Hey all, I wrote this after daily driving a compact camera for the past couple of months. I've found a lot of benefits from using a dedicated device to take photos rather than my phone and wanted...
Hey all, I wrote this after daily driving a compact camera for the past couple of months. I've found a lot of benefits from using a dedicated device to take photos rather than my phone and wanted to share what I've gotten out of it, as well as see what others think of the idea!
If posting your own links isn't allowed, please let me know and I'll refrain from doing so in the future!
Great piece! I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories: The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact...
Great piece!
I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories:
The magic of mirrorless lenses and powerful algorithms in the modern compact camera is that they capture those memories in difficult conditions exceptionally well. Like when Grandma has the light in the wrong place, or it's very dark.
When wielding a camera, you also get to do things you can't get away with when using a phone. You get to more things around to rid the scene of mess. You can tell people to smile, you can walk crab-like from side to side, bend your knees and do all the other things that get you those good shots and memories easily.
I have to say, more often than not, I'm also willing to lug a professional camera around because that's worth it too.
The only downside with carrying proper gear around is that people are always asking if you can take their picture. Except they want you to do it with their phone! They think "this person knows...
The only downside with carrying proper gear around is that people are always asking if you can take their picture. Except they want you to do it with their phone! They think "this person knows what they're doing" and they think you'll do a much better job than any other person with a phone. Which is often true but it's still just a phone shot at the end of the day.
Hahaha this is often true. I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person. Faking...
Hahaha this is often true.
I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person.
Thanks so much for reading! This is an excellent observation, there's a whole different set of social norms that come with a proper camera. It definitely depends on the situation for me. When...
Thanks so much for reading!
You get to more things around to rid the scene of mess. You can tell people to smile, you can walk crab-like from side to side, bend your knees and do all the other things that get you those good shots and memories easily.
This is an excellent observation, there's a whole different set of social norms that come with a proper camera.
I'm also willing to lug a professional camera around because that's worth it too.
It definitely depends on the situation for me. When traveling, I take the a7 IV. I get a lot of joy out of framing shots and being technical about my settings, so a professional level camera adds to the experience and makes the trip more enjoyable. I also tend to make posters out of shots from the countries I visit, so I want a full-frame with high resolution RAW files.
For everyday events and celebrations, I want to be in the moment as much as possible, not adjusting aperture/ISO/shutter speed so a compact camera on auto works better in those situations.
I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's...
I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's automatic settings after setting the camera up well. (same experience with similar Sony and Nikon models).
All auto settings work fine, or if I just set one thing and the rest is auto, like setting just shutter speed, or just just aperture if I have something in mind, (or if it's really dark just limiting ISO beyond what I've set the limit for normally).
It's a compromise for sure and not the experience and joy you mention (but that takes time and breaks the moment).
For things like shutter speed or iso sure. But aperture is not something where there is a correct number. F2 vs f8 isn’t something where auto can figure out, because it’s just artistically...
For things like shutter speed or iso sure. But aperture is not something where there is a correct number. F2 vs f8 isn’t something where auto can figure out, because it’s just artistically different.
Aperture priority with min SS does a pretty good job of letting you only change the aperture and nothing else.
Phones are super convenient because we usually have them in our pockets all the time. But the actual photography experience with them is very unfulfilling, even with some more advanced features. I...
Phones are super convenient because we usually have them in our pockets all the time. But the actual photography experience with them is very unfulfilling, even with some more advanced features. I love taking out my proper cameras. The experience becomes much more than just the final picture. There's something to be said for having a device designed for just one thing and doing it extremely well.
excellent title. i’ve been thinking of getting a proper digital camera. I’d love to have a digital TLR, but it doesn’t seem to exist outside of a few toy cameras (even just as a form factor.)
excellent title.
i’ve been thinking of getting a proper digital camera. I’d love to have a digital TLR, but it doesn’t seem to exist outside of a few toy cameras (even just as a form factor.)
I've had a few over the years. The only one I have now is a toy camera made out of really dense cardboard or whatever. You assemble it yourself. Shooting from the hip with a top-down viewfinder...
I've had a few over the years. The only one I have now is a toy camera made out of really dense cardboard or whatever. You assemble it yourself.
Shooting from the hip with a top-down viewfinder gives a more natural angle, I find. I can't really explain it, but it feels like it does a better job observing. Its easier to be discreet and chat with your subjects, if you're posing people.
Plenty of TLRs on ebay and around for not a lot of money. Just make sure you have a place to develop the film.
What would the motivation be for a digital TLR? Digital cameras in general do not have the problem of needing to have a preview through a different light path than the actual capture. The only...
What would the motivation be for a digital TLR? Digital cameras in general do not have the problem of needing to have a preview through a different light path than the actual capture. The only advantage I could see over a mirrorless would be that the viewfinder would be an actual lens-based image, rather than a screen. But it would come with all the disadvantages of a TLR: parallax error, the need for double the lenses, the need for precise alignment, different depth of field, and so on.
