# Using a ten year old camera?



## timmermannen (Jan 22, 2016)

Hi, I have just taken out my old camera for use again, it is a canon powershot IS S2 5Mpixel and it must be ten years old by now. I would like to pick up photographing once again and now I wonder, how much have the technology for cameras improved in ten years?
Would it be such a big difference to buy a new camera that I should unhesitately do it or is the difference reasonably not that big so I can tag along with my old one a little while longer?
Would the picture quality be super-lousy compared to a camera of today?

Here is a pic I took with the camera yesterday in the beautiful Swedish winter we have atm.
Thanks for any advice,
Andreas


----------



## tirediron (Jan 22, 2016)

The thing to remember about old gear is that it's only old now.  Once, it was the cutting edge of technology, and the thing everyone wanted, and that the reviews were gushing over for its outstanding quality!  In other words, it's as good now as it ever was.  Has camera technology improved?  Absolutely, by many orders of magnitude, but so what?  Do you need that technology?  Probably not, at least not right away.  Your camera has both automatic and manual modes, as well as a decent zoom range.  IMO, it's ideal for 'getting back into it' and if you find that your skills grow to the point where the camera can't keep up?  THEN is when you buy a replacment.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 22, 2016)

The big thing you will find that you want, if you really start back up, is more instantaneous response. I see specs on that camera of about .7 seconds between shutter off to full press and getting a picture. If you half-press to focus, then full press, the half press is still half a second. The one that hurts is shot-to-shot is 1.6 seconds.

You'll find yourself wanting the image to take NOW instead of half a second from now. Shots are missed in that amount of time. And you'll find yourself wanting several consecutive shots inside a second.

Doing that will mean spending money. Shoot a bit, decide if you like the results. If you get frustrated, determine if it's the results or the equipment that causes the frustration. If it's worth it to you to improve your equipment, you'll know in a little while.

I was _so_ happy when I moved from the Sony point-and-shoot to a Nikon D50 (replacing my film camera,) and the D50 is a camera I wouldn't be caught dead with now.


----------



## timmermannen (Jan 23, 2016)

Great answers, thanks!
I am thinking mostly about quality of the pictures, if the lenses have improved a lot so it would be quite disappointing shooting a lot of pictures now and then find out they would have been a lot much of better quality if I had had a new camera...?


----------



## petrochemist (Jan 23, 2016)

Shutter lag was never noticeable with my old DSLR (~2005) but newer cameras cope MUCH better at low light levels, they also invariably have higher resolution (more MP) but unless cropping I've never found that an issue. 6MP is perfectly adequate for A4 & 10x8 printing.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 23, 2016)

Taking picture when its bright outside and camera is working very easy is not really a way to compare new to old cameras.
Test it at home where light is minimal and your current camera that can go as high as 400ISO max will not be able to produce nice images of the kids running around.
So in perfect lighting condition your camera is ok, in all other lighting condition modern cameras especially with APS-C and FF sensors will leave it far, far, far in the dust behind.


----------



## KmH (Jan 23, 2016)

The quality of the photographs any camera can produce is mostly about the skill and knowledge of the photographer.
In the case of a 10 year old DSLR camera the photographer just needs to use the camera with in the camera's capabilities.
Light direction and quality are key aspects of making quality photographs. Bright mid-day light outside usually is from to high an angle and has less than good light quality because the Sun is an apparently small light source.

I made these photos with a 10 year old consumer grade camera and a lens at least 17 years old.
The light was way far from being perfect so I had to use a high ISO setting.
1600 ISO photos


----------



## Peeb (Jan 23, 2016)

I can't believe it's been 10 years since the Nikon D40 came out, but yes the state of the art has progressed so much since then that it's difficult to believe.

Have lenses improved that much?  No.  Physics are physics.  Your posted pic is a wonderful shot, and proof that a 10 year old camera can capture lovely images.  

Still, when I moved up from the 2006 D40 to the 2015 D5500, the advancements made my head swim- I was just giddy with the possibilities!  I could still adequately shoot with a 2006 camera, but I am SO happy to have the benefits of the ensuing tech.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 23, 2016)

The most common problem with any electronic component pulled from a decade long storage situation is dis-use is actually much harder on electronics than is constant use.  Lubricants begin to dry up when they have been placed in storage and electronic parts can drift to the point of failure.  Somewhat surprisingly, failure doesn't typically occur on first use but waits for awhile ( a few weeks is common)  before the old gear simply shows it age and its lack of attention over time.



Now, your camera may work indefinitely or not so indefinitely.  No one can predict such things.

