Image Quality: Is newer better?

I good motto is:  "Do not upgrade unless you've outgrown your camera's capabilities." So I don't jump onto a new model just because it adds one insignificant function to what I already have. Until its recent accidental death I've used a Powershot A-630 as my walk-around camera and it had always rewarded me with excellent image quality. Granted, I don't do any low-light photography and on the rare occasion that I do I use a tripod.

So the 630 died. I've read a lot of reviews about the new models, such as the SX40 and 50, the G12/15, and G1X, as well as the Panasonic FZ 150 and Nikon CP7700. In these reviews there is talk about CMOS vs CCD sensors, and the purportedly improved image quality, but the sample shots, (especially those of the shelf full of dolls and wine bottles) don't really jump out as "WOW!"

I never had an issue with the IQ I got out of the 630, so I don't see the need  to spend the extra several hundred on the latest model, when on a good day a used A630-640-650 model (all highly acclaimed and much beloved by their users) can be had for around $100.

So my question is to those who've made the upgrade from similar models to a current one in the same class: Disregarding camera function and features, and considering only the image quality: is there a clearly visible improvement?

I do not have the answers, but sure am interested in what others say about this.  My guess is that IQ has NOT improved as much as inclusion of other non-IQ improvements have improved.  And to me IQ has always been #1 in importance.  I'm not a good enough photographer to blame my equipment over my ability.  If it's not a good shot, it's usually me that is to blame.

If you want an inexpensive 630 replacement, why not go for a used S90.

BobT wrote:

I do not have the answers, but sure am interested in what others say about this. My guess is that IQ has NOT improved as much as inclusion of other non-IQ improvements have improved. And to me IQ has always been #1 in importance. I'm not a good enough photographer to blame my equipment over my ability. If it's not a good shot, it's usually me that is to blame.

Well said Bob. Mature and sensible.  I wish more people realised this about cameras.

Hi Joe,

Image quality?.......simply put, no...not noticeably better. I bought a G11 just before my A610 died and was able to do some comparisons......only after careful scrutinizing of the corners of 100% crops at ISO100 did I observe a slight difference of contrast and sharpness.

However, the big difference was in being able to consistently nail shots I couldn't even attempt before.........the features, i.e., IS, high ISO, AF, resolution, build, etc., were greatly improved.......

IQ is a broad issue and can't be divorced from all other aspects such as software.  Overall, IQ has very slightly improved as has hardware.  My old S2is was replaced with a SX10is which was a step up in many ways.  My current SX40hs barely out performs the 10 and in some respects was a step backwards.  I believe, if one didn't go for very large prints, that there has been no improvement in actual photo quality, viewed on current monitors,  over the past 8 years.

Going from CCD to CMOS sensors and extending zoom ranges didn't add 'quality' and in fact without software correction there could be a deficit.  The whole package has to be considered and all I can say is that I will skip past the next and likely the one after that.

Look, this is a hardware geeks' forum, so there is a strong pre-disposition among this population to conclude that newer is better (if for no other reason than to self-justify the commentor's latest purchase). Also you need to factor your use and needs versus others.

That said, there is a general improvement in the sensors, so, generally, newer is better.

BUT there is a world of difference (well, okay, two-plus stops worth) in the DR and ISO capabilities of larger-sensored cameras versus 1/2.3 or 1/1.7 sensored digicams. m4/3s, Nikon 1s, or Canon's G1x or new M, various Fuji models and others are all equipped with sensors at least six-plus times larger than digicams. You cannot cheat Gawd; that area difference (at a given technology level) always has benefits; the "bit buckets" are simply bigger and more accurate. These cameras also generally let you shoot raw, which is another stop or so of DR, and opens much greater flexibility in post-processing.

How does that show up, exactly, in your photos? Outdoors it means skies actually have color; shadows or low light have tonal scale, not pixelated noise. Enlargements -- and cropping -- are much easier to make with acceptable detail and noise control. There is a reason people choose to carry dSLRs (well, other than vanity); the larger sensors have real photographic benefits.

If you take your photography at all seriously and chafe at the limitations that i mentioned, i would at least look into some of the newer, bigger sensored, options. Many Oly and Panasonic m4/3 models, or the Canon models, are only modestly larger than digicams. There is a weight penalty, but it is still nothing like a dSLR and you may find it modest.  Heck, if you carefully choose a two-year-old model being remaindered, it may not even be more expensive than a better digicam.

If you are happy with the images that you get and, for example, mainly shoot to share pictures on the net (for example), than i would say replace it.  But there are good reasons to consider options to small sensored digicams.

