How much has technology really moved on?

cantanima said:

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:

Click to expand...

Perhaps for some models. ISTR that my old Olympus C960 had an awful lot of features that were very handy, and similar to this available now, such as ways around what you show below (for some at least).

I did actually start off with pocket cartridge film cameras in the 70's, and then got an Olympus OM10 in 1984, and an OM40 in 1988, which I used until I got the Z1 in 2004.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm still finding that Raw L size suits me better, but we've done that one.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

We had to do that with filters/film types way back...

Member said:

"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.

Click to expand...

No other camera I've used has had the film simulation anyway, and in Raw mode it doesn't make any difference - you can even change it now in Lightroom.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, the mirror less seem to be a good advancement in some ways. However, I still see bad comments about viewscreens or EVFs on them. As you say, they also seem to come with a price premium too, one which I was not prepared to pay for.

I would have gone for mirror-less if I could get a body and a wide ranging lens for a reasonable price.

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hmm, had to look that up. I think I get it, but checking a few images on the gallery I didn't see anything that was even sharp - nice colours though - so couldn't really evaluate much.

Andy, as to IQ I don't think there has been a huge leap. Here's an example from the earliest of the HS series, the HS10 and it's a crop. The s100fs produced superior IQ than my HS series [IMO], but that's an outdated conversation, I suppose. The point is that I could have saved lots of money by sticking with the s100fs and skipping the HS series I bought, excepting the HS50 which I decided not to purchase.



Here's a shot from an 'outdated' Sony H2 which I think was legions ahead of the more modern Sony HV100x that I purchased.



Here's an image from an ancient HP digital, early 2000. The 'capture date' is incorrect.



New models offer faster results, more options, whistles and bells but they quickly devalue after purchase. I think it's more about finding a camera that is fun to use, and one that suits the photographer's shooting needs [wildlife, portrait, etc].

Good discussion topic, Andy.

--
Frank
https://www.flickr.com/photos/112360977@N08/

Me Tarzan said:

Andy, as to IQ I don't think there has been a huge leap. Here's an example from the earliest of the HS series, the HS10 and it's a crop. The s100fs produced superior IQ than my HS series [IMO], but that's an outdated conversation, I suppose. The point is that I could have saved lots of money by sticking with the s100fs and skipping the HS series I bought, excepting the HS50 which I decided not to purchase.

Click to expand...

Nice Images, and a good example of what I meant.

Me Tarzan said:

New models offer faster results, more options, whistles and bells but they quickly devalue after purchase. I think it's more about finding a camera that is fun to use, and one that suits the photographer's shooting needs [wildlife, portrait, etc].

Click to expand...

Yes, that's been my observation with viewing a couple of forums. There are many cases, often with more than one manufacturer, where an old model continues to surpass anything new coming out. Certainly with Olympus it was the E1, a really great camera, even compared to contemporary models, but the Kodak sensor they used was never really matched for DR and colour depth.

Likewise on this forum, it's often demonstrated how older models still hold a very bright candle against the new ones coming out even now. Like you say, you often see improved performance in some areas, such as AF speed, higher pixel counts, or faster startups. However, at this level of equipment, IMHO, we're only arguing nickels and dimes (to quote from across the pond), and very little difference is made in real world use, and as we can see, very little has progressed as far as IQ actually goes when you view them.

Me Tarzan said:

Good discussion topic, Andy.

Click to expand...

First, it's not all about web IQ. That has been covered perfectly well since the 2mp Nikon 950 era. I still have a 3mp Nikon 990 and if I pay attention to exposure etc, the images look just fine. But there is no room for error and the quality of the JPEGs is extremely low by today's standards.

I shot the Fuji F11 for a long time, but every camera I have had since has crushed that thing for usability in general terms. It has been easier to get a good image than it ever was with the F11.

The Nikon D70s was a fantastic camera. Still is. And cheap ... they go for $100 everywhere. But when I wistfully think about grabbing one to use with my Sigma 105 2.8 macro lens, I try to remember that every body I own today crushes the D70s as soon as ISO goes above 800. That's just the way it is. And the dynamic range on even cheap bodies is leaps and bounds ahead, so shadows look better and highlights don't low out nearly as easily.