I'd agree with your other comment that the waist-level finder typical on many TLRs can be nice, and can be quite a bit more discreet and less jarring. But they have never been unique to TLRs. Historically, they're arguably more a distinctive feature of many medium format cameras: there are many film SLRs with them (Primarflex, Hasselblad, Pilot, Mamiya, to give some examples), and many mirrorless cameras have screens that can be angled for waist-level shooting. There are even some early 35mm SLRs with waist-level finders, but having used some, I can understand why they died out, and likely shifted cameras away from waist-level finders in general as 35mm became predominant: unlike with 120, at 35mm a waist-level finder really is too small to see with any level of detail at all from one's waist, where it can barely be used at all, and practically requires significant magnification, even when held toward the top of one's chest.
for a dTLR, it’s mostly the form factor i want. you’re right that i don’t need the two lenses — but it would be nice aesthetically, too :) ultimately, i want a camera with a top-mounted viewfinder...
for a dTLR, it’s mostly the form factor i want. you’re right that i don’t need the two lenses — but it would be nice aesthetically, too :)
ultimately, i want a camera with a top-mounted viewfinder so i don’t have to flip out a screen every time.
i miss my old one, but i don’t miss 120 film so much. this one toy TLR i have takes 35mm, but its got a lot of leaks.
this is probably one of those things where someone will sell a 3D printed holder for a phone with some mirrors to get the relative form factor and it’ll crank out boring photos… unless their app automatically adjusts them using some ai crap… did i just come up with a big kickstarter campaign‽ :)
There are options for digital cameras with WLFs, but unfortunately they tend to be absurdly expensive. A Hasselblad 500 with a digital back, for example, can work, but the film camera itself is in...
There are options for digital cameras with WLFs, but unfortunately they tend to be absurdly expensive. A Hasselblad 500 with a digital back, for example, can work, but the film camera itself is in the ~$1,000 range for one in good condition, and some of the digital backs are both in the five-figure range and very poorly reviewed; the Hasselblad one is "only" around $7k, but has utterly baffling design decisions, like being not enormously larger than 35mm film, and being fixed in landscape orientation on a camera completely designed around the 6x6 square format. Phase One apparently makes a WLF for their cameras, but just the finder is around $800, and the cameras are in the mid five figures.
this is probably one of those things where someone will sell a 3D printed holder for a phone with some mirrors to get the relative form factor and it’ll crank out boring photos…
I actually do wonder a bit about taking an older digital camera of mine, 3d printing a new body, and configuring the screen to be a WLF. But without clever rotating design, it runs into the same problem that any non-square-format with a WLF has: portrait orientation requires a very awkward finder position.
3d printed periscopes (in a sense) would be the easiest approach. I got a Lumix from my mother and realized that I've never used a point and shoot and that they're not good... and kind of...
3d printed periscopes (in a sense) would be the easiest approach. I got a Lumix from my mother and realized that I've never used a point and shoot and that they're not good... and kind of frustrating in the manual setting part. So the goal now is to find a decent but cheap DSLR with a flip out screen that can rotate :)
Back when I was married we'd shoot weddings and stuff, but I mostly did product photography. I was on a D700 then, but the screen didn't flip out... and I left all that stuff behind because I'm a total sweetheart.
With my brain :P I don't take pictures or videos of events - I just, y'know, experience those events, instead of looking at a phone. If anything, taking your phone out all the time during some...
When you're at an event, how do you capture memories?
With my brain :P I don't take pictures or videos of events - I just, y'know, experience those events, instead of looking at a phone. If anything, taking your phone out all the time during some event for more than a sec, to capture/record pics/videos or do whatever else is kind of... repulsive to me. Hell, you won't even see me touching my phone when meeting someone in person. Be it family, friends, or whatever. Only exception to that is if we're taking a group photo together or something. For example, last year I was at a little municipal concert with someone, and they were pulling their phone out all the time for pics / videos, which was not only distracting but also felt... disrespectful. But I understand I'm kind of alone in this.
The first downfall of convenience comes in a sea of photos.
Very true... My phone's gallery is a fucking mess just how you describe. A decade-old mess of all sorts of things. Currently sitting at 40000 media files, ranging from anything between memes, gifs, screenshots, pics/videos sent to me by other people (which I used to auto-download), image of scanned university notes/recipe books/etc, pictures I captured myself for whatever reason at random times, unhinged Taylor Swift edits, and even a handful of pictures of myself pre-transition (ew). But in my view, that's not a problem exclusive to the convenience of phones. I had similar (albeit less extreme) experiences using "cheap" digital cameras back in the day. I used to have a few that kind of shit the bed some years ago, and I had been filling my SD cards with all sorts of bullshit I would probably never look at again. In my view, at least, the problem lies in the non-tangible nature of digital images. This is why I really love analogue as a medium & I'd love to eventually get a proper film camera. Currently, my only working camera is an Instax, which is basically as crappy as it gets in terms of analogue. Analogue (eventually) gives you actual physical images, limits your "storage space", and actually makes you think, "Do I actually need to take this pic? Am I ever going to look at it or care about it? Is it worth the cost?", and that's something I personally like because it matches my style of photography. Again, I understand this doesn't apply to everyone.
even altered with AI
Another reason why I really love film. Sure, nothing stops you from digitising the analogue image and using "ai" on it, or whatever, but at an era where everything can be faked with "ai"-generated photos/videos/sound/whatever, it feels nice to have something so "uncontaminated" - something you can be (for the most part) reasonably certain is real by comparing it to the negatives. Not that you can't tinker with the negatives like they do for movies, but you get the point.
First, not every moment needs to be captured, some should just be lived.
I do agree with this. That said:
Photos should be there to spark conversation.
That sounds quite... subjective? Just like the things I'm writing here, I guess. Personally, I'm fine with the concept of "captured media = proof", although thanks to "ai" that's becoming less and less of a thing...
Second, I'd argue that every interaction with a phone is an opportunity for distraction. [...] Meanwhile, your kid is sitting there, watching you play with your phone, showing them where your true priorities are.
Yeah, that summarises my feelings from the first paragraph pretty well. It's certainly one of the main reasons even touching my phone in social settings feels so "taboo" to me.
