35mm point and shoot vs phone

[Craig75]

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 . . .

yes has to be RAW - a jpeg will blow almost immediately in same way a print will!

agree tho def waaay more fun with film than moving sliders around but for me at least a lot of phone shooters are producing crazy work. Daisuke Yokata's Berlin street shooting is one of most intense books ive seen - and that was done on a $20 digital thermal imaging cameras and other "garbage" cheapo digital gear. Wont be to everyone's taste but its out there!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use film cameras. Period.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I use the camera viewfinder, rather than an iPhone, to "get some vague idea of what the photo will look like on film."

 

[Pioneer]

Whenever I go out I carry a camera, quite frequently my Leica III. It is simple to use and easy to carry.

This may sound shocking to some but I go out and about many times without a phone, whether or not it has a digital camera in it. Just isn't that important. I know how to check for messages.

I still haven't figured out how to recreate that one of a kind photo opportunity.

 

[Svenedin]

I use the camera viewfinder, rather than an iPhone, to "get some vague idea of what the photo will look like on film."

I think it goes without saying that you need to look through the camera viewfinder.

 

[eddie]

For me, both film cameras and phone cameras are tools. The phone camera is a utilitarian tool (I use it to quickly log what section and row I parked in at an airport... mall... / to record dents in a rental car before I take it off the lot/etc.- oh yeah... cat photos, too). The film camera is a creative tool. Still, I have no qualms with those that see the phone camera as a creative tool. I've seen interesting work from people who take it seriously.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know much about 35mm point n shoot, although I gave my wife a little Olympus one which she likes. I do know a fellow who ordered an 8x10 point n shoot a couple yesrs ago that looks just like the only phone in the town where I grew up - a little mahogany box with a crank on the side and a brass cone sticking out the front. Since this uses sheet film, the "crank" apparently cocks the shutter.

 

[Chan Tran]

For me, both film cameras and phone cameras are tools. The phone camera is a utilitarian tool (I use it to quickly log what section and row I parked in at an airport... mall... / to record dents in a rental car before I take it off the lot/etc.- oh yeah... cat photos, too). The film camera is a creative tool. Still, I have no qualms with those that see the phone camera as a creative tool. I've seen interesting work from people who take it seriously.

For me only the phone is the tool as I am issued one by my employer and I use it for work, including taking pictures. The camera (or cameras) are my toys. Well of course one prefer to play with toys and not so much working with tools unless one has to.
But getting back to the OP question I need to define Point and Shoot camera. There are some compact 35mm cameras that are truly Point and Shoot which offers no controls on aperture/shutter speed or focusing. I hate those the most and much rather use the phone. I saw lots of them for sale when I go to estate sales for cheap and I never bought one. They simply bother the heck out of me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

+1

 

[Steve Smith]

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

Which isn't a bad place to live!


Steve.

 

[BMbikerider]

It is common amongst cameras wth small image sensors that you will capture good images but if you have to do any work on the quality then there is the risk that you will lose a great deal of the detail. I found this when I was almost converted to digital. I had a Nikon D300 and though that was great, but that was suplimented with a D700. Same pixel count but the D700 had a much larger sensor and the quality was vastly superior.

Now I have returned to film photography in a 20/80% ratio the quality is back to what I wanted and was already used to. My 'point and shoot' is an elderly Nikon F601, but will return the same quality as my F6 because of the lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use film cameras. Period.

enough said

 

[rpavich]

I carry and iPhone 6s all of the time but also carry a true point and shoot also; an Oly Trip 35 and nobody is ever going to mistake an iPhone print from a true darkroom print from even the lowly trip 35.

 

[klownshed]

I have 35mm P&S cameras such as the XA-2 and Olympus Trip because I like to use them.

The camera in my iPhone 7 is truly excellent though.

There's really not much point comparing digital to film any more, especially with regards to quality. That ship has long since sailed and the camera manufacturers have spoken.

Now here's the thing. Film doesn't need to be 'better' than digital. I enjoy the whole process of shooting film, from using the old cameras to processing the film and making the print. I love the results, especially in Black and White. I love the look of film. I love making prints in the darkroom and one area in which film can't be beaten for me is the sense of satisfaction achieved when a print comes out well.

But the benefits of digital are hard to ignore, so I shoot digital too. I have hundreds of treasured photos of my children as they grow up that I'd not have if I was an exclusively film photographer. My phone can record 4K video and 120fps slow motion. It uploads the photos to the cloud and generates wonderful 'Memories' videos that I can watch with my daughter on my TV. Compare my daughters face when we watch these short slideshows to mine when made to sit through a painful slide show as a kid! My daughter is already enjoying taking photos herself with digital cameras.

Photography is photography regardless of the medium used to capture the image. Cameras are tools. Use the best one for the job, even if it's an iPhone. I frequently find that I use an iPhone when out and about with the family instead of, say, my XA-2. It's just better suited to capturing children at play and to capture that moment. You can say what you like about having the skill to time a shot a'la HCB (and I've nailed it on more than one occasion with film), but it's pretty much guaranteed when you can shoot of 20 frames in a couple of seconds as the carousel comes round again, viewed on a great big 'viewfinder' that makes framing a breeze and simple tap and drag controls to adjust the exposure.

But for certain types of photography, such as more 'serious' artsy fartsy landscapes I don't use either a 35mm film camera or my iPhone. I use a MF film camera or my 'proper' digital camera and a tripod instead.

Film cameras can't compare in almost any measurable specification. It's the un-measurable nature of film that keeps me coming back.

 

[michr]

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.

I find in many situations, having the phone readily available allows me to photograph more than I had in the past. In a lot of ways, it fills the role the 35mm miniature camera used to in the early 20th century. It's quick, discrete and silent. It's ubiquity makes it unremarkable and forgettable. It's a great tool for finding people spontaneous and unguarded -- people get stiffer in relation to the size of the camera, and if I want to photograph statues, I get out my 4x5.