Your examples are fine ... but the tones are generally dark and even then the clouds are detail free in the lighter areas. That's just how it was, and I for one am glad we are past all that.

So yes, technology has moved forward dramatically.

I am curious about one thing: the cameras you bought 10-15 years ago, were they upscale cameras & DSLRs, or point & shoot compacts? Because it occurs to me that the phenomenon could be something like this: features available yesteryear only on Mercedes are now available even on a Chevy.

Kim Letkeman said:

First, it's not all about web IQ. That has been covered perfectly well since the 2mp Nikon 950 era. I still have a 3mp Nikon 990 and if I pay attention to exposure etc, the images look just fine. But there is no room for error and the quality of the JPEGs is extremely low by today's standards.

I shot the Fuji F11 for a long time, but every camera I have had since has crushed that thing for usability in general terms. It has been easier to get a good image than it ever was with the F11.

The Nikon D70s was a fantastic camera. Still is. And cheap ... they go for $100 everywhere. But when I wistfully think about grabbing one to use with my Sigma 105 2.8 macro lens, I try to remember that every body I own today crushes the D70s as soon as ISO goes above 800. That's just the way it is. And the dynamic range on even cheap bodies is leaps and bounds ahead, so shadows look better and highlights don't low out nearly as easily.

Your examples are fine ... but the tones are generally dark and even then the clouds are detail free in the lighter areas. That's just how it was, and I for one am glad we are past all that.

So yes, technology has moved forward dramatically.

Click to expand...

Hmm, of course it has. However, I wouldn't gauge these that way, as was a bit of an unfair comparison, I'd used JPEGs from the earlier cameras (having no choice there), and Raws from the newer ones (again, little choice as that's what I usually shoot with). I have a few JPEGs (from shooting in EXR modes, or Raw +JPEG at times) that show highlight areas just as badly washed out.

However, I agree that 'technically' modern camera 'should' take a better image. But, it does not always follow that a newer camera with 'better' technology will take a better image. The images I took with the Olympus E1 and a Zuiko 14-54 lens, are still at least as good as anything I've seen even in the last year, and that's an 11 year old model now. The DR range on newer models never really caught up when they changed to the Panasonic sensors.

Of course that's one example, and one I can relate too, having owned models of camera in such eras.

I agree that ISO performances have, generally, got better, although when scrutinised closely, it's not actually as good as you'd think, as tricks are used as often as better technology, and it's easy to lose detail when compensating for the use of higher ISOs.

I prefer CCD IQ over CMOS so IMO it has not really improved over the years, cameras used to be better constructed years ago and they were made for photography, now they appear to be more like geek gadgets, so IMHO things are not heading in the right direction for photographers.

Andy Hewitt said:

Kim Letkeman said:

First, it's not all about web IQ. That has been covered perfectly well since the 2mp Nikon 950 era. I still have a 3mp Nikon 990 and if I pay attention to exposure etc, the images look just fine. But there is no room for error and the quality of the JPEGs is extremely low by today's standards.

I shot the Fuji F11 for a long time, but every camera I have had since has crushed that thing for usability in general terms. It has been easier to get a good image than it ever was with the F11.

The Nikon D70s was a fantastic camera. Still is. And cheap ... they go for $100 everywhere. But when I wistfully think about grabbing one to use with my Sigma 105 2.8 macro lens, I try to remember that every body I own today crushes the D70s as soon as ISO goes above 800. That's just the way it is. And the dynamic range on even cheap bodies is leaps and bounds ahead, so shadows look better and highlights don't low out nearly as easily.

Your examples are fine ... but the tones are generally dark and even then the clouds are detail free in the lighter areas. That's just how it was, and I for one am glad we are past all that.

So yes, technology has moved forward dramatically.

Click to expand...

Hmm, of course it has. However, I wouldn't gauge these that way, as was a bit of an unfair comparison, I'd used JPEGs from the earlier cameras (having no choice there), and Raws from the newer ones (again, little choice as that's what I usually shoot with). I have a few JPEGs (from shooting in EXR modes, or Raw +JPEG at times) that show highlight areas just as badly washed out.

Click to expand...

And I have many that are not washed out. Using modern sensors with digital fill (dynamic range extension in software) allows one to nail these exposures and not blow out highlights.

Back in the day, there simply was not enough dynamic range to get that right. You got the highlights right and the shadows went black.