Analog in a Digital Age
YAS QUEEN! But queens aside, I'm glad to see you iterating more or less the same points as I did while reading the article in parallel with this comment. Your 512MB card trick is really neat, by the way - good idea! You can't really find those anymore - excl. used, which I'd personally not trust - but it's a good way to put those limitations on yourself to prevent the aforementioned clusterfucks from happening.
nothing can beat a physical photo album.
100% :D
--
I'd also like to ping the wonderful @faye_luna because I think they'll be very interested in your post.
I've had a bit of an itch to grab a nice dedicated camera for a while. There's a DSLR in the closet I used back in college, but it's not a particularly good model (to the point that it's...
I've had a bit of an itch to grab a nice dedicated camera for a while. There's a DSLR in the closet I used back in college, but it's not a particularly good model (to the point that it's practically given away in the used market), only has the stock kit lens, and isn't worth investing in with how much nicer even compact options are these days.
I'm more inclined towards a nicer model, though. The point in the blog post about photos not being made into posters is salient, but I really just love the look and feel and moods that can be struck with a midrange-to-high-end DSLR body or mirrorless body, which are difficult to replicate with point and shoots (though point and shoots are often better than smartphone cameras in this due to not being nearly as physically restricted). This isn't very wallet friendly though which is why I've held back so far, lol.
Wonderful write up, but [and maybe because I'm old but still use my phone as my "daily driver" when it comes to photography] I feel there is still a lot of cringe. You do well to address many...
Wonderful write up, but [and maybe because I'm old but still use my phone as my "daily driver" when it comes to photography] I feel there is still a lot of cringe. You do well to address many aspects (specifically with "Drowning in JPEGs", "Over Processed", "Memories of not Being Present").
But from my end, I realize that I went to a Megadeth concert in 2017 and took copious amounts of video and pictures, and after the fact never bothered to watch any of it. And that's when it hit me: I believe you missed one valuable aspect: live in the moment and appreciate what you can see, because often a camera only captures those faded memories.
I'm going to agree with @Akir on a lot of their points, but also I've now swapped to my second GrapheneOS phone (that is, a Pixel phone which I find the only thing Google excels at with Android is the camera quality), and I have now cordoned all my photos I still have from all my previous phones to a place where I will be going through and eliminating all food pics, shots of my animals, etc that basically are not really worth bringing back up. I believe that is what a camera should be used for. And it doesn't matter, in my view, whether you have a handheld dedicated camera or just whip out your phone.
I did forget to mention two points: Cloud/online and analog/digital. Cloud/online: as I mentioned, I'm old and that's a hard nope for me. I lost all my data in '18 due to my own incompetence,...
I did forget to mention two points: Cloud/online and analog/digital.
Cloud/online: as I mentioned, I'm old and that's a hard nope for me. I lost all my data in '18 due to my own incompetence, which meant I lost all my Napster music and movies from the 90s that I didn't have on a CD somewhere, as well as all digital photos I took while living in Europe and before, since the early 2000s (aside from those I posted on FB). But then, I knew people whose house burnt down and they lost all their family photos. And probably records/tapes. So that's life. They lived, and that's what is important, and they still have those memories, and I still have mine.
Analog/digital: I grew up with records and tapes, but while I'd love to say photos are the same, they're not. But even more, I realize that for this thread, if you're going to print out pictures, likely any digital option is going to give the same results unless you're somehow doing something on the scale of "very large", that is, something more than the typical 4"x6" picture size (might be wrong, but I remember that being the larger size of photos back in the day). Now we have screens for our computers that are way larger than any TV back in the day, so yeah, we're zooming in like crazy and noticing all the nuances. And also, yeah the digital aspect can really wreak havoc, but my first digital camera I got I believe in '02 (which is the one that provided most of the digital photos I lost) couldn't adapt to bright light very well, and made for some glorious pictures with its wonky tinting.
Anyway, sorry I had to chime in a bit more after the fact. :)
Last time I looked it up, which is many years ago, granted, it was that to “break even” with a phone, you had to spend around the same price as a phone on your camera to get noticeable...
Last time I looked it up, which is many years ago, granted, it was that to “break even” with a phone, you had to spend around the same price as a phone on your camera to get noticeable improvements. So cameras to me since had the impression of that you need a high end camera to get a better experience than your phone.
I’ve seen a Ricoh being mentioned by a YTer a couple of months ago, and when I looked it up, I’m good, it’s way too expensive.
There really is not a great reason to have a separate camera unless you're really, really serious about photography as a hobby. Flagship phones will take better pictures than basically any camera...
There really is not a great reason to have a separate camera unless you're really, really serious about photography as a hobby.
Flagship phones will take better pictures than basically any camera unless you invest a lot of time into learning what you're doing, and even then, it will still take pretty damn good pictures.
I'm generally an advocate of owning fewer things, carrying fewer things, and having fewer things around me in general, so even if my phone can only do 90% of the quality of a reasonably priced camera, that's a fine price to pay for not owning an extra expensive thing.
I don't use flagship phones, the closest one I've had to flagship in the recent years was the iPhone 13 Mini which I still use, but up until then all phone cameras left quite a lot to be desired,...
I don't use flagship phones, the closest one I've had to flagship in the recent years was the iPhone 13 Mini which I still use, but up until then all phone cameras left quite a lot to be desired, especially in darker indoors conditions, and zoom being grainy and kinda terrible.
I don't quite agree on owning fewer things though, I agree on the overall sentiment of OP, just not on cameras. I think if you read a lot, having a dedicated e-reader is handy, if you're into retro games, having a retro handheld can be a nice thing, having a phone that is constantly online where you're available to everyone is tiring, having something you can use elsewhere to disconnect is something I appreciate.
In my case I do have a retro handheld that I don't use as much as I should when I'm out and about, however I have a digital audio player that I bring with me from time to time, not being interrupted while listening to music by notifications or calls is something I'm starting to appreciate.