I use the camera phone as an adjunct to my regular cameras, and while my SLR is often stuck in a closet home, I can just pull the phone out of my pocket and take a few pictures. Oftentimes, having a picture is worth far more than not having one. So forget about quality comparisons, it's one versus nil, evidence versus a big fish story of the one that got away.

 

[phrons]

Digital is better. Iphone7s+ is a great camera. There is no way around it.

I happen to think that using a P+S film camera like the Oly Epic is more fun. But, I am under no delusions that thinking it performs better than a phone.

Film for me is more enjoyable.

The phone can adjust ISO. It can take panoramas. It can take video. You don't have to focus recompose and hope you get the right focus, you can just compose and touch to focus. You can print up to 11x13 with very good detail.

Still, film is more enjoyable.

I think the photographic community complains about how the big brands aren't innovating anymore, and find them boring. The community doesn't give enough credit to cell phone companies for making the biggest innovations in photography since digital arrived.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

As do I. But I have it for other reasons, I do not carry it with me. I've probably taken four pictures with it in the ten months I've had it. If I expect to be taking pictures, I bring a camera - a Minox 35 takes up almost no space. If I think I'll need autofocus etc. I have a Pentax IQ Zoom that has a pretty nice lens if you keep to the middle of it's focal range, either it or the Minox can be carried in a belt pouch.
I find the idea of carrying a mobile phone everywhere one goes to be a repugnant modern aberration.

 

[Pioneer]

...The community doesn't give enough credit to cell phone companies for making the biggest innovations in photography since digital arrived.

I couldn't agree more with this. The fusion of photo technology, photo software and rapid sharing/distribution is the future for digital photography, and the phone is leading the way with this.

To me digital has always been different than film and through the phone we are finally beginning to see that difference. What has gone before has been a phase where digital has tried to mimic film.

Film will always be with us, much the same as painting survived the introduction of photography.

But along with this forward march of technology comes fragility. It is the painting, and maybe the print, which holds out the promise of long term survival. And that, after all is said and done, is analogue.

 

[phrons]

I couldn't agree more with this. The fusion of photo technology, photo software and rapid sharing/distribution is the future for digital photography, and the phone is leading the way with this.

To me digital has always been different than film and through the phone we are finally beginning to see that difference. What has gone before has been a phase where digital has tried to mimic film.

Film will always be with us, much the same as painting survived the introduction of photography.

But along with this forward march of technology comes fragility. It is the painting, and maybe the print, which holds out the promise of long term survival. And that, after all is said and done, is analogue.

I agree with everything you said.

Film will always survive. It's popularity is definitely diminishing. I think analog will mainly live on in larger formats in the distant future. I do believe that one day the big companies will not be able to find it profitable enough to produce roll film. I do think anything bigger has a good chance of surviving.

How film/analog exists is the real question going forward.

There is this push that there should be revival of easily accessible compact cameras. But, if the reason for a compact camera is almost all convenience, I do not understand how people actually believe it can compete with a phone.

 

[Pioneer]

There is this push that there should be revival of easily accessible compact cameras. But, if the reason for a compact camera is almost all convenience, I do not understand how people actually believe it can compete with a phone.

I don't think that is the point. Convenience does not automatically equal digital. You have to ask; "More convenient than what?"

I carry a Leica III because it is more convenient. Very few people today would consider a Leica III to be a "convenient" camera though back in its day it was really the equivalent of a point and shoot. For me it is still a lot easier to pack around and use than my Arax 60 or my 8x10 ROC Universal.

For my grandsons or granddaughters their cell phone cameras are very convenient because the understand exactly how to use them. For me a small film camera is far more convenient then a cell phone camera for the exact same reason.

I am certainly not stupid, and I know I can learn how to use the cell phone camera. But I have done similar things with computers and software in the recent past but it is not intuitive. And when the next version comes out in a couple of years I have to relearn it all over again. I finally broke down a couple of years ago and took a series of hands on workshops to learn how to use Photoshop CS-6. Within six months Photoshop announced they were moving everything to the Cloud. CS-6 was going to be the last version to reside fully on your computer. Why? So they could change things even more quickly.

So I continue to use my Leica III to take pictures. Not because I am a Luddite, nor because I do not recognize the power of the new digital technology that is present in the newest phones.

I use it because it is convenient...for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most of the places I go to photograph, a cell phone doesn't even work as a phone. So why carry the stupid thing?

 

[Wallendo]

My job requires me to have my iPhone with me almost all of the time. I frequently carry an old Minolta Action Zoom with me, but find I rarely use it. The iPhone is my front pocket is usually easier to access. Considering how few spontaneous shots I take, it can take a long time to shoot a 36 exposure roll. If I expect to take pictures, I generally carry a more advanced camera.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I carry and iPhone 6s all of the time but also carry a true point and shoot also; an Oly Trip 35 and nobody is ever going to mistake an iPhone print from a true darkroom print from even the lowly trip 35.

not to mention that the iPhone costs a lot more than a 35mmP&S.

 

[Chan Tran]

not to mention that the iPhone costs a lot more than a 35mmP&S.

I don't have to pay for my IPhone. I have to pay for my P&S. Take it back I don't have any P&S. All of my cameras offer manual focusing and at least aperture priority exposure control so that I can alter the exposure if needed.

 

[Eric Rose]

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.

I agree 100%. It's boils down to a choice of medium. My Nikon DSLR beats my Blad in every respect when it comes to image quality. My Samsung S7 beats any 35mm P&S I have. I choose to shoot film because I enjoy it not because it's better. Anyone who thinks film is always better is a moron or delusional imho.