I have a Canon IXUS 500, which is about 4 years old, and a good camera. I was about to buy the Fuji F50 FD, so a jump from a 5mp to a 12mp. I then wondered, bearing in mind I don't have photos printed in poster format, whether I was just buying into the hype of more pixels.

Stuff like face detection, antishake and taking a flash and non flash photo at the same time is of interest, but has digital camera techonology (the CCD and the lenses on point and shoots like the Fuji) moved on significantly in the last 4 years?, or will I look at photos from both cameras side by side and convince myself the new one is so much better, when in reality it isn't? (a bit like buying a new bit of hifi kit and convicing yourself it sounds better).

To use your Hi-Fi analogy, if you were to put 100 watts through some 20cm tall speakers you would expect the sound to distort and actually get somewhat poorer quality than having a design rated at a more realistic 20watts, thus it is with compact cameras, the sensor size of the two cameras you mention is identical.
  Things have moved on in regards to features like anti-shake and high iso noise reduction but, unfortunately, the megapixel race for bragging rights has largely thrown away these advantages, I own an old Fuji a303 and a more modern F40FD and, to be quite honest the older 3mp 303 pushes out images every bit as good as the 8mp F40 most of the time.
  If you really want to improve your image quality significantly spend the money on a Nikon D40 SLR, the larger sensor will provide the biggest leap in image quality for your money, despite the seemingly low 6mp.


Don't get sucked in!.

Welcome to the megapixel race!

To be fair, Fuji held out a bit longer thasn some others but succombed eventually. Many people are just as cynical about the increase in MP in compacts with their smaller sensors.

Over 4 years yes technology has moved on to a certain extent but it does seem that most of this has been used to keep up with the megapixels.

Might be worth a look at Fuji's earlier models which you might still find around the place. The f31fd is 6MP which I reckon is fine for a compact but doesn't have shake reduction which is genuinely useful, and the f40fd is 8MP and I think that does have SR but not sure. Fujis were always very highly regarded for their high ISO performance but I've heard some of that advantage has been lost with the 12MP models.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

If I had the spare money then id consider that new sigma compact, you know the one I mean. (Was it reviewed this month?)

 

But then I would lose the gimick of it and go back to my D200, as I really dont care about the size a huge amount.

Having said that, if they made a large sensor compact with a telephoto lens, then i might consider it for street stuff.

 

Anyhow, for the original question, yes technology has changed alot, and will continue to do so at an alarming rate. But dont get caught in the MP race, and get or stay with what works.

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

dp

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

In many cases the thing that has moved on is the speed of use - things like switch on to first shot, time between shots, shutter lag or the number of photos you can take before the camera plays catch up. Things that have improved might be useful to you or they might not it often depends on what the subjects you mainly shoot are. Actual picture quality might not be the main difference but the ability to capture something might be improved.

---

a few mediocre pics

I agree with Sue on this (and the rest of the above).  I have an old 3MP Pentax Optio that the gf uses on her field trips.  It's still great for printing images for her reports - it was a "great" camera in it's day.  But it does take about a week to start-up, the battery life is about 100 shots (even without the screen), and I never use it above ISO100.  But it's a compact, and I'm not, as you say, intending to produce poster sized prints from it. 

Why don't I "upgrade" it?  Well I have a DSLR now and I use that 100% of the time.  Face detection, I don't get it.  Also the Pentax takes CF cards as does my D300, it has a stainless steel body (I'm really not impressed with the build quality of many compact digitals).  Lens technology hasn't moved on.  Pentax, canon, and the rest have been making great lenses for decades.  If they put a bad lens in older compacts it was a delibrate ploy on their part.  If I need a spare/compact/back-up camera I still have my Minolta Dynax with 50mm f1.7 lens, stick an ISO200 film in it and I'm covered. 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, the MP race, the marketing etc etc.  And I really believe that many folks are been mis-sold compact digital cameras.  I mean take my mother, she has a Fuji digital camera now.  She hardly uses it, it comes out at birthdays, holidays and christmas (as most peoples cameras do/always did).  So when she does need it the batteries are dead.  They are on holiday at the moment, she needed lead, charger, spare batteries (it runs on AA's).  And she now has to wait for myself or my sister to upload the images to the computer for her (she doesn't get it at all) or goes and gets them all printed at Boots anyway.  There was nothing wrong with her 35mm compact and for the £150 she has spent she could have bought a lot of film!  And it won't last as long as her old camera.