Andy Hewitt said:

However, I agree that 'technically' modern camera 'should' take a better image. But, it does not always follow that a newer camera with 'better' technology will take a better image.

Click to expand...

We see plenty of fat wallets running around with the best technology on the planet and posting crappy images of their cats.

It has always been about skills.

Andy Hewitt said:

The images I took with the Olympus E1 and a Zuiko 14-54 lens, are still at least as good as anything I've seen even in the last year, and that's an 11 year old model now.

Click to expand...

If you say so. As above.

Andy Hewitt said:

The DR range on newer models never really caught up when they changed to the Panasonic sensors.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about there. The current Panasonic sensors are in Olympus and Panasonic flagship cameras.

Andy Hewitt said:

Of course that's one example, and one I can relate too, having owned models of camera in such eras.

Click to expand...

I have owned models from around 2000 through now. The difference is stark IMO.

Andy Hewitt said:

I agree that ISO performances have, generally, got better, although when scrutinised closely, it's not actually as good as you'd think,

Click to expand...

No, it's better. I struggled to get the D70s to handle 1600 ISO. It could in the right light, but shadows were brutal.

Today, I can shoot the GM1 at 12800 and get a better result. That's in about 8 years.

Andy Hewitt said:

as tricks are used as often as better technology, and it's easy to lose detail when compensating for the use of higher ISOs.

Click to expand...

And we're back to skills.

I wonder if you could tell the difference between CCD and cmos in a blind test.

Kim, in the compact camera market do you specifically feel that the move from CCD to CMOS sensors has resulted in an improvement in image quality? In a lot of ways I feel it has, as the newer sensors do better at higher ISO, with less chroma noise. But at low ISO (most of us back then were trained to never go above ISO 100 with compacts) it seems as though the images preserved more detail back then- I specifically refer to cameras like the Nikon E990, the Olympus C-7070 and C-8080, all of which had extremely sharp lenses, but I also feel the lack of noise reduction and the CCD sensors got the highest possible resolution out of the lens, at ISO 100 anyway.

I look through some of my older Coolpix 990 and Olympus 7070 images and man they had tack sharp details at ISO 100 I never have seemed to replicate with CMOS cameras. Heck even the Coolpix 4500 did not have the tack sharp lens of the Coolpix 990...... something about that 3x lens.....

I know higher ISO and DR are much better now.....but there's something about detail retention at ISO 100 that seems to have been lost over the years.

--
https://supermanalexthegreat.shutterfly.com/

Yes, you should see my post about the quality of CCD sensors at base ISO in terms of detail retention and maximizing the resolution of tack sharp lenses of upper echelon compacts of the past like the Nikon 990 and Olympus 7070 and 8080.

alexisgreat said:

Kim, in the compact camera market do you specifically feel that the move from CCD to CMOS sensors has resulted in an improvement in image quality? In a lot of ways I feel it has, as the newer sensors do better at higher ISO, with less chroma noise. But at low ISO (most of us back then were trained to never go above ISO 100 with compacts) it seems as though the images preserved more detail back then- I specifically refer to cameras like the Nikon E990, the Olympus C-7070 and C-8080, all of which had extremely sharp lenses, but I also feel the lack of noise reduction and the CCD sensors got the highest possible resolution out of the lens, at ISO 100 anyway.

I look through some of my older Coolpix 990 and Olympus 7070 images and man they had tack sharp details at ISO 100 I never have seemed to replicate with CMOS cameras. Heck even the Coolpix 4500 did not have the tack sharp lens of the Coolpix 990...... something about that 3x lens.....

I know higher ISO and DR are much better now.....but there's something about detail retention at ISO 100 that seems to have been lost over the years.

Click to expand...

Thanks for helping with that one, I've been struggling to find the vocabulary to respond to Kim, but I think you got most of what I was after there.

I also think that the changes over the years have not necessarily been development for 'better', but to reduce manufacturing costs. This is something that all manufacturing does. It's certainly clear that in many areas, quality is reduced to a point where it works, but only just (look at the early X-S1 lenses and sensors).

Even though we do have the better DR, and ISO performances, they are not the whole picture (sorry), other areas have not improved, the way colours are represented, images can look 'flat' in comparison, and as you say, detail seems to be messed up now.