There was a time when this was true, but I think I'd tend to disagree here now. I have a flagship phone, older m4/3 mirrorless, and relatively new full-frame mirrorless. It is the case that the...
Flagship phones will take better pictures than basically any camera unless you invest a lot of time into learning what you're doing, and even then, it will still take pretty damn good pictures.
There was a time when this was true, but I think I'd tend to disagree here now. I have a flagship phone, older m4/3 mirrorless, and relatively new full-frame mirrorless. It is the case that the older m4/3 is more finicky, and requires more knowledge and skill, than the phone. Focus can go wrong, particularly in choosing entirely the wrong focus point, it can make poor choices of aperture and shutter speed in automatic, and sensitivity needs to be handled with care. The phone, on the other hand, will generally at least seem to make reasonable choices. But the Nikon just works, so long as it is set to something sufficiently automatic.
Both actual cameras will take what I would describe as cleaner photos than the phone, and for given conditions, are more likely to take more consistent photos. Noise and detail is likely to be consistent across a photo; it might be significant, for example, with the m4/3 at higher ISO, but it will not be the patchwork that the heavy processing of the phone camera. This is especially noticeable if you want to crop at all: I've generally found that phone camera images just don't crop well.
In large part, this is because the cameras have fundamental optical advantages over the phone. They have larger, simpler lenses, larger sensors, collect more light, and so on; in the case of the full-frame, those advantages are enormous. Since the phone is a top-end Pixel, I can run non-Google cameras on it without the heavy processing, and the comparison of those images to the cameras is illustrative of its disadvantages.
I do have a fair amount of knowledge of cameras, though I would not call myself serious about photography, and I'm basing the above more off giving my cameras to other people to take photos in auto (for example, photos of me). The full-frame, with someone with little experience taking the photo, will take better photos (apart from composition, but that is unrelated to the cameras) than I could take with the phone.
It is also significantly more expensive than the phone, but I think our philosophies may differ on that point. I'd much rather not sacrifice the quality of something lasting – for example, photographs – just to save an amount of money that does not seem significant over the lifetimes of the photographs themselves.
In addition to the resulting photos looking "cleaner" than what is typically achievable on a smartphone, I find that photos from dedicated cameras also tend to feel "deeper" and less "processed"...
In addition to the resulting photos looking "cleaner" than what is typically achievable on a smartphone, I find that photos from dedicated cameras also tend to feel "deeper" and less "processed" (even though RAWs take a lot of manual processing). Even some old DSLRs that the community doesn't think much of can outperform smartphones in this way.
From the article: I recently installed Immich on my home server. I did that to have convenient/automatic backup solution for mobile photos for family members. Little did I know at the time that...
From the article:
But what about the convenience features they offer, such as searching photos by a person's name or an object?
I recently installed Immich on my home server. I did that to have convenient/automatic backup solution for mobile photos for family members. Little did I know at the time that I'm installing basically Google Photos but completely local and in my hands. Immich does face recognition, objects, OCR, can run multiple users with shared albums... It' unbelievable piece of software. I'm done with Google Photos.
I used to agree with this kind of thought, but now I’m pretty much the exact opposite. The primary reason is that a few years ago I made the decision to do more to live in the moment. Get off the...
I used to agree with this kind of thought, but now I’m pretty much the exact opposite.
The primary reason is that a few years ago I made the decision to do more to live in the moment. Get off the phone more, go to places, and do things without needing to photograph everything. Which is not to say that I don’t take photos, just that I’m not letting it get in the way of things or interrupt experiences. I found that it really helps me enjoy the moment dramatically more than if I’m focused on taking pictures, and it actually helps me remember the thing more at least up to the medium term.
The reason why I am posting this now is that I haven’t really been looking back at the pictures I took, but since I have an iPhone, apples photo app automatically makes albums it calls “memories” that I was looking through during some downtime at a theme park yesterday. And it had me going, “woah, have I always been this good of a photographer?!”
When it comes to making pleasing photographs there are two factors that come into play: framing and lighting. There was a third one, post-processing, but automatic settings are pretty spot-on these days unless you are actively looking for a specific aesthetic. And looking through the actual film roll of the memories I found out that I was subconsciously doing a simple old trick that photographers always knew: take a lot of pictures and select the best ones to show. It’s just that Apple’s AI did the selection part for me.
But Apple actually has two other pieces of “magic” dedicated cameras don’t have. Number one is Live Photos. It’s basically a super short video of the moment before the photo. It’s not much but it does a lot to bring out the context of the memory. The second is the simple act of swiping through photos. If you are taking series shots, there’s something strangely magical about cycling through them and seeing something almost-but-not-quite like a movie. It encourages you to “fill in the gaps” so you feel what was happening at the time. I have a beautiful series of me kissing my husband who is not a big fan of public affection and having him turn around and kiss me back, and I love it. I suppose you could do something like that with a flipbook, but who actually does that with photos? A flipbook is something that you have to actively make as well, compared to something you can be surreptitiously surprised by.
Yes, I am sometimes jealous of super high quality shots from “real” cameras, especially because I don’t own an iPhone Pro and can’t get long shots, but at the end of the day the rather ephemeral and subjective benefits of shooting with a camera actually overwhelmingly outweigh dedicated cameras for me.
Really good blog post. I am personally a big fan of using a dedicated camera over my phone. I enjoy leaving my phone behind, and just taking my camera. With a phone, I found I rarely took any...
