URBAN and STREET Photography - IPHONE vs Dedicated CAMERA?

Cats and Cameras are two of my favourite things

I realise that this is a tired question, and these days it ends up coming across as click bait instead of being interesting and informative. However, I hope that this blog will be able to offer more of the latter.

The reason for this blog came about the other day, when one of my casual street photography followers asked whether they should bother investing in an actual camera, or if their latest iPhone was good enough for the job.

I thought about my response for a few hours, but my final answer was pretty much the same as it always is for these kinds of questions - I told them that "it depends".

*Cue slow clap and eye roll

However, I explained to them that it's the same when it comes to the tools that you use for any job. It's always a matter of convenience, versus any and all compromises that you are willing, and happy to make.

There are numerous instances throughout history where convenience had won out over potential quality. People preferred to put up with less 'awesomeness', as long as the end result was easier and more convenient to achieve. This created its own level of 'quality' by making things cool and desirable.

Let me explain this with a short trip back in time.

VHS vs Betamax

VHS vs Betamax

Take VHS versus Betamax as an example.

Back in the early 1980s, the home video wars were in full swing.

Many punters believed that VHS would be the home video platform of choice, even though its direct competitor, Betamax, was superior in terms of quality.

They were correct.

The main deciding factor which made VHS the clear winner, was that the larger tape size also meant that each tape held a lot more footage.

Four hours was no problem for a standard VHS tape, versus a measly one hour for Betamax. This was far more convenient, especially for the home consumer who just wanted to be able to record an entire movie from the TV in one sitting, and they didn't mind the compromise of reduced fidelity. Besides, television was analog back then, and static in the picture was a normal way of life.

Many video editors and professionals still preferred to use Betamax however, because they didn't need to record their footage in such long chunks, and the quality of the recording was more important to them.

35mm vs Medium & Large Format

35mm is absolutely tiny by comparison

Another example, and this one is related to photography, goes back to the early days of the craft.

In the beginning, photography was far from easy and convenient, and there was no such thing as rolls of 35mm film hanging at the checkout of your local 7-Eleven.

If you wanted to go out and shoot, you were pretty much limited to medium and large format cameras and their giant negative plates, which were heavy and very expensive.

Then one day, the market saw an opening, which led to the birth of 35mm film as a matter of convenience (small size and low cost), but at the expense (compromise) of image quality. It was simple physics. The smaller the film stock, the less its potential to capture detail and colours.

However, budding photographers didn't care about any of that, and almost everyone went out and bought 35mm cameras because they were absolutely tiny by comparison. Many professionals would also choose to invest in 35mm SLR kits instead of lugging around suitcases-worth of gear, which medium and large format photography required.

The compromise was worth it, especially if you only wanted 8x10 prints, or you worked for magazines which never really printed larger than to the size of the editorial page. Once again this was due to convenience, at the cost of potential quality.

Medium format still exists to this day, but in its own 'specialty' niche.

35mm vs Digital Photography

36 exposures per roll, versus literally thousands on a memory card

When digital photography was starting to make inroads in the early 2000s, it became the next type of 'compromise over convenience'.

Even though the quality of early digital cameras was far inferior to their film counterparts - and in the beginning, laughably so - shooting 'free' photos was far more convenient than having to buy a new roll of film every 24 or 36 shots, or pay for the cost of processing and developing each and every exposure.

Also, the ability to see your photos right after you took them was an absolute game changer, as opposed to waiting days or weeks only to find out that most of your roll was underexposed.

Digital Photography vs Mobile Photography

Both offer conveniences and compromises, depending on your requirements

But now, the next "Convenience Generation" is upon us.

It is the age of mobile photography, and it's probably inevitable that it will also be the format of choice for many photographers in the near future. The main reason, once again, being convenience over compromise.

Whether mobile photography will ever match the quality of dedicated cameras that have large, specialised sensors and lenses, will always be a matter for debate.

However, as far as pure convenience versus compromise is concerned, there is no question that it's far more practical to carry a small, flat, rectangular object in your pocket, than to lug around a backpack with several kilos of gear everywhere you go.

But once again, it all comes down to individual convenience versus any compromises one is willing to make.

We know there is no way that a small, economical car will ever have the same off-road potential as a dedicated four wheel drive. But if all I need to do is a quick bit of shopping on a Saturday morning, my heavy gas guzzler will stay at home.

In the same way that a handheld game console will never have the same processing power as a dedicated home console or custom-built PC. However, if you just want to do a bit of gaming on the train, there is only one clear winner.

Conclusion

I love my iPhone camera. However, when I'm out on a shoot, I can't afford any compromises. I need to capture all of the detail that I can, as quickly, reliably, and efficiently as is possible, and to have access to all of the post-processing potential that every single photo taken with my 5kg camera kit can offer me.

This means that my iPhone, with its tiny, contact-lensed sized camera, will stay in my pocket, and my back will be the one wearing the cost of these necessary compromises.

But if I want to be discreet, and not disturb a delicate street scene with my obnoxious kit, then my iPhone is a clear winner - as long as I'm well aware of its compromises.

If you enjoyed this blog and feel that you got something out of it, please feel free to follow me on Twitter or Instagram; and also subscribe to my newsletter for more in-depth photography tips and tricks.

Happy shooting!