Regardless of ISO performance, I still shoot at the lowest I can, because detail will suffer as soon as its increased. When you look at how ISO performance is improved, it's not only sensor technology that is used, but processing algorithms as well - even on Raw images (this was found on Canon DSLR cameras some years ago).

The problem I have is that all the dialogue regarding new models, better this, better that, makes me feel I should discard all my old photos because they don't meet a minimum standard.

The short answer is YES! Technology has moved on.

Artistic ability is another matter. If you haven't got it, technology won't give it to you!

I got my first digital compact in 2004. Over the years cameras have improved. Different aspects have improved at different rates at different times.

My first was a 2MP Olympus C150 fixed focal length camera. IQ was awful today my smartphone outclasses it easily.

Speed and response.

My third was the Olympus 360Z. 3MP 3X optical zoom. It was my favourite for a year. Awful shutter lag. Focus was OK but then I felt that it went to sleep. A year later I bought the oly mju500 and fuji F10, these were speed demons. Today's cameras have not improved on them in terms of speed. Fully ON/OFF in under a second and no shutter lag.

Zoom range.

2004 3X compact. 10X oly C-975 was big clumsy did not fit into a pocket.

2013 my oly SZ-16 has a 24X optical zoom and fits into my pocket.

Ten years ago most compacts wide angle started at 38mm or 35mm. Today it starts at 28mm or even 24mm.

In 2004 my compacts had no IS. In 2007 my pany TZ-3 had excellent IS. It still works and is effective as today's best.

Even in 2007 high ISO performance was awful. The pany TZ-3 was only good up to 200ISO. Then awful smearing. Today's CMOS sensors really do give better high iso performance.

Screens are bigger and better. 2004 I had 1.5" 1.8". 2005 2.5". Now 3" is common minimum.

The great megapixel wars went too far but they have bought benefits. When I pixel peep my 20MP Sony hx50 the images are worse than my 3MP oly 360Z. A 20MP image is NOT 7X better than a 3MP one. However when I downsize the 20MP image to 10MP the mush disappears and it has about 3X more detail than the old 3MP image.

Yes we did take some good photos 10 years ago. We also took many more awful ones which were deleted quickly and forgotten about. Today's cameras in the same situation will do a better job.

alexisgreat said:

Kim, in the compact camera market do you specifically feel that the move from CCD to CMOS sensors has resulted in an improvement in image quality? In a lot of ways I feel it has, as the newer sensors do better at higher ISO, with less chroma noise.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially when they figured out BSI ...

alexisgreat said:

But at low ISO (most of us back then were trained to never go above ISO 100 with compacts) it seems as though the images preserved more detail back then- I specifically refer to cameras like the Nikon E990, the Olympus C-7070 and C-8080, all of which had extremely sharp lenses, but I also feel the lack of noise reduction and the CCD sensors got the highest possible resolution out of the lens, at ISO 100 anyway.

Click to expand...

The difficulty we have is trying to compare like resolutions ... and that's impossible. The best CCD sensors in the early days were fairly low resolution.

To go higher in resolution, it seems that CMOS was necessary and thus we don't have a perfect comparison. The higher resolution sensors of today push lenses far beyond what the lower resolution sensors of the same size did back in the day, and of course you get many more blurry pixels both from diffraction and from shake, so how do we compare?

All I can say is that I am very satisfied with today's sensors and don't miss the good old days.

For example, I loved the D70s and was able to get remarkably sharp images from it. But I can get equally sharp images from CMOS sensor too, and I have a lot more resolution to play with.

For example, a 12mp CMOS sensor was able to do this ... and I've not seen a CCD sensor do any better ...

alexisgreat said:

I look through some of my older Coolpix 990 and Olympus 7070 images and man they had tack sharp details at ISO 100 I never have seemed to replicate with CMOS cameras. Heck even the Coolpix 4500 did not have the tack sharp lens of the Coolpix 990...... something about that 3x lens.....

Click to expand...

The 990 was a great camera ... bu the JPEGs were a bit over sharpened and the tones were pretty harsh. And at 3mp, you could go to about 8x10 and that was it.

alexisgreat said:

I know higher ISO and DR are much better now.....but there's something about detail retention at ISO 100 that seems to have been lost over the years.

Click to expand...