Really good blog post. I am personally a big fan of using a dedicated camera over my phone. I enjoy leaving my phone behind, and just taking my camera. With a phone, I found I rarely took any pictures, whereas when I have my camera I find myself looking around for what would be a nice picture, and it prompts me to be creative and look. For those on the fence, I have noticed I have never felt like I needed my phone when I did not have it on me, but have felt like I have wanted my camera when it is not on me (even if I have my phone on me).
I did this but for video because I was tired of my phone overheating after 10 mins. But man I still feel like the learning curve is high. It was only when I started using a dedicated mirrorless...
I did this but for video because I was tired of my phone overheating after 10 mins.
But man I still feel like the learning curve is high. It was only when I started using a dedicated mirrorless camera (Sony ZVE 10 II) that I realized just how much computing work is going into a phone's photo/video processing to make it look good.
I am always so tempted to just grab my phone because I lack so much confidence in my shooting ability. For example, I took my mirrorless camera to a trip to Japan and ended up using my phone for most of it regardless because I did not like the photos my camera took (yes I tried leaving it on automatic a lot to see if it'd help but still got many blurry shoots. In fact I liked my manual shots more often than not, but that required time to set up).
So this tip really needs to come with a caveat that you need to be willing to learn how to take a proper photo/video. You can't offload that skill to your phone anymore.
I took most of my SLR camera gear half way around the world to my one and only trip to Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead. Multiple film speeds, 3 bodies, half a dozen lenses (all Olympus OM gear) lots...
I took most of my SLR camera gear half way around the world to my one and only trip to Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead. Multiple film speeds, 3 bodies, half a dozen lenses (all Olympus OM gear) lots of filters, gradients, polarisers, I had prime lenses in 50mm, 28mm, and some zooms such as 28-80 and I forget what else. Couple of small collapsible tripods, remote triggers, flash modules, lots of stuff. Big bag. Heavy.
It was the early days of digital cameras. I think the Kodak DC220 had just come out. Which I did have, but it was terrible.
I got some great shots on that trip no doubt. And like all manual cameras, really had to set the shots up properly.
It was after that trip I basically stopped photography until digital became good.
My son did photography as one of his examination subjects at school, and for that we got a terrible canon dslr and a mirrorless micro 4/3 thing that I can't remember what it was. He passed.
Now I'm grateful for my phone. I can frame subjects, find nice lighting situations, do all the setup side of the shots, and I don't have to carry that stupid bag any more.
Hey all, I wrote this after daily driving a compact camera for the past couple of months. I've found a lot of benefits from using a dedicated device to take photos rather than my phone and wanted to share what I've gotten out of it, as well as see what others think of the idea!
If posting your own links isn't allowed, please let me know and I'll refrain from doing so in the future!
You're good, as long as they're not the only or the main thing you post or comment about on tildes. Which doesn't appear to be the case
Great piece!
I have to argue somewhat for the benefits of digital, especially for capturing those everyday memories:
When wielding a camera, you also get to do things you can't get away with when using a phone. You get to more things around to rid the scene of mess. You can tell people to smile, you can walk crab-like from side to side, bend your knees and do all the other things that get you those good shots and memories easily.
I have to say, more often than not, I'm also willing to lug a professional camera around because that's worth it too.
The only downside with carrying proper gear around is that people are always asking if you can take their picture. Except they want you to do it with their phone! They think "this person knows what they're doing" and they think you'll do a much better job than any other person with a phone. Which is often true but it's still just a phone shot at the end of the day.
Hahaha this is often true.
I often just nod at my camera, vaguely smile and say that I'm sorry I'm a little busy. It seems to work extra well if I'm with at least one other person.
Faking confidence is the name of the game!
Thanks so much for reading!
This is an excellent observation, there's a whole different set of social norms that come with a proper camera.
It definitely depends on the situation for me. When traveling, I take the a7 IV. I get a lot of joy out of framing shots and being technical about my settings, so a professional level camera adds to the experience and makes the trip more enjoyable. I also tend to make posters out of shots from the countries I visit, so I want a full-frame with high resolution RAW files.
For everyday events and celebrations, I want to be in the moment as much as possible, not adjusting aperture/ISO/shutter speed so a compact camera on auto works better in those situations.
I find modern mirrorless cameras generally do really just pointing and shooting in full auto. Take the Cannon EOS R5 mark II, for instance. You have to be a pretty good photographer to beat it's automatic settings after setting the camera up well. (same experience with similar Sony and Nikon models).
All auto settings work fine, or if I just set one thing and the rest is auto, like setting just shutter speed, or just just aperture if I have something in mind, (or if it's really dark just limiting ISO beyond what I've set the limit for normally).
It's a compromise for sure and not the experience and joy you mention (but that takes time and breaks the moment).
For things like shutter speed or iso sure. But aperture is not something where there is a correct number. F2 vs f8 isn’t something where auto can figure out, because it’s just artistically different.
Aperture priority with min SS does a pretty good job of letting you only change the aperture and nothing else.
Phones are super convenient because we usually have them in our pockets all the time. But the actual photography experience with them is very unfulfilling, even with some more advanced features. I love taking out my proper cameras. The experience becomes much more than just the final picture. There's something to be said for having a device designed for just one thing and doing it extremely well.
Completely agree, heck just having a dedicated button to focus and snap makes a camera worth it.
excellent title.
i’ve been thinking of getting a proper digital camera. I’d love to have a digital TLR, but it doesn’t seem to exist outside of a few toy cameras (even just as a form factor.)
Thank you!
A digital TLR would be very cool! Heck I'd love to try an analog one, I honestly don't think I've seen one in person.
I've had a few over the years. The only one I have now is a toy camera made out of really dense cardboard or whatever. You assemble it yourself.
Shooting from the hip with a top-down viewfinder gives a more natural angle, I find. I can't really explain it, but it feels like it does a better job observing. Its easier to be discreet and chat with your subjects, if you're posing people.