Your camera is/was, however, a less expensive compact from Canon's line of products.  How do you build a less expensive product?  By using less expensive parts usually.  Expensive parts don't necessarily equate to longevity since higher quality typically comes with tighter tolerances and, at times, it is quite literally the "slop" of lower tolerances that assists older components in staying together.

So, IMO use your camera for now but look for something newer and more up to date in the future.   The issues of rather slow  auto-focus speeds have been mentioned.  Newer cameras respond much more rapidly and accurately to your input.  That can mean the difference between getting the shot and not.  And, certainly, with a long shutter lag after pressing the release, camera shake is all too common.  Camera shake results in blurred images.

The image file format used by your camera is ten year old technology Jpeg.  If you get serious about your photography, you probably wouldn't use Jpeg files.  The "compressed" nature of a Jpeg file means the camera has controlled a good deal of your final image quality and you are left with little to do to make corrections or improvements to the image.

Jpegs created with today's technology are generally considered to be adequate for posting shots on the web or on social media.  Smart phones today shoot in Jpeg.  Most smart phones of today would have higher quality file management than your current camera is capable of producing.

Seldom would a "serious" photographer print from their camera's Jpeg file.  Therefore, when you go hunting for a new camera, be on the look out for a model that includes "RAW" capture as a file format.



The LCD screen on your present compact is very small and the image quality displayed via the LCD is not so great due to a fairly low pixel count.  This is another area where a modern smart phone would provide higher quality than you are getting from this camera.  The tiny screen and low resolution image makes judging your shots rather difficult compared to the larger LCD's of today with considerably higher resolution.  That applies to a phone's camera or a modern DSLR/compact.  And, there are several modern, somewhat less expensive "compact" cameras that can turn out very high quality images, even in low light conditions.



The fixed lens on your older compact does answer a lot of your question whether cameras and lenses have improved over time.

First, with a single fixed lens, you may find you are never quite capable of finding the desired focal length for the shot you see in your head.  Whether you wish to get in very close or shoot at great distances, these are the limitations of your current camera; it won't do either well.  And you are rather "stuck" with that one single lens for either style of photography.



Second, you are using a digital camera.  Consider where other digital products were at the time of your camera's design and where they are now.  I can't think of any digital product that is built today that isn't faster and "more powerful" than a similar component from a decade prior.  To your camera this means, yes, today's digital cameras have come a long way in improving image quality.  Digital cameras rely on "error correction" circuits just as a digital music player would.    The more powerful digital circuits found in today's cameras makes the camera and the lens less prone to errors occurring in the final image.



Now, just as I can't predict what you consider to be sufficient image quality, I can't say whether you will immediately notice any difference in a photo shot with your current camera and a brand new DSLR.

As with digital audio components, it is often a matter of experience with the "better" product which informs the user of the limitations of older and less expensive equipment.  But, technically, yes, I would say today's digital cameras, even on the lower end of the price range, have come a long way since your camera was designed.  

My guess would be, if you took some photos with more colorful subjects filling more of the frame and then you blew those images up on your computer monitor, you would begin to see the limitations of your camera in both color accuracy and in image sharpness once you looked beyond the center of the frame.  Corner to corner sharpness and color resolution are the result of today's more powerful digital circuitry.



In the end, however, these are only technical considerations and good photography comes more from the photographer than from the gear.

Your current camera is perfectly acceptable for use in establishing, first, your continued interest in photography.  Not everyone who picks up a camera sticks with it.  There are rules and techniques to master and some people find them to be burdensome.  There's little point in investing in another camera if it will end up sitting as long as your current camera has.



Your current camera has a sufficient amount of user control which can be exploited to move you away from simply shooting every image in full automatic mode.   The TV and Av modes are where a more imaginative photographer will spend most of their time with their camera.

Many photographers have a difficult time grappling with composition and exposure values.  Your present camera is adequate for "composition" lessons.

If you do not get frustrated by the equipment's ability to place in a frame what you see in your head as "the shot", then you are on a good road to learning composition.

Exposure is covered adequately for now by your camera's Av and Tv modes.   You can begin to learn the basics with your camera.

As mentioned ISO values - those higher values you would require for low light photography - are far superior in today's cameras.  The "exposure triangle" all photographers must use relies on the ability of the equipment to raise ISO values in certain conditions.  Nudge your current camera upward even slightly and you will begin to see digital noise occurring in your shots.    This noise will be ever more evident as you increase the size of the display or print.  This is yet another area where a modern smart phone will out do you current Canon.

Therefore, use your present camera as the learning tool you have at your disposal.   Most of what makes a photograph interesting can be accomplished with this camera.

And "new" doesn't necessarily mean it will be the best for you.

Do your research and gather ideas regarding what is important to you and your "style" of photography.  If you stick with this, you will certainly want a more advanced camera.

