FilterHN

Getting back into photography, ditching the phone camera in 2026?

3 points

5 hours ago

| 4 comments

I've been looking through twenty-five-odd years of my own photos. The collection includes scanned 35mm and medium format images; digital pictures from a few Canon Powershot generations and a 20D SLR; and about five iPhones.

I've noticed that the non-cell-phone pictures tended to be better, and that in general I seemed to have quite a bit more fun with photos taken with, well, "real" cameras. Probably the best ones were taken with the 20D, which for its time was a really nice camera, for which I was able to bring over some lenses from my film days.

I wouldn't rule out more film photography but I think of that as a somewhat separate track. I'd like to get a digital camera that captures a bit more of what I enjoyed about film photography - that high image density, looking through a physical viewfinder, not necessarily curating images in real time... looking, shooting, and moving on.

I've been following Fujifilm cameras for awhile in this market, having read about them here a few years ago. There are many, many options though (even just for Fuji) and I'd be interested in what people are recommending today for something closer to the film experience.

The iPhone AI "enhancements" are a drastic turn-off in most cases. What I want is more physicality and more control, not (necessarily) more software. I would also like one or a few B/W modes to be quick to hand.

What are people enjoying shooting with these days, when their phone stays in their pocket (or at home)?

▲

codingdave

4 hours ago

[-]

I use 2 cameras - I have a Nikon Z series DSLR which I use when I am specifically going out for a photo shoot - wildlife and nature are my primary goals, but I do the occasional professional gig such as sports or portraits. But I have an Olympus tough camera that I just keep in my car with me and use for those surprise moments when you see something but didn't pack your main camera. The thing is unbreakable. Waterproof, shockproof, and has survived lots of trauma. You can get filters for it, and it has a surprisingly decent zoom range for a point-and-shoot, including a macro and microscope mode. I have had it for 10 years now, and when I look back at my work, most of my best photos came from the Olympus, not the Nikon.

So while I like the feel of the DSLR best, I cannot deny the Olympus' utility factor. And the older models are just as good (if not better) than the latest models, so it doesn't cost much to pick one up.

▲

retrac

5 hours ago

[-]

Focal length. In a phone camera the lens is smooshed right against the sensor. Such cameras have fisheye-type lenses, and the image is cropped in the centre and dewarped in software. But it's just not the same. That said convenience is above all. If I just need to photograph something I use my phone camera.

With photography as an art I have gone back to film. The cost in money and time and space involved with taking an impression of light gives it gravity that is lacking with a phone camera. It's a different kind of process. One thing I've noticed is that developing is like taking the photograph anew. It can be weeks before I finish a roll and get around to developing it, and I surprise myself.

▲

xvxvx

5 hours ago

[-]

I tried my DSLR out last week for the first time in years. Hated it’s so used to my iPhone now. Photography shouldn’t be so much work. Maybe Apple can release a camera at some point. With decent processing and some AI… easy winner.

▲

xenospn

5 hours ago

[-]

The new mirrorless cameras are very small and have exceptional image quality. Paired with a good quality lens, it’s very portable, has long battery life, and lets you take actual good photos. My very, very old Canon 450D can still run circles around any cellphone.