Reading mode: Light Dark

How much has technology really moved on?

Go to last post
A

Andy Hewitt

Veteran Member
Messages
4,688
Solutions
5
Reaction score
756
Location
Scarborough, UK, UK
I've been going through my older collection here, and just got wondering how much has technology really moved on with cameras over the years.

Here's a little timeline from some of the cameras I've used since I went digital in 2000.

First one is from an Olympus C960 1.3MP camera I got at Christmas 2000. I really liked this camera, and was rather disappointed when it failed.



Olympus C960z (2000)
Olympus C960z (2000)

When the C960 died (the card slot failed to read any cards), I bought a Minolta Z1 3MP camera.



Minolta Z1 (2003)
Minolta Z1 (2003)

At this time my daughter was bought a Kodak compact 2MP camera.



Kodak (2003)
Kodak (2003)

I then moved on to a Panny FZ7, but sold that quickly to go to DSLR when I found I wanted a little more in my photos. My first was an Olympus E500 8MP, but I've tried a few different Olympus DSLRs since then.

Here's one from an Olympus E1 5MP.



E1 (2004)
E1 (2004)

And then a later Olympus E420 10MP camera.



E420 (2009)
E420 (2009)

I moved on from those to go to a bridge camera, as I'd got frustrated swapping lenses while out and about, and usually having the wrong one on for a given scene.

I started off with the HS50EXR, but switched to an X-S1 after a few months, feeling I preferred the larger sensor and better DR/colours, and handling of the larger camera.

Here's one from the X-S1 at 12MP.



X-S1 (2011)
X-S1 (2011)

And one from the HS50EXR taken at 8MP size

HS50 (2013)
HS50 (2013)

My intention here is not to set up an argument between different cameras, but to show how much difference does the technology in real terms. We're always out trying to get 'better' all the time, but I have to ask myself, does it really get better?

For sure, higher resolution helps with some images, and I guess there may be improvements in DR. However, my observation is that more often some cost cutting has been used at various times, and updates in technology have not always resulted in better images.

It's an old saying, but really the best camera is always the one you have with you when you need it. There is no double that the DSLRs can produce 'technically' better images than the compacts, but I'm enjoying my photography more than ever now with the X-S1, as it does give me very good photos, but it's far more convenient to use. I guess it's all about compromise somewhere - be it bags of equipment to get the best shot possible, or a convenient camera that is really to shoot wherever you are.

--
Andy Hewitt
Using FujiFilm X-S1 and Apple iMac 27" 3.2GHz
 
andy i feel like i have been down the same road as you i would have thought that the e1

would have given you the most pleasing colours,,but i am just like you i think if its newer

it must be better but thats not always the case,even nowadays i take my old kodak p880

if i want the most pleasing colour shots to my eyes,and my new sigma dp2 merrill sits home alone on the shelve but i should say if i want detail this is the camera i would take on the day

if the fuji x-s2 came out i would be sucked in again wasting my money thinking that it must be better than the x-s1

as you may know i did have the x-s1 i liked it but i did not love it,cheers bassy
 
Andy Hewitt said:
I've been going through my older collection here, and just got wondering how much has technology really moved on with cameras over the years.

It's an old saying, but really the best camera is always the one you have with you when you need it. There is no double that the DSLRs can produce 'technically' better images than the compacts, but I'm enjoying my photography more than ever now with the X-S1, as it does give me very good photos, but it's far more convenient to use. I guess it's all about compromise somewhere - be it bags of equipment to get the best shot possible, or a convenient camera that is really to shoot wherever you are.

--
Andy Hewitt
Using FujiFilm X-S1 and Apple iMac 27" 3.2GHz
Click to expand...
Hi Andy, the reality is that digital technology has made leaps and strides since the early days. But www still limits us to small images. Higher resolution, better dynamic range and higher ISO have opened up a whole new world.

I agree though that the artistic side hasn't changed (not even since the the creation of BW negatives).