I don't notice it, but then I shoot and process raw and I know that modern sensors have high enough resolution that our technique makes more difference than the sensor ever could ...

And by the way, we cannot really use Fuji EXR sensors are our benchmark as there are too many compromises from the AA filter to the demosaic algorithm, so these are not picel peeping sensors.

--

Andy Hewitt said:

alexisgreat said:

Kim, in the compact camera market do you specifically feel that the move from CCD to CMOS sensors has resulted in an improvement in image quality? In a lot of ways I feel it has, as the newer sensors do better at higher ISO, with less chroma noise. But at low ISO (most of us back then were trained to never go above ISO 100 with compacts) it seems as though the images preserved more detail back then- I specifically refer to cameras like the Nikon E990, the Olympus C-7070 and C-8080, all of which had extremely sharp lenses, but I also feel the lack of noise reduction and the CCD sensors got the highest possible resolution out of the lens, at ISO 100 anyway.

I look through some of my older Coolpix 990 and Olympus 7070 images and man they had tack sharp details at ISO 100 I never have seemed to replicate with CMOS cameras. Heck even the Coolpix 4500 did not have the tack sharp lens of the Coolpix 990...... something about that 3x lens.....

I know higher ISO and DR are much better now.....but there's something about detail retention at ISO 100 that seems to have been lost over the years.

Click to expand...

Thanks for helping with that one, I've been struggling to find the vocabulary to respond to Kim, but I think you got most of what I was after there.

I also think that the changes over the years have not necessarily been development for 'better', but to reduce manufacturing costs. This is something that all manufacturing does. It's certainly clear that in many areas, quality is reduced to a point where it works, but only just (look at the early X-S1 lenses and sensors).

Click to expand...

With Fuji we have a dramatic improvement in low light performance coupled with a dramatic improvement in dynamic range handling.

You're right, that was all done to make the cameras cheaper.

Andy Hewitt said:

Even though we do have the better DR, and ISO performances, they are not the whole picture (sorry), other areas have not improved, the way colours are represented, images can look 'flat' in comparison, and as you say, detail seems to be messed up now.

Click to expand...

This is all down to skills. You either know how to set up your camera (or perform your own processing of raw images) or you don't. You either know how to handle much higher resolution sensors, or you don't. Higher skill is needed as resolution increases.

Andy Hewitt said:

Regardless of ISO performance, I still shoot at the lowest I can, because detail will suffer as soon as its increased.

Click to expand...

True. As do I. In fact you are defining auto ISO ...

But here is the thing ... if you go into a dark place and try to capture images that are not blurred, you need the highest ISOs. And that is where modern cameras stomp cameras of only a half decade past ...

Andy Hewitt said:

When you look at how ISO performance is improved, it's not only sensor technology that is used, but processing algorithms as well - even on Raw images (this was found on Canon DSLR cameras some years ago).

Click to expand...

Software improves. This is true. For example sharpening algorithms, which are needed to help compensate for the additional blur and diffraction caused by high resolution and lack of skills at capture.

Andy Hewitt said:

The problem I have is that all the dialogue regarding new models, better this, better that, makes me feel I should discard all my old photos because they don't meet a minimum standard.

Click to expand...

That fatuous statement defines hyperbole, and of course you didn't really mean it ...

alexisgreat said:

Yes, you should see my post about the quality of CCD sensors at base ISO in terms of detail retention and maximizing the resolution of tack sharp lenses of upper echelon compacts of the past like the Nikon 990 and Olympus 7070 and 8080.

Click to expand...

Now explain why you no longer shoot the 990.

I own one, and thus I know why I don't shoot it. Ever. But I'm curious why you don't.

Kim Letkeman said:

Andy Hewitt said:

alexisgreat said:

I also think that the changes over the years have not necessarily been development for 'better', but to reduce manufacturing costs. This is something that all manufacturing does. It's certainly clear that in many areas, quality is reduced to a point where it works, but only just (look at the early X-S1 lenses and sensors).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

With Fuji we have a dramatic improvement in low light performance coupled with a dramatic improvement in dynamic range handling.

You're right, that was all done to make the cameras cheaper.

Click to expand...