You can then keep using this one as a day to day carry around that will be with you when the shot appears.  Better to carry a less expensive version of a camera around for that than to always haul out the big guns.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 23, 2016)

I've seen two responses about 10-year-old dSLRs, but his ten-year-old is a compact, not a dSLR. It's much better than a basic point-and-shoot, but it ain't no D40, even.


----------



## Peeb (Jan 23, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> I've seen two responses about 10-year-old dSLRs, but his ten-year-old is a compact, not a dSLR. It's much better than a basic point-and-shoot, but it ain't no D40, even.


True, dat.  I've never owned the OP's camera, so I just gave him the best answer my experience (the D40) could supply.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Jan 23, 2016)

I still have my first digital camera from about ten years ago. It's a fuji bridge camera. The jpegs that come out of this thing are so good, I'll shoot with it any day.


----------



## wfooshee (Jan 24, 2016)

My first digital was a 5-MP Sony which came out in early 2003, and it took almost 2 seconds sometimes to shoot after pressing the button! It had wonderful IQ, though, and hooked me on the feedback of the screen vs the waiting for film to come back.


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 24, 2016)

I LOVED my Sony 7.2MP!  It took beautiful pictures right up until the day my wife knocked it off the table.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 24, 2016)

Only recently did I switch to a XE-1 from my a700, which is about 10 years old as well. With older gear you do have to be more mindful of noise, but really, that's about all that I notice. There are some really nice, very useable cameras from this time period that going for well under what they're probably worth. Canon 5D, Sony a700, Nikon D300 and D2 and so on...


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 25, 2016)

General rule of thumb: Advancements in image quality have been less and less in every generation.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 25, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> General rule of thumb: Advancements in image quality have been less and less in every generation.






All this love for "old" stuff! 

None of it applies to the op's ten year old Canon compact but, if that's what makes you feel better ...


Regarding the above quote, my guess is there is no solid data which would verify that claim.  Not, that is, unless we began at the point where someone said, "Look! I have the world's first digital image!" 

True, from there, once digital cameras were introduced to the consumer, things progressed rather rapidly for the first few years and then began to taper off in the speed with which we recognized true "advancements" in image quality. 

That rather begs the question though, what is an advancement? 

Is the move from 18 megapixels to 20 megapixels all that important to image quality? 

Or, is the move to a 0.1 second shutter lag an advancement over the 0.5 second shutter lag of the op's camera? 

Which is more likely to impact a student photographer's results? 



The rules of physics dictating the operation of a lens have been well understood for most of the last century.  Yet, it is the advances in modern computer aided manufacturing which make many of those rules a reality and not just theories on paper.  

It is the speed with which modern digital circuits operate which gives us the ability to actually question what we had previously accepted as "adequate". 

Therefore, what is an "advancement"? 

IMO it is often the dawning realization that further advancements are required. 


One poster suggested they would be very happy to settle for the Jpegs produced by their ten year old Fuji camera. 

Well, yes, - and I say this from a point of being somewhat ignorant of the Fuji systems since I've never owned a Fuji camera - my understanding is you would just about have to be satisfied with the Fuji Jpegs since most modern image processing software doesn't accept Fuji's interpretation of RAW capture.  

You're rather left with no choice other than accepting what Fuji has provided as "normal".

That fact, of course, does not negate the fact the Jpeg images from any camera are largely controlled by the camera's internal systems.  This means any camera's Jpegs are eventually going to be less the product of the photographer and more the product of the manufacturer's algorithms. 

Is it really an advancement to take away vital decisions made by the photographer?   

Not to mention the obvious issue of the vintage Canon being discussed by the op is not a Fuji.  Apples to horses.



We seem to be drifting further and further away from assisting the op and more and more into self love for what we once had. 



Returning to the above quote, IMO it is not a matter of how many degrees of "advancement" have occurred within a "generation" of cameras.  It is a matter of whether or not the cumulative advancements of the camera system, including mechanical items such as shutter lag and file storage capacity, are deemed useful to the improvement of the (student) photographer's results. 

To that end, given the choice of shooting with my nine year old Canon DSLR or my one year old Canon compact/bridge, I'll take the advancements of the more recent camera any day. 

YMMV


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 25, 2016)

I found these from a real old DSLR. Pics were good in the right lighting situation. Sony DSC H2 from 2006, I think. Still have it, tried to give it away but no response from poster on here.  These could have come out even better if I knew what I was doing at the time. I had the camera set in Sport mode. Still not too bad considering the settings. 

#1 Jim "Smokes" Leyand, Detroit Tigers Skipper, Spring Training in 2007



 

#2 Leyaland and his good friend, the late Don Zimmer (died 6-2015). 