This is one of my first digital images (the 17th to be exact) taken when I was dragged kicking and screaming from the 35mm film age by a father's day gift of a Pentax Optio 30. It might not be much but I still really like it. The Optio 30 is still in good working order in spite of going skiing, taken to sea and having spent years of going everywhere in my jacket pocket.

5abe147ae065465f8f21c0492afde02e.jpg

Dicky.
 
Last edited:
DMillier said:
Make a 60 x 40 inch print at ISO 1600 from a 2MP Coolpix 950 and compare to one from a D800.

That'll give you a baseline.
Click to expand...
 
My first digital camera, 1 mega pixi 3x zoom, £1000 about year 2000, ate batteries for breakfast.

My latest X-S1 for £250 12mega pixi mega zoom, RAW, SDHC card takes 1000's of photos, full HD video,

and my photo techniqes on Lightroom brings out detail so much better than any film camera.

My photos are no better though
 
Yes. But quality has not. My "vintage" Powershot A80 (4megapixel, very much alive) produces better JPEG than my Powershot S90 (2-3 yrs old, 10megapixel and deceased 1 month back, lens assembly died)...
 
DickyAus said:
DMillier said:
Make a 60 x 40 inch print at ISO 1600 from a 2MP Coolpix 950 and compare to one from a D800.

That'll give you a baseline.
Click to expand...
True - but how often do most people print bigger than A4? My old Optio 30 could handle that.
Click to expand...
That kind of was my point. When final usage is taken into account, how much better are new cameras at the job than the early ones? My take is, they're not really.

For sure, Pros have a different need to the general masses. For the majority of images taken, almost anything that can take a picture is sufficient for most needs. Remember that most images taken now are from a mobile phone, many of which are still 3-8MP, have a really tiny sensor, and a poor plastic lens.

As you say, who normally prints larger than A4 or 10x8. I would love to go to A3, but I simply don't have the budget for an A3 printer, nor the space to display them all.

I'd reckon most images are now viewed onscreen somehow, be it a TV, computer screen, tablet device, or even a phone, and often on web accounts with limitations to the resolution of the image (image size, colour space etc.). Hence my original thoughts - how good do we need a camera to be?
 
Bassy said:
andy i feel like i have been down the same road as you i would have thought that the e1
Click to expand...
Bassy said:
would have given you the most pleasing colours,,
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Of all the cameras I have owned, the E1 has given me the best 'technically' good images.

But, as I said, it became impractical for my needs. I wanted to get away from carrying a bag of lenses, and always having the wrong one attached when I saw a shot, so I have to compromise on what gives me the greatest scope in my photography needs.
 
DickyAus said:
Andy Hewitt said:
I've been going through my older collection here, and just got wondering how much has technology really moved on with cameras over the years.

It's an old saying, but really the best camera is always the one you have with you when you need it. There is no double that the DSLRs can produce 'technically' better images than the compacts, but I'm enjoying my photography more than ever now with the X-S1, as it does give me very good photos, but it's far more convenient to use. I guess it's all about compromise somewhere - be it bags of equipment to get the best shot possible, or a convenient camera that is really to shoot wherever you are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Funny you should mention that. My main cameras are a Lumix g6, a Pentax K5 and a Fuji XE1 (all 16MP m4/3 to APS-C) with a DP2 Merrill due to arrive tomorrow (24MP+ equivalent), yet I mostly print about 9x7 inches on A4 with the occasional print up to 19x13". I have 4 prints ever that exceeded this (up to Lightjet 30x20 inches).

I printed out a shot from my camera phone the other week at 7x5 and it looked absolutely fine to my surprise. So I dug out an old Ricoh Caplio R5 (7MP pocket camera, quite old) and tried it on a landscape. At 9x7 inches printed, it looked no different from the big cameras!
 
They're all good enough for web usage and they're all good enough for small prints in good light and low ISO.

There are advantages to better cameras if light levels are low, ISO goes up, print sizes are large or dynamic range is under pressure but yes, for general use it doesn't matter too much.

