2017

I always have my phone with me when I'm out taking film photos. I almost always take 2 photos, one on film and the other with the phone. The phone photo is my equivalent of taking a polaroid -I get some vague idea of what the photo will look like on film. It also has the great advantage of having a geotagged, date stamped photo which means I'll always know when and where my film photos were taken without having to keep a notebook. Of course, the digital photo is handy to share instantly on social media with friends but I usually post my film photos as well (but at a much later date). So there are conveniences but my phone camera is never a substitute.

ozphoto · Jul 29, 2017

Svenedin said:
I always have my phone with me when I'm out taking film photos. I almost always take 2 photos, one on film and the other with the phone. The phone photo is my equivalent of taking a polaroid -I get some vague idea of what the photo will look like on film. It also has the great advantage of having a geotagged, date stamped photo which means I'll always know when and where my film photos were taken without having to keep a notebook. Of course, the digital photo is handy to share instantly on social media with friends but I usually post my film photos as well (but at a much later date). So there are conveniences but my phone camera is never a substitute.

This! Could not agree more with everything you've said, Svenedin - perfect explanation of "apples & oranges" working together. yet remaining unique.

Alan W · Jul 29, 2017

I have no problem with photos taken with a phone,some are really good,and an interesting image is an interesting image.But if the shot is important I want a negative.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 29, 2017

I personally have difficulty composing a photo using the screen on analogue devices. I need a regular viewfinder.

Chan Tran · Jul 29, 2017

I would prefer the phone.

Paul Howell · Jul 29, 2017

I use a DSLR as a meter and proof camera when shooting MF and LF, saying that I usually also carry a 35mm point and shoot, Pentax IQ 120 if I want some reach, for single little wide a Canon QL 1.7 IIIG, Minolta Hi Matic 11 good lens, or for very small Petri Color 35.

Sewin · Jul 29, 2017

My mobile phone is for making and receiving calls and texts and that is all it does.

That's it. I've no need for I phones, I pads, smart phones etc. I run my design business quite happily without the need for a smart phone that takes pictures.

If I want to make a phone call I use a phone.

If I want to access the internet I use my computer.

If I want to take a photograph I use a camera.............Simple.

(And I still use a no batteries required Filofax)

My better half thinks I'm living in the past

Les Sarile · Jul 29, 2017

My not so smart phone captured the scene this way . . .

Using Kodak Portra 800 in my Pentax LX in aperture priority mode captured the same scene this way . . .

Like night and day . . .

wiltw · Jul 29, 2017

P&S: optical zoom vs. phone: pixel elimination 'digital zoom'

E. von Hoegh · Jul 29, 2017

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare

Craig75 · Jul 29, 2017

A decent phone can be used from hollywood films to photobooks. Its an incredibly powerful device.

I prefer a 16 or 35mm point and shoot but thats only because i dont like to use a computer after work.

Anyone who thinks a phone isnt a powerful imaging tool is living in the past.

Les Sarile · Jul 29, 2017

My not so smart phone captured the scene in this manner . . .

My Pentax LX in aperture priority mode using Kodak Ektar 100 captured the same scene in this manner . . .

Like night and day . . .

Craig75 · Jul 29, 2017

and your phone is? - very quick to tell us your camera not so quick to tell us your phone....

and of course one shot on a tripod, the other handheld at about 6400iso on an 8 year old $100 phone....

yes thats exactly how you compare things....

Les Sarile · Jul 29, 2017

Craig75 said:
yes thats exactly how you compare things....

Keep in mind that there is no smartphone that would benefit from a tripod as none have the ability to keep their shutter open for as long as it takes to get the exposure right for these scenes.

Been a test engineer for a few decades now but I am sure I can still learn a few tricks if you have any recommendations.

Craig75 · Jul 29, 2017

A Panasonic CM1 can go up to 60 seconds so Im guessing that will be enough at iso 800.

OP is asking for pocketable point and shoot v phone. An SLR + Tripod is not pocketable.

If its lowlight nightshooting try a decent new phone at 3200 v a camera at 3200 handheld. Obviously I prefer the camera as I wouldnt be here otherwise but a phone can be a brutal tool.

(and lovely shot of the boat!)

Les Sarile · Jul 29, 2017

Craig75 said:
A Panasonic CM1 can go up to 60 seconds so Im guessing that will be enough at iso 800.

OP is asking for pocketable point and shoot v phone. An SLR + Tripod is not pocketable.

(and lovely shot of the boat!)

Thanks, the boat shot was just to try out my new shutter open indicator.

The OP didn't say anything about tripods but you can always set it on something flat and stable.

The scenario for me was a smartphone vs my 37+ year old Pentax LX (big pockets but pocketable). I just got the new samsung S8 but initial test indicate it will still not fare well in the same scenes as above - with or without a tripod.

I don't know what kinds of scenes the OP likes to shoot but for me, I like long exposure times and they are not something smartphone's do well at all. This one using the Pentax LX in aperture priority mode with Kodak Ektar 100. Was >40minute exposure time.

Craig75 · Jul 29, 2017

no bulb mode with S8 - i think Iphone has one ?

to be fair a 35mm point and shoot would fail miserably there - i think my XA2 gives up at 2 seconds and TVS at 16 seconds. For the long exposure nightshooting my mec 16 and minolta 16 would do way better was they have bulb mode.

another lovely shot - looks like alien city!

Les Sarile · Jul 29, 2017

Craig75 said:
no bulb mode with S8 - i think Iphone has one ?

another lovely shot - looks like alien city!

I wonder how long a bulb mode can it sustain?

Thanks and that is a shot of the Hoover Dam at night.

Chan Tran · Jul 29, 2017

Les Sarile said:
My not so smart phone captured the scene this way . . .

Using Kodak Portra 800 in my Pentax LX in aperture priority mode captured the same scene this way . . .

Like night and day . . .

You're way off topic. Both photographs look Night to me! You didn't use a tripod with your not so smart phone did you? The Pentax LX isn't a Point and Shot isn't it.

Finny · Jul 29, 2017

Don't know what you mean by "PaS", but one of the best cameras this way is the Ricoh GR (II).
With APS-C Sensor ; and: you can adjust this kammera everything you want.
It's my favourite.

35mm point and shoot vs phone

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency