Access to the internet and its abundance of human-created content is the most valuable part of my smartphone. Being able to capture and easily share images is a convenience due to the fact I always have it with me. This convenience feeds my joy of sharing moments with friends and family. As popular internet content is being reduced to algorithmic clickbait, I find myself looking to limit how much I use my smartphone while still being able to capture and share photos.
Standalone cameras have been replaced by smartphones for the general consumer, but I think it’s time we start picking them up again. In the early days of social media, sites were accessed on a desktop computer and photos needed to be uploaded from a camera - I remember cringey selfies on MySpace. While most smartphones boast impressive megapixel counts, I believe our most precious moments are better captured by a dedicated camera, even if it’s old and clunky.
Instant Film is a Gateway Drug 🔗
Before any serious thoughts about relacing my smartphone, my interest in cameras kicked off from my thrifting hobby. I bought a cheap Polaroid Spektra System camera at a Goodwill only to find out later that the film was discontinued. Researching how to make this camera work led me down a rabbit hole about film, lenses, prints, and photography. I never got that particular camera working, but I did find a Polaroid 600 camera at the same Goodwill. I shot a lot of fun photos on the 600.
The instant film cameras got me thinking about just how different they are from modern smartphone cameras. What at first seemed like a simple comparison of “good quality cellphone, bad quality polaroid” unraveled into an analysis of color, light, and algorithms. My entry-level Google Pixel 6a has a 64-megapixel camera, but the images it produces aren’t really “better” than the 20-year old Polaroid.
Instant film photography - and all film photography - is an analog process. There is no algorithm determining how to compress the light signals that enter the sensor (film). The resulting photo is a product of the lens and amount of time the film was exposed to light entering through it. A chemical reaction turns the areas of film into color based on the exposure to light. To compare film photography to music, I think about it like listening live to an acoustic performance.
Digicams are Cool Now? 🔗
20-year old digicams were the next stage in my camera journey. Despite their use of electrical sensors to capture light and color, these cameras produce images that are so different from smartphones, and it’s more than just the resolution. If one gets past the immediate sense of nostalgia produced by a camera like this and looks more closely at the image, they might realize how much better they are than smartphone cameras.
My first “digicam” was a Canon Powershot G6 - a prosumer camera from 2004 with an exhaustive set of manual controls capable of outputting raw files. I was not skilled or knowledgeable enough to use this camera effectively. I spent many hours researching aperature, iso, and shutter speed, then tested my learnings with the Canon. The camera’s sensor and motherboard had aged a lot, and this made using it as a learning tool quite difficult.
Below is one of the first photos I took with the camera. It’s been cropped, but is otherwise untouched. The challenges with using this camera forced me to simplify my photos. The screen is very difficult to see in bright light, input delays are significant, and there are dead pixels on the sensor. To compensate, I tried for simpler compositions and took much more time to setup and capture a shot. At this stage in my camera journey, I was happy just to capture a crisp image with a subject in focus.
The clearest difference between my smartphone and Canon is how easy it is to output a usable image. The smartphone automatically adjusts for exposure, focuses on faces and other subjects extremely quickly, and uses an aggressive algorithm to separate visual elements. I must be very intentional and patient when I want to capture something using the Canon, but intentionality and patience are valuable inputs for memorable photos.
Digicams ARE Cool Now! 🔗
From a prosumer camera to something much more basic, I picked up the 2003 Olympus D-390 at a thrift store for $20. Rather than manual controls and raw files, this camera uses simple presets for sensor and lens settings. This was when I started really having fun. Automatic settings made capturing usable images much easier. I didn’t need to mess with anything, I just pointed and snapped. This camera is more of what I think the vintage digicam trend is about. It’s simple, but produces images that are almost obnoxiously nostalgic.
I love taking this camera with me when I’m out and about. I start looking at things through the eyes of my teenage self and remember back to those early MySpace photos. It might be impossible to get past the nostalgia of this camera, but I find myself using it instead of my smartphone when I want to capture memories. It’s smaller and lighter than my phone, it doesn’t bother me with notifications, and it’s just fun to use.
Serious Photography 🔗
While it’s not 20 years old, the Sony Nex-5 is still considered by some to be “vintage” - it was released in 2010! It’s very compact, uses Sony’s popular e-mount lenses, and has an adequate 14-megapixel sensor. This would be the camera that allows me to explore my photography.
With manual exposure settings, fast response times, and endless lens options to choose from, I was able to experiment and learn much faster. Someone told me they liked shooting street photography with a 35mm “wide open”, so I went overboard with the bokeh and got a 35mm f/1.4 manual-focus prime lens. Despite its lower resolution, I was seeing images much more crisp than anything my smartphone could produce.
While the Sony was still using an algorithm to compress binary data into jpegs, the information that the images communicated was closer to what I saw than my smartphone. The feeling of transporting back to that scene is much stronger when looking at photos from my Sony. I’ve learned the basics of photography with this camera, got more lenses, and started creating images I’m really proud of. I continue to practice in pursuit of being able to remember and communicate the wonderful scenes I’m so lucky to experience.
Smart Phone, Stupid Photos 🔗
To illustrate the differences from each of my digicams and smartphone camera, I’ve created some side-by-sides of similar images. If you want to see the differences for yourself, I recommend opening the images in a new tab and zooming in on them. The smartphone image is always on the right side.
Canon 🔗
Olympus 🔗
Sony 🔗
Why I take Photos 🔗
Photography is the most common medium we use to remember and communicate visual images. The information that smartphone cameras communicate is effective at conveying content, but not feeling. Google and Apple’s algorithms make highly-opinionated decisions about what we see, and I want to remember and communicate images without including those decisions. Smartphone images have been optimized for sharing on mobile screens, but I want my memories to outlast Instagram.
In addition to the material differences in images, the experience of carrying a camera is another win over smartphones. Instead of worrying about notifications or scrolling to pass the time, I’m looking at my surroundings as interesting compositions I might try to capture in a photo and fiddling with manual exposure settings. If I find myself needing to kill time looking at a screen, I can browse through my photos and make plans for edits or take notes on composition.
As I learn more about photography, I find myself cycling through my cameras. The skills I develop using each translate to the others. I want to define the limits of my visual images by my skill and equipment, not opinionated algorithms. I want to remember things as I saw them, not as separate visual elements mashed together, but as a scene that includes empty space and soft boundaries.