Although I did notice my old Canon G7 compact has a tendency to smear certain types of low contrast detail even at the most conservative settings and there was no raw option to overcome that.
 
Thank you, you are very kind ;-)

I bet your own work is much better than it used to be if for no other reason that Lightroom brings the kind of advanced darkroom skills once possessed by a handful of experts to everyone's desktop - and good post processing is probably the area where the biggest improvements in the final result are to be found for anyone.
 
Andy, I also started with one megapixel (a Kodak in 1999) and came up through 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,16 and 18MP cameras over 14 years. But it wasn't just a change in resolution that propelled my buying/selling odyssey, either (mostly on eBay). It was also the better battery life you mentioned, better DR from larger sensors, more operational speed, better ergonomics, and frankly, market appeal. Having been a camera salesperson in the past, I'm still a sucker for a good camera ad.

But I haven't seen real advantages for my end uses with different cameras, over the past couple of years. My 21" iMac monitor and online viewing now comprise 99% of my needs. Occasionally my wife and I hang a wall print or give one away to relatives. Many earlier, lower resolution prints look just as good on the wall as do later, high resolution prints. I'd like to say there was a notable difference in my current DSLR work as compared to the X-S1, but it really doesn't show very much in my 4 X 6" print output or the 1024 X 786 pixel projection images for the two photo clubs I show at.

I liked this quote from your earlier post: "I guess it's all about compromise somewhere - be it bags of equipment to get the best shot possible, or a convenient camera that is [ready] to shoot wherever you are." Well said!
 
Last edited:
I got tired of chasing the ultmate camera. Sold everything and picked up a X10 and X-S1 . X10 I carry every where and the X-S1 for everything else. Plus I lighten my camera bag by 10 lbs. Now I have money to go out to dinner. Ha Ha.
 
Nice photos.

Maybe it's more dramatic for me because of how I moved through the years, but there's a huge difference between the Fuji 2600Zoom (ca. 2001), the HS25, and the X10. It's true that, in the right conditions, the 2600 takes some great photos, and I can show some photos form the 2600Zoom that are better than some from the X10, but it has real defects that I don't think common in today's cameras, unless maybe you're talking about a camera phone:

ISO 100 only

When indoors, I used to prop it against walls & hope for the best. The flash worked quite well, actually, but I hardly ever have to use the flash on the X10.

low dynamic range in sunlight

I'll take EXR M size DR 400 any day -- precisely because I almost never need 12 MP, 6 MP is a heck of a lot more than the 2600, and it prints just fine on an 8x10.

middling-to-bad white balance

At least it gave me the option of choosing white balance, but it gets the white balance wrong more frequently than not, especially indoors.

"only" 3x zoom

The X10, with its larger sensor, has 4x zoom, yet it's about the same size. The HS25, with a not-much-larger sensor, had 30x zoom (I think).

no bracketing

...for that extra dynamic range. ;-) but also for other possibilities, which brings us to

no film simulation modes

I don't know about other Fuji cameras in 2001, but the 2600Zoom basically had a Provia-like JPG, and that was it.

only automatic, scene, or manual modes

Maybe other cameras had PAS back then. According to Wikipedia , there are some other nice modes I could see as useful (maybe DSLR only).

Finally, while this doesn't relate to the cameras I have used in particular, surely one of the biggest advances is apparent from the "Most Popular Cameras" table on the right of the page, which lists several mirrorless cameras before the first DSLR. While they haven't taken over the world, they seem like a genuine advance (esp. listening to people rage about the X-T1's viewfinder). Once you're willing to pay the bucks for those, they bring their own lists of advances.

This is mostly off the top of my head. None of it may be revolutionary, but if you want that, then you should probably be looking at something like Lytro.
 
Last edited:
Good point Andy. Technology can help but a great photo is primarily in the talent of the photographer as you so ably demonstrate.
 
John_I said:
Good point Andy. Technology can help but a great photo is primarily in the talent of the photographer as you so ably demonstrate.
Click to expand...
Thank you John.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top