Digital cameras - how much have they improved in the last 5 years?

greyster

Official MoneySavingExpert.com insert

For all the latest info on cheap digitial cameras, see the main website's Cheap Digital Cameras guide.

Back to the original post...

---

Hi

I have an Canon Ixus 30 from 2004. It was for the time, the best camera I've owned and I still use it.

I can see on here and hotukdeals some good offers for new cameras and I am tempted, however the moneysaver in me asks me what benefit am I going to get with a new camera.

For example, the Panasonic Lumix TZ6. How much better is the image quality compared to my 5 year old camera? I am not fooled by the megapixels as I've never needed a picture larger than a standard photo but I am wondering if the image quality is that much sharper, that it would be worthwhile for me to upgrade. Especially as I'm going to India next month.

One thing I've noticed, is the shell size of the camera has barely changed. The new ixus cameras seem to be the same shape but they've done away with the viewfinder so that they can fit a larger LCD in the screen. I was surprised at first because I always use my viewfinder. Also surprised to see the new leader's in europe, panasonic, do the same as well.

I'm looking for any comments from anyone whos upgraded from a 4-5+ year digital camera. Have you noticed a big difference in picture quality?

ahmjt

Although I have not upgraded from a 4-5 year old digital camera yet, I will try to list things that have been changed in the last 4-5 years.

- Increase in megapixels = as you have already mentioned...a marketing gimmick. Without increasing the actual sensor's size, better megapixel does not do any good photos anyway.

- sensor: depending on models, some point and shoot (PS) cameras are now coming up with slightly better sensors.

- Processors for sensors: faster microprocessor for sensors.

- Manufacturers have tried to get rid of bridge-type cameras (something that are in between DSLRS and PS cameras), but Panasonic and some other companies are coming back with them.

- LCD View finder for DSLR cameras.

- DSLR cameras that can record videos.

- PS compact cameras with high zoom. Compact cameras with 10x or 12x optical zoom or higher is quite common now.

- New softwares for face detections and helpful other effects.

I guess that is all I can think about for now.

BillScarab

I think the image processing software in the cameras is generally better now.

There are bigger zoom ranges available. But what is really useful is many have a good wide anngle at the lowest zoom which is great for groups and landscapes.

A lot nowadays have things like image stabilisation which can be very useful. The automatice shooting modes tend to be more sophisticated as well.

BTW I have a PanasonicTZ3 (foreunner of the current TZ range) and it is superb.

[Deleted User]

I have a Canon ixus that is about 6 years old.. still takes ace photos. However, the LCD display is rubbish. The shutter lag is quite bad. The video is quite useless. The memory card capacity isn't great. But.. the pictures are not that disimilar to my 2 year old Panasonic.

The greatest leaps in the last few years has been in digital SLRs.. now that makes my point and shoot photos look terrible

ahillsy

ringo_24601 wrote: »

The greatest leaps in the last few years has been in digital SLRs.. now that makes my point and shoot photos look terrible

+1. After seeing some friends' photos from their digital SLR compared to my digital compact, I was an immediate convert. Bought a Canon 500D (also does HD recording) and the difference is a-ma-zing! So if you want a see a real improvement, I'd say go for a digital SLR - very easy to use, you can use it as a point-and-click if you wish so it doesn't take a degree to get going with it. They are more expensive, but IMHO is worth the investment.

tpowell

I'd say a hell of a lot, the screen view sizes are generally bigger and the megapixels are greater.

aliEnRIK

I was bought a canon for my birthday 5 years ago and I bought another last year when it died on me. Even though it was less money its definitely the better camera for picture quality, also allows a bigger size S card and less lag

happywarmgun

greyster wrote: »

Hi
I am not fooled by the megapixels as I've never needed a picture larger than a standard photo

That used to be my attitude to megapixels but over the years I've realised that when I edit my photos I crop an awful lot (effectivley using it as a digital zoom after I have uploaded my photo to the computer). The higher the megapixel the more you can crop without any degredation of the end photo.

You can get some excellent detail pictures with a high MP camera using this 'after zoom' technique. Just a thought....

BillScarab

happywarmgun wrote: »

That used to be my attitude to megapixels but over the years I've realised that when I edit my photos I crop an awful lot (effectivley using it as a digital zoom after I have uploaded my photo to the computer). The higher the megapixel the more you can crop without any degredation of the end photo.

You can get some excellent detail pictures with a high MP camera using this 'after zoom' technique. Just a thought....

High megapixel counts is one of the worst ways of measuring the quality of a camera.

Have a read of this article for example that explains it betterr than I can.

http://gizmodo.com/5155942/giz-explains-why-more-megapixels-isnt-always-more-better


One thing I think that has improved dramatically is something alienrik refered to, lag. My old camera usedto have a nitcable lag between pressing the shutter release and taking the photo which led to a lot of blurred shots. A lot of cameras on phones have this problem too. My newer digicam is much better in this respect.

happywarmgun

Bill Scarab: All of that is as may be - but if you want to crop and do a 'digital zoom' your going to be able to go further with a higher count...

It wouldn't be the first thing on my feature list that I looked at - but I wouldn't ignore MP count just because 'the average user never uses a picture size that requires more than 6mp'

ukcarper

I would agree with you to some extent but other factors also come into account such as lens quality and blowing up a small portion of the image is not substitute for filling the frame. Also a 6mbit photo can almost be cut in half and still produce a good 6x4 print.