But, you're concentrating on a couple of features, and not looking at the whole thing. Yeah, OK DR has indeed been improved (although not in a single shot sensor, trickery is needed to attain it), and ISO seems to be improved too, but they cuts corners elsewhere and resulted in the orbs issue, and poor build quality of the lens, and perhaps also reduced quality elsewhere too - such as with the speed of AF, or the quality of the IS.

There's no doubt they'll have wanted to promote, and show off their wonderful EXR technology, and I wouldn't doubt the R&D on that sensor wasn't cheap. To keep the cost of the camera reasonable, costs will have to be cut somewhere.

Kim Letkeman said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Even though we do have the better DR, and ISO performances, they are not the whole picture (sorry), other areas have not improved, the way colours are represented, images can look 'flat' in comparison, and as you say, detail seems to be messed up now.

Click to expand...

This is all down to skills. You either know how to set up your camera (or perform your own processing of raw images) or you don't. You either know how to handle much higher resolution sensors, or you don't. Higher skill is needed as resolution increases.

Click to expand...

If that's true, then it proves my original point - all the new technology is not helping anyone produce better pictures.

Kim Letkeman said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Regardless of ISO performance, I still shoot at the lowest I can, because detail will suffer as soon as its increased.

Click to expand...

True. As do I. In fact you are defining auto ISO ...

But here is the thing ... if you go into a dark place and try to capture images that are not blurred, you need the highest ISOs. And that is where modern cameras stomp cameras of only a half decade past ...

Click to expand...

Perhaps so. Although I still find the noise levels higher than I'd want, and the differences simply aren't magical.

Kim Letkeman said:

Kim Letkeman said:

When you look at how ISO performance is improved, it's not only sensor technology that is used, but processing algorithms as well - even on Raw images (this was found on Canon DSLR cameras some years ago).

Click to expand...

Software improves. This is true. For example sharpening algorithms, which are needed to help compensate for the additional blur and diffraction caused by high resolution and lack of skills at capture.

Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're dying there.

Kim Letkeman said:

Kim Letkeman said:

The problem I have is that all the dialogue regarding new models, better this, better that, makes me feel I should discard all my old photos because they don't meet a minimum standard.

Click to expand...

That fatuous statement defines hyperbole, and of course you didn't really mean it ...

Click to expand...

That is so. However, I do note that many discussions can often get a little narrow minded in some areas, and this does actually make my statement have a feeling of truth to me.

Andy Hewitt said:

Kim Letkeman said:

Andy Hewitt said:

alexisgreat said:

I also think that the changes over the years have not necessarily been development for 'better', but to reduce manufacturing costs. This is something that all manufacturing does. It's certainly clear that in many areas, quality is reduced to a point where it works, but only just (look at the early X-S1 lenses and sensors).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

With Fuji we have a dramatic improvement in low light performance coupled with a dramatic improvement in dynamic range handling.

You're right, that was all done to make the cameras cheaper.

Click to expand...

But, you're concentrating on a couple of features,

Click to expand...

You complain about image quality not advancing and I name two of the most significant factors in image quality that have dramatically improved and you complain that I only named two? That's actually pretty funny.

Andy Hewitt said:

and not looking at the whole thing. Yeah, OK DR has indeed been improved (although not in a single shot sensor, trickery is needed to attain it),

Click to expand...

It is technology, not trickery. You may not understand how it works, but that does not mean that it is therefore some sort of "magic".

Andy Hewitt said:

and ISO seems to be improved too,

Click to expand...

Seems?

Andy Hewitt said:

but they cuts corners elsewhere and resulted in the orbs issue,

Click to expand...

On one sensor. So what. And they have improved it on newer versions.

Andy Hewitt said:

and poor build quality of the lens,

Click to expand...

Which lens? The X10 and X-S1 have magnificently sharp lenses. The F550 and newer have excellent lenses. There are sample issues, but then there always are with Fuji. So what.

Andy Hewitt said:

and perhaps also reduced quality elsewhere too - such as with the speed of AF, or the quality of the IS.

Click to expand...

Have you got any data to back this up? Sounds to me like you are just playing the troll's greatest hits.

Andy Hewitt said:

There's no doubt they'll have wanted to promote, and show off their wonderful EXR technology, and I wouldn't doubt the R&D on that sensor wasn't cheap. To keep the cost of the camera reasonable, costs will have to be cut somewhere.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation. Do you work in hardware or software design? I do.