 

#3 Brandon Inge adjusting the package.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 25, 2016)

soufiej said:


> None of it applies to the op's ten year old Canon compact but, if that's what makes you feel better ...



That is true, and I agree that older consumer cameras are probably insufficient; however, many professionals did use digital cameras ten years ago. What demands do photographers have today that they didn't ten years ago? What exactly has changed in our environment that makes today's DSLRs so essential?




> Regarding the above quote, my guess is there is no solid data which would verify that claim.  Not, that is, unless we began at the point where someone said, "Look! I have the world's first digital image!"



You're probably right on this front. Looking at apples to apples DXO scores in the last ten years the improvements have been pretty consistent progressive.



> That rather begs the question though, what is an advancement?



However, speaking in terms of image quality alone the improvement according to DXO Mark is largely nominal. Though, the marks from ten years ago to today on "high end" compacts have improved dramatically in the few years following 2007.



> The rules of physics dictating the operation of a lens have been well understood for most of the last century.  Yet, it is the advances in modern computer aided manufacturing which make many of those rules a reality and not just theories on paper.



I do not think there has been any significant improvement in CAD/CAM in the last ten years. Perhaps compact lens optimizations have been improved some, I can see that, but in general I do not think you can really say a ten year old lens will perform any better than a two year old lens.



> It is the speed with which modern digital circuits operate which gives us the ability to actually question what we had previously accepted as "adequate".



Again, these cameras were adequate ten years ago for many subjects and circumstances. In fact, photojournalists have some of the most demanding requirements, and they were the ones to adopt digital before anyone else. If an AP photographer could "deal" with a Nikon D2x in 2007, a flagship that now can be found for the same price as those goofy, over-priced "advanced compacts", I'm pretty sure it will meet the needs of most serious hobbyists today.



> IMO it is often the dawning realization that further advancements are required.



I don't think anyone is saying that advancement isn't required and inevitable to push forward the craft. However, I also do not think it is neccesary, nor even prudent, to get the "latest" low-end DSLR either. Many of the higher end DSLRs from a few, even more than a few years back will offer a much more.



> most modern image processing software doesn't accept Fuji's interpretation of RAW capture.



This isn't so much true anymore. While xtrans raws had some initial difficulty, this has been largely addressed, furthermore it was never an issue that software "couldn't" process the images, it was only that they didn't do a very good job at it.

Regardless, this problem is largely a thing of the past.




> To that end, given the choice of shooting with my nine year old Canon DSLR or my one year old Canon compact/bridge, I'll take the advancements of the more recent camera any day.



It completely depends on the DSLR. A 30D or 1000D, this is probably true. But the 7D enjoyed a six year life cycle and still has a high resale value. I am pretty sure that a beat-up 7D  would out-perform your sparkly new "bridge" camera in almost every way.

Honestly, if I had $300 to spend, it'd be on a a 10 year old 1D mkii N or D2x, not some "advanced compact" baloney.


----------



## timmermannen (Jan 28, 2016)

This has been great info, thanks! I will stick to the oldie for a while and upgrade when I have appropiate amount of money.
One advantage with the old camera that has not been mentioned, and frankly in my opinion I think its quite a good advantage, is that I dont have to be very careful about this camera, either for bumps or for thieves, as it is not worth anything. That is quite a good relief when out in the fields....


----------



## soufiej (Jan 28, 2016)

unpopular said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > None of it applies to the op's ten year old Canon compact but, if that's what makes you feel better ...
> ...






Thanks for that!  

I always feel as though I am the POTUS or, at the least, the Secretary of State when someone dissects every syllable I've posted.   

It makes me feel so important for those few minutes I spend reading such responses.  

Of course, then I realize how silly they are.




_"What demands do photographers have today that they didn't ten years ago? What exactly has changed in our environment that makes today's DSLRs so essential?"_

I believe you've answered your own question with this statement, _" ... the marks from ten years ago to today on "high end" compacts have improved dramatically in the few years following 2007."_

Demands?  

To paraphrase the song, "Demands?  I've had a few.  But then again ... "

I can't answer what "demands" any one other than I have made on my camera.  

Can you?  



I never said the two year old lens itself would by necessity "operate better" than a ten year old lens.  

I believe I said the manufacturing techniques of today have improved the manufacturing quality of today's lens.  Particularly when it comes to single, fixed lens systems.   

Do you seriously think today's manufacturers have not been improving in their quality control?  That today's manufacturers do not have a more complete understanding and implementation of values and systems which affect image quality?

What exactly do you think they have been doing for the last decade?  Yes, they've turned out a lot of totally useless features in many cases.   But, you don't think they've improved some things in terms of actual image quality? 