Plenty of TLRs on ebay and around for not a lot of money. Just make sure you have a place to develop the film.
What would the motivation be for a digital TLR? Digital cameras in general do not have the problem of needing to have a preview through a different light path than the actual capture. The only advantage I could see over a mirrorless would be that the viewfinder would be an actual lens-based image, rather than a screen. But it would come with all the disadvantages of a TLR: parallax error, the need for double the lenses, the need for precise alignment, different depth of field, and so on.
I'd agree with your other comment that the waist-level finder typical on many TLRs can be nice, and can be quite a bit more discreet and less jarring. But they have never been unique to TLRs. Historically, they're arguably more a distinctive feature of many medium format cameras: there are many film SLRs with them (Primarflex, Hasselblad, Pilot, Mamiya, to give some examples), and many mirrorless cameras have screens that can be angled for waist-level shooting. There are even some early 35mm SLRs with waist-level finders, but having used some, I can understand why they died out, and likely shifted cameras away from waist-level finders in general as 35mm became predominant: unlike with 120, at 35mm a waist-level finder really is too small to see with any level of detail at all from one's waist, where it can barely be used at all, and practically requires significant magnification, even when held toward the top of one's chest.
for a dTLR, it’s mostly the form factor i want. you’re right that i don’t need the two lenses — but it would be nice aesthetically, too :)
ultimately, i want a camera with a top-mounted viewfinder so i don’t have to flip out a screen every time.
i miss my old one, but i don’t miss 120 film so much. this one toy TLR i have takes 35mm, but its got a lot of leaks.
this is probably one of those things where someone will sell a 3D printed holder for a phone with some mirrors to get the relative form factor and it’ll crank out boring photos… unless their app automatically adjusts them using some ai crap… did i just come up with a big kickstarter campaign‽ :)
There are options for digital cameras with WLFs, but unfortunately they tend to be absurdly expensive. A Hasselblad 500 with a digital back, for example, can work, but the film camera itself is in the ~$1,000 range for one in good condition, and some of the digital backs are both in the five-figure range and very poorly reviewed; the Hasselblad one is "only" around $7k, but has utterly baffling design decisions, like being not enormously larger than 35mm film, and being fixed in landscape orientation on a camera completely designed around the 6x6 square format. Phase One apparently makes a WLF for their cameras, but just the finder is around $800, and the cameras are in the mid five figures.
I actually do wonder a bit about taking an older digital camera of mine, 3d printing a new body, and configuring the screen to be a WLF. But without clever rotating design, it runs into the same problem that any non-square-format with a WLF has: portrait orientation requires a very awkward finder position.
3d printed periscopes (in a sense) would be the easiest approach. I got a Lumix from my mother and realized that I've never used a point and shoot and that they're not good... and kind of frustrating in the manual setting part. So the goal now is to find a decent but cheap DSLR with a flip out screen that can rotate :)
Back when I was married we'd shoot weddings and stuff, but I mostly did product photography. I was on a D700 then, but the screen didn't flip out... and I left all that stuff behind because I'm a total sweetheart.
With my brain :P I don't take pictures or videos of events - I just, y'know, experience those events, instead of looking at a phone. If anything, taking your phone out all the time during some event for more than a sec, to capture/record pics/videos or do whatever else is kind of... repulsive to me. Hell, you won't even see me touching my phone when meeting someone in person. Be it family, friends, or whatever. Only exception to that is if we're taking a group photo together or something. For example, last year I was at a little municipal concert with someone, and they were pulling their phone out all the time for pics / videos, which was not only distracting but also felt... disrespectful. But I understand I'm kind of alone in this.
Very true... My phone's gallery is a fucking mess just how you describe. A decade-old mess of all sorts of things. Currently sitting at 40000 media files, ranging from anything between memes, gifs, screenshots, pics/videos sent to me by other people (which I used to auto-download), image of scanned university notes/recipe books/etc, pictures I captured myself for whatever reason at random times, unhinged Taylor Swift edits, and even a handful of pictures of myself pre-transition (ew). But in my view, that's not a problem exclusive to the convenience of phones. I had similar (albeit less extreme) experiences using "cheap" digital cameras back in the day. I used to have a few that kind of shit the bed some years ago, and I had been filling my SD cards with all sorts of bullshit I would probably never look at again. In my view, at least, the problem lies in the non-tangible nature of digital images. This is why I really love analogue as a medium & I'd love to eventually get a proper film camera. Currently, my only working camera is an Instax, which is basically as crappy as it gets in terms of analogue. Analogue (eventually) gives you actual physical images, limits your "storage space", and actually makes you think, "Do I actually need to take this pic? Am I ever going to look at it or care about it? Is it worth the cost?", and that's something I personally like because it matches my style of photography. Again, I understand this doesn't apply to everyone.
Another reason why I really love film. Sure, nothing stops you from digitising the analogue image and using "ai" on it, or whatever, but at an era where everything can be faked with "ai"-generated photos/videos/sound/whatever, it feels nice to have something so "uncontaminated" - something you can be (for the most part) reasonably certain is real by comparing it to the negatives. Not that you can't tinker with the negatives like they do for movies, but you get the point.
I do agree with this. That said:
That sounds quite... subjective? Just like the things I'm writing here, I guess. Personally, I'm fine with the concept of "captured media = proof", although thanks to "ai" that's becoming less and less of a thing...
Yeah, that summarises my feelings from the first paragraph pretty well. It's certainly one of the main reasons even touching my phone in social settings feels so "taboo" to me.
YAS QUEEN! But queens aside, I'm glad to see you iterating more or less the same points as I did while reading the article in parallel with this comment. Your 512MB card trick is really neat, by the way - good idea! You can't really find those anymore - excl. used, which I'd personally not trust - but it's a good way to put those limitations on yourself to prevent the aforementioned clusterfucks from happening.
100% :D
--
I'd also like to ping the wonderful @faye_luna because I think they'll be very interested in your post.
I've had a bit of an itch to grab a nice dedicated camera for a while. There's a DSLR in the closet I used back in college, but it's not a particularly good model (to the point that it's practically given away in the used market), only has the stock kit lens, and isn't worth investing in with how much nicer even compact options are these days.
I'm more inclined towards a nicer model, though. The point in the blog post about photos not being made into posters is salient, but I really just love the look and feel and moods that can be struck with a midrange-to-high-end DSLR body or mirrorless body, which are difficult to replicate with point and shoots (though point and shoots are often better than smartphone cameras in this due to not being nearly as physically restricted). This isn't very wallet friendly though which is why I've held back so far, lol.
Wonderful write up, but [and maybe because I'm old but still use my phone as my "daily driver" when it comes to photography] I feel there is still a lot of cringe. You do well to address many aspects (specifically with "Drowning in JPEGs", "Over Processed", "Memories of not Being Present").
But from my end, I realize that I went to a Megadeth concert in 2017 and took copious amounts of video and pictures, and after the fact never bothered to watch any of it. And that's when it hit me: I believe you missed one valuable aspect: live in the moment and appreciate what you can see, because often a camera only captures those faded memories.
I'm going to agree with @Akir on a lot of their points, but also I've now swapped to my second GrapheneOS phone (that is, a Pixel phone which I find the only thing Google excels at with Android is the camera quality), and I have now cordoned all my photos I still have from all my previous phones to a place where I will be going through and eliminating all food pics, shots of my animals, etc that basically are not really worth bringing back up. I believe that is what a camera should be used for. And it doesn't matter, in my view, whether you have a handheld dedicated camera or just whip out your phone.
It's the mentality.
I did forget to mention two points: Cloud/online and analog/digital.
Cloud/online: as I mentioned, I'm old and that's a hard nope for me. I lost all my data in '18 due to my own incompetence, which meant I lost all my Napster music and movies from the 90s that I didn't have on a CD somewhere, as well as all digital photos I took while living in Europe and before, since the early 2000s (aside from those I posted on FB). But then, I knew people whose house burnt down and they lost all their family photos. And probably records/tapes. So that's life. They lived, and that's what is important, and they still have those memories, and I still have mine.
Analog/digital: I grew up with records and tapes, but while I'd love to say photos are the same, they're not. But even more, I realize that for this thread, if you're going to print out pictures, likely any digital option is going to give the same results unless you're somehow doing something on the scale of "very large", that is, something more than the typical 4"x6" picture size (might be wrong, but I remember that being the larger size of photos back in the day). Now we have screens for our computers that are way larger than any TV back in the day, so yeah, we're zooming in like crazy and noticing all the nuances. And also, yeah the digital aspect can really wreak havoc, but my first digital camera I got I believe in '02 (which is the one that provided most of the digital photos I lost) couldn't adapt to bright light very well, and made for some glorious pictures with its wonky tinting.
Anyway, sorry I had to chime in a bit more after the fact. :)
Last time I looked it up, which is many years ago, granted, it was that to “break even” with a phone, you had to spend around the same price as a phone on your camera to get noticeable improvements. So cameras to me since had the impression of that you need a high end camera to get a better experience than your phone.
I’ve seen a Ricoh being mentioned by a YTer a couple of months ago, and when I looked it up, I’m good, it’s way too expensive.
There really is not a great reason to have a separate camera unless you're really, really serious about photography as a hobby.
Flagship phones will take better pictures than basically any camera unless you invest a lot of time into learning what you're doing, and even then, it will still take pretty damn good pictures.
I'm generally an advocate of owning fewer things, carrying fewer things, and having fewer things around me in general, so even if my phone can only do 90% of the quality of a reasonably priced camera, that's a fine price to pay for not owning an extra expensive thing.
I don't use flagship phones, the closest one I've had to flagship in the recent years was the iPhone 13 Mini which I still use, but up until then all phone cameras left quite a lot to be desired, especially in darker indoors conditions, and zoom being grainy and kinda terrible.
I don't quite agree on owning fewer things though, I agree on the overall sentiment of OP, just not on cameras. I think if you read a lot, having a dedicated e-reader is handy, if you're into retro games, having a retro handheld can be a nice thing, having a phone that is constantly online where you're available to everyone is tiring, having something you can use elsewhere to disconnect is something I appreciate.
In my case I do have a retro handheld that I don't use as much as I should when I'm out and about, however I have a digital audio player that I bring with me from time to time, not being interrupted while listening to music by notifications or calls is something I'm starting to appreciate.
There was a time when this was true, but I think I'd tend to disagree here now. I have a flagship phone, older m4/3 mirrorless, and relatively new full-frame mirrorless. It is the case that the older m4/3 is more finicky, and requires more knowledge and skill, than the phone. Focus can go wrong, particularly in choosing entirely the wrong focus point, it can make poor choices of aperture and shutter speed in automatic, and sensitivity needs to be handled with care. The phone, on the other hand, will generally at least seem to make reasonable choices. But the Nikon just works, so long as it is set to something sufficiently automatic.
Both actual cameras will take what I would describe as cleaner photos than the phone, and for given conditions, are more likely to take more consistent photos. Noise and detail is likely to be consistent across a photo; it might be significant, for example, with the m4/3 at higher ISO, but it will not be the patchwork that the heavy processing of the phone camera. This is especially noticeable if you want to crop at all: I've generally found that phone camera images just don't crop well.