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Even though we do have the better DR, and ISO performances, they are not the whole picture (sorry), other areas have not improved, the way colours are represented, images can look 'flat' in comparison, and as you say, detail seems to be messed up now.

Click to expand...

This is all down to skills. You either know how to set up your camera (or perform your own processing of raw images) or you don't. You either know how to handle much higher resolution sensors, or you don't. Higher skill is needed as resolution increases.

Click to expand...

If that's true, then it proves my original point - all the new technology is not helping anyone produce better pictures.

Click to expand...

You are wiggling around like an eel in heat with your shifting sand anecdotal opinions ...

It does not prove your point. Unless your point is that you "don't want no stinkin' skills."

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Regardless of ISO performance, I still shoot at the lowest I can, because detail will suffer as soon as its increased.

Click to expand...

True. As do I. In fact you are defining auto ISO ...

But here is the thing ... if you go into a dark place and try to capture images that are not blurred, you need the highest ISOs. And that is where modern cameras stomp cameras of only a half decade past ...

Click to expand...

Perhaps so.

Click to expand...

Take it to the bank.

Andy Hewitt said:

Although I still find the noise levels higher than I'd want, and the differences simply aren't magical.

Click to expand...

As I said ... I shot excellent dSLRs in 2005 that struggled somewhat at 1600 ISO and I've shot smaller sensors recently that shoot cleaner at 6400 ISO. That's a superb advancement.

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

When you look at how ISO performance is improved, it's not only sensor technology that is used, but processing algorithms as well - even on Raw images (this was found on Canon DSLR cameras some years ago).

Click to expand...

Software improves. This is true. For example sharpening algorithms, which are needed to help compensate for the additional blur and diffraction caused by high resolution and lack of skills at capture.

Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're dying there.

Click to expand...

I assume you meant saying ... although I acknowledge the Freudian slip.

I am saying that people complain that the older sensors were sharper because they look sharper when pixel peeping. But it is well known that current sensors have much higher pixel densities which put a very high demand on skills. And if you don't have'em, then you are more likely to complain.

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

Andy Hewitt said:

The problem I have is that all the dialogue regarding new models, better this, better that, makes me feel I should discard all my old photos because they don't meet a minimum standard.

Click to expand...

That fatuous statement defines hyperbole, and of course you didn't really mean it ...

Click to expand...

That is so. However, I do note that many discussions can often get a little narrow minded in some areas, and this does actually make my statement have a feeling of truth to me.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole thread is a study in wistful anecdote instead of evidence or science, so I suppose that's fair ...

It's awful above ISO 100. Seriously, even ISO 200 is bad. Blows highlights too readily. The swivel body Coolpix series never got that low light AF assist lamp that everyone wanted so, yup, AF was godawful in low light. That wonderful macro mode was hit and miss as far as focusing was concerned- even with the Macro Cool Light. The camera was great for daytime stills photography, IR, and of course astro when coupled to a telescope, and it had that long exposure (true) Bulb mode..... as did the Coolpix 4500 which I upgraded to (went from 1 min to 5 min, added dark frame subtraction, but the lens was not as sharp.)

*another big (lack of) feature for me was that you couldn't adjust exposure in 1/3 steps in manual mode.....only full stops!

Also 38mm is way too much for the wide end.

I dont blame Nikon for the limited DR and tendency to blow highlights, that wonderful 28mm threaded lens reached its limit with what it could do.

On the positive side, I loved Best Shot Selector, but any little movement and the whole image was blurry.

I also got all the converter lenses but could never really get sharp images out of them.

I still use the Olympus C-7070 because of its raft of new features and much better AF performance, but I use the newer Fujis much more than that.

I'll post some of my favorite CP-990 and CP-4500 pics in a bit. You'll notice they're all taken under basically the same conditions.

--
https://supermanalexthegreat.shutterfly.com/

Yes I agree, actually these new cameras give us more latitude for processing so we can get more detail out of the images...... the lower resolution sensors just did not give us that much more room for improvement.

From what I remember about shooting with the CP-990 back in 2000-2002 and the CP-4500 from 2002-2005 is that under very specific circumstances it gave excellent results (daytime conditions, but not too harsh, ISO 100, still life), but both cameras had a pretty narrow comfort zone.