In bright light, and with enough time, you won't see a big image improvement.  However, modern cameras do much, much better at higher ISO's, are faster to start and recover, and have loads of neat features like onboard HDR and Panorama.  They make getting good pictures easier most of the time and possible at times that were impossible with older cameras.

Does one need to upgrade every model.  Clearly not.  But, if the speed, or features of newer cameras is something that would make your photographing experience better, than, yes, they are better.

Generally, yes, if the equipment determines the IQ. It's a matter of technological progress. My first serious digicam had a 2 megapixel sensor and showed appreciable noise if shooting at ISO 200. These days I use 10-12 megapixel P&S cameras which let me shoot at very high ISOs and achieve usable results.

It's a matter of time. Comparing a 2002 digicam to a 2012 model, great strides have been made. Comparisons over a shorter time like 2010 to 2012 show smaller differences; but differences there are.

Is there a discernable difference?  If you're shooting in reasonable light at lower ISO, and viewed full screen or in letter size prints, the answer is NO.  My wife's 7 MP A710IS takes lovely photos with better DR than my 10 MP G7 did.  It is also cleaner at ISO 800.  In turn the G7 was sharper and produced more fine detail than my G11 or G12 and was close to the 12 MP G9.  The A630 would do just as well or better than the A710IS, so long as you don't need IS.  We're getting up in years and my wife's hands shake, so she absolutely needs IS.

I loved my S3IS and S5IS; but the chromatic aberration was really strong in high contrast shots.  The Panasonic FZ150 is no sharper; but has CA correction built in and a lens that's a bit slower than the S5IS.  It also has less noise at higher ISO, a better EVF and a much better LCD.

Four years ago my wife and I visited the Galapagos Islands.  This year we went back.  In 2008 I brought the S5IS, G7, and SD870IS, and my wife's A710IS.  In 2012 we took the FZ200, SX230HS, and S90, and my wife's A710IS.  After we got home, I compared the images from the two trips that were taken under similar conditions.   The FZ200 is no sharper than the S5IS, provided CA doesn't intrude and that's a matter of lighting conditions.  But the FZ200 does better in low light and goes much longer and much wider and has much better EVF and LCD.  The S90 is much better than the SD870IS in low light and has greater DR in daylight.  But that's why I bought the S90.  The SX230HS is as good as the G7; but so is the A710IS.  The SX230HS really scores on size and weight, and by going wider and much longer.  I also used it a lot more often than the G7.

For a real eye opener I found an old Nikon 950 I still had and tried to use it a few years ago...OMG!!!  Slow as molasses start up.  Focus hunting.  Shutter lag.  Over sharpened jpegs with poor color.  Horrible shutter lag.  Yet, when I had that camera I loved it.

Certainly there have been periods where cameras have not dramatically gotten better...or even got worse a following generation, like when consumers and manufacturers chased megapixels or when manufacturers release a cost reduced model, but overall, there has been a HUGE improvement in the capability of these cameras.

Sensors have gotten better...much better in low light.

Optics have gotten better with computer designs and special coatings.

Processors have gotten faster and algorithms smarter yielding better focus lock speeds and features like smart focus that will recognize and eye and get perfect focus on it.

Personally, I'm loving what manufacturers are doing with smaller formats.  I was photographing less and less because I got weary of hauling all that heavy equipment around.  I've rediscovered it again, with cameras that can fit in my coat pocket.

averagjoe wrote:

For the record I also have a DSLR with a full complement of primary as well as zoom lenses, and am well aware of the benefits of larger sensors. But that's not the camera I'm looking to replace. Thus the interest in feedback about higher end P&S units.

Joe --

well then, i would say that maybe the G1x is for you!  Well, as your tote-along Powershot replacement, and complement to your dSLR kit, and for when you don't need the flexibility of your lenses, flash system, etc., it would function well.  You already have interchangeable lens flexibility, so m4/3s wouldn't buy you much, and you are accustomed to Powershot ergonomics.

I note that in their detailed review of the G1x DXO reports that the G1x's sensor has precisely the pixel-level performance of current Canon APS dSLRs.  It is not quite the best of both worlds, however:  it has Powershot ergonomics in all their glory, for better or worse (e.g., slow focus, dorky optical finder, forever shot-to-shot).

And . . . the economist in me begs to note that they are heavily discounted just now.  A skoosh over $500 by my casual review; this Nikon shooter picked one up a month ago from Adorama for $400 (after rebate) . . . with a three year-old Pro9000 printer being remaindered . . .

What's not to like?

averagjoe wrote:

So my question is to those who've made the upgrade from similar models to a current one in the same class: Disregarding camera function and features, and considering only the image quality: is there a clearly visible improvement?

IMO, I have to say Yes. Usually 1 to 2 generation difference might be a minor upgrade but depending on the company, they might do a major overhaul on a model line.