I also mentioned it is the digital correction circuit of the camera itself that would allow greater fidelity to the source due to the faster processing speeds allowed by today's digital circuits.  

If that isn't what I said, let me know.  I'll 'splain it to ya.


Photojournalists really liked the instant feedback provided by a digital DSLR.  The rest  of your argument here has little to nothing to do with whether the op should be content with their ten year old Canon compact.  



So on and so on.



Thanks for taking my post so seriously that it required such minute dissection.  

The op seems happy with the answers we've provided.  



If you care to use your ten year old camera, do so.  I am not a badge carrying member of the photographer's secret police squad and I won't tell anyone what you're up to.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 28, 2016)

uhm. was I just snarked at for responding to a post??


----------



## tirediron (Jan 28, 2016)

I'm confused... WHO cares if the camera is ten years old; does it do the job the photographer requires?  I still regularily use a D700 and that's coming up on 10 years old now.  Why? Because it works, and produces the results that meed my needs.  I have other, newer bodies, but the D700 stills see quite a bit of regular use, and will continue to.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 28, 2016)

unpopular said:


> uhm. was I just snarked at for responding to a post??






For someone with 8700 posts here, you seem to have a low "snark quotient".

Really, it's simply that as soon as someone begins taking apart another post sentence by sentence, it never goes well on a forum.  

You have your points and I have mine.  




I still love the old TV Western with Walter Brennan long after his Real McCoy days and his time spent as John Wayne's no longer quick on the draw sidekick.  

I don't know if you remember The Guns of Will Sonnet but the most remembered quote from that show was Brennan's, "No brag, just fact".  

You have your points and I have mine.  No snark, just fact.


----------



## timmermannen (Jan 29, 2016)

tirediron said:


> I'm confused... WHO cares if the camera is ten years old; does it do the job the photographer requires? .



Hi, sorry if I have stirred up a mess, but yes, this was what I was wondering in the first place. My conclusion is the pictures will have almost the same qualities under good lighting conditions, but will lack when shooting like during dawn or on cloudy days....a lot?
If the lenses havent changed that much, is it because of ISO improvements the shootings will be worse in bad lights? Can I compensate it fully by using a longer shutter speed?

I shot another pic, it would have been quite fun but there seems the camera didnt catch the bird 100%, the quality seems grainy i think.
Would it have been a lot better pic if I have had a brand new technology camera?

Many thanks for all help


----------



## soufiej (Jan 29, 2016)

"Almost" and "a lot" are not definable terms.

Your Canon compact uses a very small sensor (the smallest sensor available in fact) which means light levels will always be critical to your success.

Many modern compacts (and smartphones) use the same size of sensor though their ability to raise ISO values are improved over your camera.

_"Raising ISO" is applying amplification to the digital signal.  There have been noticeable improvements in the amplification of the signal while adding lower amounts of noise.  

This is what makes a modern camera with the same size sensor found in your camera the "better" camera in low light situations, the ability to apply gain to the signal while minimizing digital noise.  The larger your image display becomes, the more noticeable this improvement becomes.   _




If you never intend to display an image at larger than 2" x 2", you'll have a difficult time seeing the difference.  Once you begin to print your photos, the difference will become more obvious.


Do your research regarding sensors and the limitations they impose on photography.  There are multiple threads on this forum and any search engine will turn out answers.



One issue you'll find with light is it has a value.  Therefore, light is not a single definable term which translates to a shot by shot issue of whether your camera can catch the shot.   About the only thing that can be said with certainty is your camera will perform best in the greatest amount of light you can provide it. 

How many shots will your camera miss?  Can't say.

How many would another camera get?  Can't say.



At times, the ability of the camera to respond more quickly to your commands is what makes the difference.  Now we're back to the point where a modern smartphone camera can do "better" than your decade old compact.

A modern compact "bridge" camera can do better than a smartphone.

A DSLR can do better than a bridge.

Each increase in sensor size and decrease in shutter lag time you can afford improves your chances of getting the shot.

How much better?  How much improvement?  Can't say.

Photography isn't a process that works like that.



The numbers say when you increase the size of the sensor, you increase the light sensitivity of the camera.  With your ten year old compact, you are starting on the lowest rung of the ladder.  Since raising the ISO value on your camera will introduce more image noise than would raising the ISO on a modern DSLR, you are placed further behind the eight ball.  So, ...



Photographing birds is a fairly specialized genre of photography.  Birds move and don't care that you want their photo.  Even the best bird photographers miss shots. 

Certainly, the long shutter lag of your camera doesn't help this situation.  There's simply no guarantee though another camera would have done a better job other than modern cameras have shorter lag times between your push on the shutter release button and the moment the shutter actually opens.  That alone ups your chances of getting the shot you desire when the subject isn't cooperating.