That's my 2p's worth anyway.  As Sue say's, if you want the extra ability to capture something - or you really see a problem with the quality of your images now - then go for it.  If not, stick with what you have and smile smuggly everytime you see an advert, knowing that you've stepped out of the race and have plenty of beer money in your pocket

 

Sorry if it sounds like a rant.  I guess it is a bit  

---

If you prefer a real veiwfinder you'll find many new compacts don't have one, and those that do are very tiny to make room for the (hyped) larger screen (which frequently can't be seen at all with bright sun behind you). My old Ixus 400 still takes great pix, clearly better in all respects than my wife's new 10Mp job - especially in poor light. And being very familiar with the controls is better than having to fiddle with new ones.

---

My Gallery

Technology doesn't move on, it only moves sideways. The industry wants you to forget what your current camera is, and shows you what's "more attractive". The last "forward step" was a DSLR that was affordable to "Joe Public".

Only consider getting a new camera if your current one doesn't deliver the goods as you want. For example, my Minolta Dimage 5 had lousy AF and an EVF; the swap to a Canon 350D resolved both of those problems. I currently have no reason to consider any new DSLR body, regardless of the 350D being "old".

I have to say, that I havent used a compact properly for years.

 

I got a kodak compact about 6 years ago. It had a 1 inch screen and 2 MP. I served me fine, untill it decided to start eating batteries. (I mean it could get through a set of duracell batterys in 5 minutes and cheapo batteries couldnt even power it long enough to extend the lens!) But it worked fine before then.

Now that I have a DSLR I dont think I'd use a compact again unless I had to! Why? The viewfinder, thats why! Compacts these days either have these tiny little tunnels to peep down, or nothing! I dont get on with live view for composing and half the time its too sunny to see in the screen, so Its nearly useless during the summer outside. I often have had to take pictures for mates using their compacts (because they had to do something or wanted to be in the picture) so I made a fool out of myself when I pulled it up to my eye only to realise there was no viewfinder, so I fumbled with the buttons untill the nasty little preview image appeared.

I have to agree aswell about people being sold digital cameras that they really dont need. Why does someone need a 12mp camera to take pics of their mates and holiday? And the same thing comes for elderly people, even I was confused by the array of buttons on my nans compact, and it took me about 5 minutes of toying with it to work my way around the main features to explain it to her. Don't they make simple point and squirts anymore?

The same argument goes for people buying DSLRS to take pictures of their mates, children etc because they think they need them!

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

adesw:

And the same thing comes for elderly people, even I was confused by the array of buttons on my nans compact, and it took me about 5 minutes of toying with it to work my way around the main features to explain it to her. Don't they make simple point and squirts anymore?

Have to agree with you on this point. When you walk around with a DSLR people assume you know all about cameras, so will hand your their compact and ask you to take their picture, and you haven't got a clue of how to use it.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Hehe, this happened to me on Scaffel Pike last week.  I asked someone to take my picture on the summit, I passed hime the camera and said "so long as we are in the middle just press that button".  He did, then gave me his camera phone and asked me to return the favour...I gave it straight to Stephanie!

Boltondave - that's what I was trying to say, thanks 

---

Here's a quote from the latest issue of Photography Monthly, where one of the staff is reviewing the Nikon D40:

"It's 6.1 megapixel sensor proved to be very adequate, but the resulting file size is a little limiting in terms of output size. Printing images big in the magazine wasn't really a viable option."

So, all those double page spreads of shots taken with cameras like the D50 and D70 were a figment of our imagination?

When Nikon introduced the D3, they took the sensible step of limiting the number of megapixels to around 12, which means larger receptors, and better quality. The pixels are actually less densely packed than on the D40. This (as well as more up to date sensors) has contributed to the marvellous high ISO performance.

Unfortunately, I think many purchasers are guided by the numbers on the boxes (MP, zoom range). Olympus used to produce bridge cameras that had reasonable MP and zoom range, which gave marvellous quality. Unfortunately consumer demand has meant that they've abandoned this vision, and are now playing the 'numbers game' also.

In some ways, the consumer is winning - much smaller and lighter cameras, certainly improving in quality. However, the manufacturers really know how to keep us in a constant state of dissatisfaction with what we've just bought.

The Nikon D90/D80x is likely to be released any day now, and I await all the posts saying 'I just bought a D80 last week, I wonder if Jessops will let me take it back and exchange it for the new model.' 

---

Chris Seary

My gallery

My Blog

Hopefully chris, that might happen. That will push the price of a second hand d80 even lower then it already is, and bingo, I have a dirt cheap back up camera.

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

Not a bad camera at all - I had one for about a week (see http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/thread/799092.aspx). The wireless flash seemed pretty cool, but otherwise I felt it was a little large and cumbersome (weighed more than my D50). I still like the D60, and will get another as the teething troubles are sorted.

Bearing in mind what was said in Photography Monthly, if editors are now starting to reject 6MP pictures, should professionals be throwing away their images every three to four years as well as their cameras as the MP race goes forward?

---

Chris Seary

My gallery

My Blog