35mm point and shoot vs phone

[Huss]

...a pocketable point and shoot 35mm camera ....

My Pentax LX...

Missed the point completely.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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

Les, that photo of yours has always impressed me. It's something I would expect to see in National Geographic or in an expensive brochure.

As for phone vs. P&S, the phone for me has often been awkward due to having to hold it outwards, view the screen in bright light, and select a focus point. With a P&S, just bring it up to eye level, frame, press the release.

Inside, however, the smartphone camera is pretty good.

 

[cliveh]

Pick up a smart phone, turn it round in your hands and then take a photograph with it. Now do the same with something like a Leica IIIc and you will understand.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

Do you have any of the long exposure time shot using slide film?

 

[Les Sarile]

Do you have any of the long exposure time shot using slide film?

I have many on Fuji Velvia, Sensia and Provia.

 

[ac12]

In one sense, it is the one you have (phone) vs. the one you don't have (the 35mm P&S at home).
I've forgotten to bring my P&S with me more times than I care to remember (sitting right by the front door ready to go), but my phone is clipped to my belt and my wife's is in her purse.

Personally, I would rather use a P&S film or digital camera than the phone camera. But that is just me.
I would also rather use my SLR than the P&S. But I am not carrying the SLR every place I go. And I have missed MANY pix because of the hassle of pulling out the SLR.
Each piece of gear can go things the others cannot do, so each has it's place in the tool box of a good photographer. And it is up to the photographer to select the best tool for the job.

 

[Chan Tran]

In one sense, it is the one you have (phone) vs. the one you don't have (the 35mm P&S at home).
I've forgotten to bring my P&S with me more times than I care to remember (sitting right by the front door ready to go), but my phone is clipped to my belt and my wife's is in her purse.

Personally, I would rather use a P&S film or digital camera than the phone camera. But that is just me.
I would also rather use my SLR than the P&S. But I am not carrying the SLR every place I go. And I have missed MANY pix because of the hassle of pulling out the SLR.
Each piece of gear can go things the others cannot do, so each has it's place in the tool box of a good photographer. And it is up to the photographer to select the best tool for the job.

I rather use a camera than the phone but not a point and shoot camera. The biggest draw back of the phone isn't its fixed focal length, tiny sensor but due to its lack of controls.

 

[RichardJack]

These guys are right, this is a analog forum. You can't make a phone call on your 35mm point and shoot, but a digital point and shoot would blow away both.

 

[film_man]

The camera on an iPhone 7, Samsung S8 or Google Pixel will pretty much technically outperform any 35mm P&S. In the phone you get full manual control, a true viewfinder. The phone will easily keep shooting beyond the cut off point for handheld film P&S photography, once the light levels drop. However, one gives you a "digital" looking photo, the other a "film" looking photo.

So, decide what phone you are comparing to first, what film P&S you are comparing next and then draw your conclusions. The range of features provided by either group is too wide to make any meaningful generalisations. Obviously there are a lot of people in APUG that don't want a smart phone, don't know what one is or are stuck into an experience with one from 15 years ago. Fair enough but Things have moved on since then and for someone living in today the options are far wider.

 

[removed account4]

i make phone calls on my shoes, walk on my leicas and use my phone as a p/s
and don't seem to have much trouble.

 

[Nodda Duma]

No need to call people Luddites.

A recent thread discussion highlighted the fact many people enjoy the process involved in shooting film (development and darkroom). As well, they appreciate the look that film provides to a photograph. In light of this, the P&S I think would be preferrable.

Let's get back to discussing analog photography. How about P&S vs vidicon!

 

[Chan Tran]

No need to call people Luddites.

A recent thread discussion highlighted the fact many people enjoy the process involved in shooting film (development and darkroom). As well, they appreciate the look that film provides to a photograph. In light of this, the P&S I think would be preferrable.

Let's get back to discussing analog photography. How about P&S vs vidicon!

Who called whom luddites? The OP already excluded the reason picking the P&S because it uses film.

 

[guangong]

An iPhone has its uses but, as already noted, a camera provides a concrete negative rather than an ephemeral image. Even a Minox 8x11 is superior for the long run. Now reading a book containing secretly taken photos in Russian prison camp taken by Minox 1944-47. I doubt if iPhone digital capture will last that long.

 

[narsuitus]

...the benefits are of using a pocketable point and shoot 35mm camera over a phone.