Long shutter speeds have their own issues.  Hand held shots can generally only be relied on for a few tenths of a second shutter speed.  After that you can expect camera shake to blur the image.

Almost any modern digital camera will provide image stabilization which makes longer shutter speeds possible before blur is introduced and again ups your chances of getting the shot.  You cannot add image stabilization to your camera, you can only buy a more recent camera with the feature included.

Student photographers are best advised to mount their cameras on a tripod when longer shutter speeds are required.  Do you plan on using a tripod for all your shots?  Probably not.  For birding type photography, they can be as much a hindrance as a help.

Combine long shutter lag with long shutter speeds and you may miss a fair number of shots that you could have captured using that base line smartphone.

Use a baseline DSLR from Canon's current catalog and you'll have increased your keeper rate exponentially.




IMO you should simply resign yourself to the fact you have a ten year old camera that wasn't top of the line when it was new.  It's perfectly fine for learning photography's basic rules.  Or for simply learning whether you think you are going to stick with this hobby.

While I am opposed to the idea every review of every new camera should read as if this was the greatest, most fantastic, most beneficial improvement over what has come before, the simple fact is cameras have improved across the board in the last ten years.  Anyone who tells you different isn't telling you the truth.

And what you have now came from the low end of the market ten years ago.  A ten year old DSLR (with its larger sensor) would have better low light response than does your present compact.

A modern "kit lens" sold as a package with a modern DSLR will also be "faster" than your camera's lens.  A faster lens means it can allow more light through to the sensor which translates into still better low light performance.

Most certainly, and I really can't see anyone arguing this point, the kit lenses available today are far superior in virtually every respect to the kit lens that would have come with a DSLR ten years ago.   The lens on your ten year old compact wasn't even as good as the DSLR kit lens back then.  It certainly wasn't as versatile.  And it certainly hasn't improved with age. 



Your camera is usable just like other ten year old cameras are usable.  Some of these recent posts seem to present the idea that ten years ago digital cameras where just fine.  No, ten years ago many people were being moved over to digital cameras because the wave was coming and there are always early adapters.

I bought my first DSLR back then because my analog Canon needed repair and I simply made the leap to digital.  I still have that camera and I still on occasion use that camera.  Doesn't mean I don't think my more modern cameras can't better it in most, if not all, ways.  But it remains a camera I can loan to a friend if we go out shooting together.  They'll do fine with it if they've never used a modern DSLR.

That doesn't mean the quality of a digital photograph was excellent ten years ago.  It means we had nothing else to compare to.  But it is a certainty no one would have purchased any digital camera if the image quality was so horrible as to be unacceptable.



*You have a ten year old low end camera.  Use it until you can afford better.  You learn photography by taking photographs.  If you use a ten year old camera because that is what you have available, you can still learn.   *

If you get more serious about your photography than taking snapshots of birds against a colorless background, you will see improvements in your work.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 29, 2016)

You did pretty good here timmer! I like how you bumped up the exposure for the snow. You missed the focus, it hit the branch's and not the bird. I would try to get that focus point on the eye of the bird. Not sure about your camera but mine, once I get the focus point hit on the eye, I keep my finger pressed at the half shutter position, recompose, then press shutter all the way down. Soon as you lift your finger, you lose your focus point. However, focus is easily missed with these cameras at the long end of the zoom, my Sony DSCH2 is the same way. Watch your framing too, I noticed it's tilted... you can see it by the window frame in the background but you can fix that in post. Problem with fixing tilt in post is that you can lose a little sharpness, not a deal breaker but it's best to nail it in camera.

Longer shutter speeds, bigger apertures, all help in low light. You have to experiment. I have found a tripod, table, side of a wall, to be very beneficial with slow shutter speeds to prevent blur. For me it is around the 1/30s mark I need to stabilize. 

The big challenge on older tech will be noise with indoor shooting in low light. Flash helps. It is a challenge on newer stuff too, just not as hard to deal with. Keep shooting, your doing way better than I did starting out in June. You will get some noise with anything over ISO 200. My 10 year old Sony is the same way. Not a big deal if your printing at 4x6 size.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 29, 2016)

The bottom line is:  This is a ten year old camera (degradation to the mechanism aside) it will take pictures as well as it ever did.  It will take decent pictures in good conditions, and suffer in more difficult conditions.  It will a far cry from today's cameras in terms of speed of focus, noise/high-ISO, and overall image quality in any but good conditions.  That said, there is a big positive to using a camera like this:  It will help you learn.  You will not have the benefit of lightning-quick focus, so you will need to plan your shots.  You will not have ultra-high ISO capability, so you will have to plan your shots..  There's nothing wrongw with using this to start and when/if you find you really like it, and know in what direction you want to go, upgrading.  Likewise, you could also spend a couple of hundred dollars and get a used D3000 & kit lens and be several generations ahead right off the bat...