In large part, this is because the cameras have fundamental optical advantages over the phone. They have larger, simpler lenses, larger sensors, collect more light, and so on; in the case of the full-frame, those advantages are enormous. Since the phone is a top-end Pixel, I can run non-Google cameras on it without the heavy processing, and the comparison of those images to the cameras is illustrative of its disadvantages.
I do have a fair amount of knowledge of cameras, though I would not call myself serious about photography, and I'm basing the above more off giving my cameras to other people to take photos in auto (for example, photos of me). The full-frame, with someone with little experience taking the photo, will take better photos (apart from composition, but that is unrelated to the cameras) than I could take with the phone.
It is also significantly more expensive than the phone, but I think our philosophies may differ on that point. I'd much rather not sacrifice the quality of something lasting – for example, photographs – just to save an amount of money that does not seem significant over the lifetimes of the photographs themselves.
In addition to the resulting photos looking "cleaner" than what is typically achievable on a smartphone, I find that photos from dedicated cameras also tend to feel "deeper" and less "processed" (even though RAWs take a lot of manual processing). Even some old DSLRs that the community doesn't think much of can outperform smartphones in this way.
From the article:
I recently installed Immich on my home server. I did that to have convenient/automatic backup solution for mobile photos for family members. Little did I know at the time that I'm installing basically Google Photos but completely local and in my hands. Immich does face recognition, objects, OCR, can run multiple users with shared albums... It' unbelievable piece of software. I'm done with Google Photos.
I used to agree with this kind of thought, but now I’m pretty much the exact opposite.
The primary reason is that a few years ago I made the decision to do more to live in the moment. Get off the phone more, go to places, and do things without needing to photograph everything. Which is not to say that I don’t take photos, just that I’m not letting it get in the way of things or interrupt experiences. I found that it really helps me enjoy the moment dramatically more than if I’m focused on taking pictures, and it actually helps me remember the thing more at least up to the medium term.
The reason why I am posting this now is that I haven’t really been looking back at the pictures I took, but since I have an iPhone, apples photo app automatically makes albums it calls “memories” that I was looking through during some downtime at a theme park yesterday. And it had me going, “woah, have I always been this good of a photographer?!”
When it comes to making pleasing photographs there are two factors that come into play: framing and lighting. There was a third one, post-processing, but automatic settings are pretty spot-on these days unless you are actively looking for a specific aesthetic. And looking through the actual film roll of the memories I found out that I was subconsciously doing a simple old trick that photographers always knew: take a lot of pictures and select the best ones to show. It’s just that Apple’s AI did the selection part for me.
But Apple actually has two other pieces of “magic” dedicated cameras don’t have. Number one is Live Photos. It’s basically a super short video of the moment before the photo. It’s not much but it does a lot to bring out the context of the memory. The second is the simple act of swiping through photos. If you are taking series shots, there’s something strangely magical about cycling through them and seeing something almost-but-not-quite like a movie. It encourages you to “fill in the gaps” so you feel what was happening at the time. I have a beautiful series of me kissing my husband who is not a big fan of public affection and having him turn around and kiss me back, and I love it. I suppose you could do something like that with a flipbook, but who actually does that with photos? A flipbook is something that you have to actively make as well, compared to something you can be surreptitiously surprised by.
Yes, I am sometimes jealous of super high quality shots from “real” cameras, especially because I don’t own an iPhone Pro and can’t get long shots, but at the end of the day the rather ephemeral and subjective benefits of shooting with a camera actually overwhelmingly outweigh dedicated cameras for me.
Really good blog post. I am personally a big fan of using a dedicated camera over my phone. I enjoy leaving my phone behind, and just taking my camera. With a phone, I found I rarely took any pictures, whereas when I have my camera I find myself looking around for what would be a nice picture, and it prompts me to be creative and look. For those on the fence, I have noticed I have never felt like I needed my phone when I did not have it on me, but have felt like I have wanted my camera when it is not on me (even if I have my phone on me).
I did this but for video because I was tired of my phone overheating after 10 mins.
But man I still feel like the learning curve is high. It was only when I started using a dedicated mirrorless camera (Sony ZVE 10 II) that I realized just how much computing work is going into a phone's photo/video processing to make it look good.
I am always so tempted to just grab my phone because I lack so much confidence in my shooting ability. For example, I took my mirrorless camera to a trip to Japan and ended up using my phone for most of it regardless because I did not like the photos my camera took (yes I tried leaving it on automatic a lot to see if it'd help but still got many blurry shoots. In fact I liked my manual shots more often than not, but that required time to set up).
So this tip really needs to come with a caveat that you need to be willing to learn how to take a proper photo/video. You can't offload that skill to your phone anymore.
I took most of my SLR camera gear half way around the world to my one and only trip to Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead. Multiple film speeds, 3 bodies, half a dozen lenses (all Olympus OM gear) lots of filters, gradients, polarisers, I had prime lenses in 50mm, 28mm, and some zooms such as 28-80 and I forget what else. Couple of small collapsible tripods, remote triggers, flash modules, lots of stuff. Big bag. Heavy.
It was the early days of digital cameras. I think the Kodak DC220 had just come out. Which I did have, but it was terrible.
I got some great shots on that trip no doubt. And like all manual cameras, really had to set the shots up properly.
It was after that trip I basically stopped photography until digital became good.
My son did photography as one of his examination subjects at school, and for that we got a terrible canon dslr and a mirrorless micro 4/3 thing that I can't remember what it was. He passed.
Now I'm grateful for my phone. I can frame subjects, find nice lighting situations, do all the setup side of the shots, and I don't have to carry that stupid bag any more.