My 35mm point and shoot and my cell phone are about the same weight and volume. Both take acceptable images. The phone does movies, the P&S does not. I prefer the ergonomics of the P&S.

When I am shooting in a location where there is a great chance that either will be lost, stolen, or damaged, I would prefer to sacrifice the less expensive point and shoot and keep the phone to call for help.



Point & Shoot vs. Cell Phone by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I have no smart phone, nor do I want one.the pics are all junk face it!

 

[Europan]

I have a point and shoot film camera that takes 2,000 pictures on a 25-foot roll
and I have another that takes 8,000 exposures on a 100-foot roll. Who knows what I mean?
A hint: the 100-footer offers infinite long exposure time per picture.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

To me, the quality of film is easier and better. My sister-in-law gave me some pics she took of the kiddies on her IPhone, printed at a CVS and they look horrid. Pasty skin tones, blown highlights, etc. That is the experience of most people. Keep that in mind.

I live where there are a lot of tourists and I get asked a lot to take their pictures for them on their phones. I have used a lot of phones. A lot of the time the pics look like pookah because the light is too challenging. Cell phone pics are ok most of the time if you are a photographer and can adjust them in the computer, but most people can't.

Personally, I only use my IPhone for taking photos of things I don't want to write down, like prices at the store if I am shopping for something.

 

[Craig75]

I have no smart phone, nor do I want one.the pics are all junk face it!

Its a RAW file. If the picture is junk its your processing thats at fault not the file.

 

[Les Sarile]

Its a RAW file. If the picture is junk its your processing thats at fault not the file.

Actually, even the raw files from DSLRs have very poor overexposure latitude so smartphones with their tiny sensors are even less particularly when compared to film even when used in p&s.

 

[Craig75]

but their metering is very accurate.... a poorly exposed camera shot is a very rare thing.

This gear is being used in high end films - its very very powerful image system

 

[Les Sarile]

but their metering is very accurate.... a poorly exposed camera shot is a very rare thing.

This gear is being used in high end films - its very very powerful image system

Has nothing to do with accurate metering. A single frame of high contrast scene has more latitude then a digital sensor can accept hence histograms are important to keep from blowing out highlights. This Kodak Portra 400 can take it all in and recover both shadows and highlights.

 

[Craig75]

a decent digital sensor can do 14 stops which is more than most films. I have no idea what sensors youve been using to come to that conclusion

 

[Les Sarile]

a decent digital sensor can do 14 stops which is more than most films. I have no idea what sensors youve been using to come to that conclusion

With the convenience of digital, you can easily do the test I did above with your decent sensor and see where yours rank. Simply pick a perfect exposure and overexpose a stop and see at what point it becomes unrecoverable - RAW if you want.

From my test above, Kodak Portra 400 past +10 overexposure was still recoverable as shown. Not as convenient to do with film but fun . . .

 

[MattKing]

When they come out with a smart phone with a real viewfinder, I'll seriously consider it as a possible replacement for a small, easily "carried with me" camera. I lean more toward an Olympus XA or a Retinette or a Trip 35 than those cameras that are usually referred to as "P & S", so keep that in mind.
I use a flip phone with a rudimentary camera in it. My wife uses an older Iphone. The cameras in them have their uses, but those uses only overlap slightly with the use that I get out of my small film cameras.
If I had one of the latest generation, high end smart phones, there would be things that I would do with their cameras that I don't do with film. But mostly, I wouldn't replace my film cameras with them.
The new technology is interesting, and wonderful, and concerning, and potentially dangerous, and expensive. And it is sufficiently different from the other, older technology that I like as to not come close to replacing that older technology in my life.

 

[ntenny]

If I had one of the latest generation, high end smart phones, there would be things that I would do with their cameras that I don't do with film. But mostly, I wouldn't replace my film cameras with them.
The new technology is interesting, and wonderful, and concerning, and potentially dangerous, and expensive. And it is sufficiently different from the other, older technology that I like as to not come close to replacing that older technology in my life.

Well said.

I have a moderately newish smartphone with a fairly good camera. I've taken photos with it that look good, that blow up acceptably to 8x10 and above, but neither the workflow nor the result really lives in the same niche as film.

Slide film is the closest to a d*g*t*l sensor in behaviour, I think; but you wouldn't easily confuse the two, especially in contrasty light where the film runs out of dynamic range pretty quickly. It's hard, though, to tease apart the effects of the medium from the effects of format size, lens quality and character, and the human tendency to work differently with different tools.

-NT