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 29, 2016)

There are a few very, very, long winded trolls that spend way too much time here. Most of us have learned not to bite on the lures, some folks have not and get snagged.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 29, 2016)

True.  There are also some very short attention span minds on this forum.  Their posts tend to be rather less than useful because they forget what they were talking about or didn't know in the first place.

Need I go on?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 29, 2016)

soufiej said:


> True.  There are also some very short attention span minds on this forum.  Their posts tend to be rather less than useful because they forget what they were talking about or didn't know in the first place.
> 
> Need I go on?


 Please don't.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 29, 2016)

Gee, tirediron, you usually write more than that.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 29, 2016)

Sorry, my intent was to be encouraging and helpful. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2016)

I use a Canon 5D which is 10 years old, and it works great. The photos it can render with the proper knowledge and skillset are beautiful. What matters more than anything is the skill and knowledge of the photographer, not the gear. That said, a point and shoot will definitely limit you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2016)

soufiej said:


> True.  There are also some very short attention span minds on this forum.  Their posts tend to be rather less than useful because they forget what they were talking about or didn't know in the first place.
> 
> Need I go on?


Rude.


----------



## beachrat (Jan 29, 2016)

DanOstergren said:


> I use a Canon 5D which is 10 years old, and it works great. The photos it can render with the proper knowledge and skillset are beautiful. What matters more than anything is the skill and knowledge of the photographer, not the gear. That said, a point and shoot will definitely limit you.


The first thing my instructor said to me was," your camera and lens means nothing to me. And it means nothing to you either.You're asking me to give you advice and teach you photography,not tell you what to buy."
When I told him that I only had a D200,he almost dismissed me as an asshole because he didn't care what my tools were..
I learned a lot from him.


----------



## timmermannen (Jan 30, 2016)

Great, thanks folks, I will keep practising for a while with this one and upgrade as soon as possible if I keep finding photographing amusing...
Many thanks!


----------



## soufiej (Jan 30, 2016)

DanOstergren said:


> Rude.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 30, 2016)

Dude. What's your deal?


----------



## jake337 (Jan 30, 2016)

Just use what you have.  Start a photography savings account.   Add $100-200 per month for 1 year.   Practice with your camera  for one year and if you still have the photography itch one year later, upgrade.   If you don't have the itch anymore you'll have $1,200-2,400 saved up for whatever you want.

Have fun!


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 30, 2016)

Travelling for the week and it was interesting to see this thread still rolling along. 
I have a Sony V1 that is also over 10 years old and 5mp. It still works fine, but the batteries now drain very fast. I gave the camera to my grandson, he doesn't have a cellphone as of yet and the camera makes nice images. 

The main limitations I found with these types of cameras to be the lag times. I was used to film SLR and often found the lag time just too much. 

I would just suggest using the camera until you personally are able to identify where it is holding you back. Do you need a DSLR, or another superzoom, mirrorless, etc? I think if you enjoy photography then a new camera can certainly address issues you may find when using an older superzoom. But if your going to buy a new camera and then put it on the shelf for another ten years then you will be right back where you were with this camera. 

I'm sure that you will soon have an idea of what sort of camera system best meets your needs and then it is just a matter of what the budget will allow.


----------



## timmermannen (Feb 1, 2016)

Dave442 said:


> But if your going to buy a new camera and then put it on the shelf for another ten years then you will be right back where you were with this camera.




 That is true wisdom indeed. Thanks all for all the supergood answers, keep up the good work and best shootings to you all!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 6, 2016)

If you're going to use a 10 year old camera, you might as well use a cellphone camera.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 6, 2016)

chuasam said:


> If you're going to use a 10 year old camera, you might as well use a cellphone camera.



If you're not going to think before you type, you might as well stfu.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 6, 2016)

tirediron said:


> I'm confused... WHO cares if the camera is ten years old; does it do the job the photographer requires?  I still regularily use a D700 and that's coming up on 10 years old now.  Why? Because it works, and produces the results that meed my needs.  I have other, newer bodies, but the D700 stills see quite a bit of regular use, and will continue to.


I used a D700 for commercial shoots as recently as 2 years ago. And then I got a D810 and the D700 had some mirror issues that I didn't feel like spending $400 to fix and so it sits there.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 6, 2016)

unpopular said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going to use a 10 year old camera, you might as well use a cellphone camera.
> ...


It was well thought of. Do you have a problem with cellphone cameras?


----------



## spiralout462 (Feb 6, 2016)

chuasam said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



I will use my 10 year old camera long before my cell phone!  In fact, I will use my 30 year old camera before I consider a cellphone.


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 6, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Me too. However, cell phone camera's are producing the most photo's these days and really have some impressive optics in a small package. For many, they are good enough. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## spiralout462 (Feb 6, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> spiralout462 said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



I agree.  My main issue is ergonomics.  I can't seems to hold my phone still. Lol


----------



## chuasam (Feb 6, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


I was in vacation in London last year (and Florida the year before). I found myself using my iPhone 4s far more than the D810 and D700 I had with me.  
The best thing about a phone camera is that it is there. You can put it on Instagram. You don't have to remember to bring a camera. 
Given the OPs propensity to leave cameras at home, a cellphone would very well be the best possible solution in this case. 
Cellphone pictures vs no pictures at all - your call.


----------



## spiralout462 (Feb 6, 2016)

I see.  I've never been on instagram.  Or twitter for that matter.  I do realize most people "share" pictures that way.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 6, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > spiralout462 said:
> ...


You are maybe not of the generation who has the cellphone perpetually within one's Palm. My phone is almost always within reach and I can take a photo within 5s of seeing the shot I want to get. 
And it's always with me.

You can share the photos on Facebook or what's app


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 6, 2016)

chuasam said:


> spiralout462 said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...


Yup, that's what they use it for. I don't don't do either Facebook or the other. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 9, 2016)

I just bought a 17 year old DSLR.

On purpose.

I plan on taking photographs with it.

Why?

Well, because as it turns out, what you have is far less important than what you do with it.

Use what you've got, get what you like, and have fun.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 13, 2016)

But the capabilities of a 17 year old DSLR would not compare to a modern micro43 camera. And the OMD EM10 mk2 is sooooo much smaller and easier to carry around.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 13, 2016)

chuasam said:


> But the capabilities of a 17 year old DSLR would not compare to a modern micro43 camera. And the OMD EM10 mk2 is sooooo much smaller and easier to carry around.



And?

I will have just as much fun with my 17 year old dinosaur as you will with yiur new mirrorless olympus.  Unless you're a pro or a perfectionist the age of the tool doesn't matter.

I've built guitars with 100 year old jointer planes that I enjoy just as much as modern guitars built with 1 year old cnc machines, and a 150 year old cast iron dutch oven can make a mighty tasty cake.

Put less faith in the tool than you do in the craftsman, and you will do just fine.


----------



## unpopular (Feb 13, 2016)

this thread is good for the derp!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 13, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > But the capabilities of a 17 year old DSLR would not compare to a modern micro43 camera. And the OMD EM10 mk2 is sooooo much smaller and easier to carry around.
> ...


Old CNC machines do the job. Old Dutch ovens haven't changed much. A new mirrorless camera is far lighter and convenient to carry around.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 13, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Old CNC machines do the job. Old Dutch ovens haven't changed much. A new mirrorless camera is far lighter and convenient to carry around.



We are obviously arguing two different points.  I hope you enjoy your tools as much as I do mine.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 13, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Old CNC machines do the job. Old Dutch ovens haven't changed much. A new mirrorless camera is far lighter and convenient to carry around.
> ...


To be honest I don't own a mirrorless camera. I've been meaning to get one. When I travel i usually borrow a friend's GM1 or something small. Next vacation I'm borrowing a OMD EM5. 
I can't bear to spend that money on a toy which I'll only use while on vacation. I weigh the cost of a new camera vs a new recurve bow and I stick to my ol' D810.


----------



## beagle100 (Feb 14, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



they are only $100 !

*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Emanuel M (Feb 14, 2016)

These were all taken with a 9yr old D3000.
Image quality it's still good, but using ISO higher than 500 it's a pain. 
I think I get better pictures (grain wise) at 8000 ISO on my D5300 than at 500+ ISO on the D3000.

Cheers


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2016)

Here's a mirrorless camera for <$28!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 15, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Here's a mirrorless camera for <$28!


Ewwww no. I would rather use my Cellphone.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 15, 2016)

While that doesn't have a mirror it doesn't fit the category of 'mirrorless cameras' as usually defined. It's just a compact / point & shoot camera.
I've picked up similar cameras for £3.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 15, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> While that doesn't have a mirror it doesn't fit the category of 'mirrorless cameras' as usually defined. It's just a compact / point & shoot camera.
> I've picked up similar cameras for £3.


I know...  just me being an intelligent donkey!


----------



## beagle100 (Feb 15, 2016)

tirediron said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > While that doesn't have a mirror it doesn't fit the category of 'mirrorless cameras' as usually defined. It's just a compact / point & shoot camera.
> ...



OK ...
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


----------

