Has camera tech moved on

[newlash09]

Hi All

I bought my first and only DSLR, a Canon EOS 60D, wayback in 2008. Mainly to shoot my daughter, who was born in December the same year. Subsequently, as smart phone camera's started getting better, its usage has diminshed in equal measure. Then I last used it on my treck to the Mount Everest base camp 3 years back, just before Covid struck. Despite being 10 years old, the Canon still took some stunning pics, even though I only had the stock less on.

Lately my daughter has developed an interest in photography. And her pics seem to be whacky and different to me. She seems to have a real sense of imagination , which iam surprised and happy with in equal measure.

So I was wondering if camera tech has really moved on, in the last decade or so. As I either want to gift her a new camera this Christmas, or if my current Canon EOS60D is still comparable with today's cams, then I would like to start getting her some proper lenses instead. As I only have the stock 18-55mm lens and a 50mm potriat lens, I got free with the camera. Thanks in advance for your time

 

[StingRay]

Yes it has moved on in the last 10 years or so. However you can still get good photos with something like a Canon 40d which can be bought for around £50. Unless you are doing large prints you probably won't notice much difference. If I was starting now I would probably buy a used Canon 6d or 5D mk 2, I regret selling my 5D2. The 60D is similar to the 40D. But the 60D should be fine to start with, add some lenses to suit.
Or you could look at Sony and Fuji systems.
What sort of images does she take? Some cameras are better in low light. Sony probably have the best sensors at the moment, some are used in Nikons as well. But Sony are not cheap.
More pixels create their own problems.
Think she should try out some cameras in a camera shop.
If you want used came dealers, I can advise you, I use 2, not as cheap as eBay but come with warranties.

 

[newlash09]

Yes it has moved on in the last 10 years or so. However you can still get good photos with something like a Canon 40d which can be bought for around £50. Unless you are doing large prints you probably won't notice much difference. If I was starting now I would probably buy a used Canon 6d or 5D mk 2, I regret selling my 5D2. The 60D is similar to the 40D. But the 60D should be fine to start with, add some lenses to suit.
Or you could look at Sony and Fuji systems.
What sort of images does she take? Some cameras are better in low light. Sony probably have the best sensors at the moment, some are used in Nikons as well. But Sony are not cheap.
More pixels create their own problems.
Think she should try out some cameras in a camera shop.
If you want used came dealers, I can advise you, I use 2, not as cheap as eBay but come with warranties.

Thanks sir
I live in a modern metro, so there is probably not much scope to really shoot alternate photography like land scapes etc. So she is currently shooting pics of the daily scenarios around her. I don't even know if I can classify it as street photography. But that is the closest genre I can think of.

Just incase I get her better lenses to fit the 60D, will they still be compatible with a modern Canon Dslr if I upgrade to one, in the future.

 

[StingRay]

Thanks sir
I live in a modern metro, so there is probably not much scope to really shoot alternate photography like land scapes etc. So she is currently shooting pics of the daily scenarios around her. I don't even know if I can classify it as street photography. But that is the closest genre I can think of.

Just incase I get her better lenses to fit the 60D, will they still be compatible with a modern Canon Dslr if I upgrade to one, in the future.

Re lenses, some are compatible with crop frame, which the 60d is and full frame like the 5d and 6d.
Some you can only use on a crop frame such as the 10-22 and probably the 18-55.
There is also the Canon mirrorless range now, these take different lenses.

But the 60d with 18-55 and 50mm should be fine to start with. She may want to add a longer lens.
I use a 24-105 most of the time for travel but thats on a 5d, it would not be wide enough on a 60d.

 

[StingRay]

India is great for photography , I have only been once, would like to go back.

 

[audio_PHIL_e]

Moved on, yes - beyond comprehension. During my teens my Dad taught me to process film with chemicals, occasionally I'd book the darkroom at school to do some prints. Ain't like that no more. I have a point & click digital camera (takes nice pix though) and you have to copy a file into your filestore and then view it on a screen with a program. What happened to hard copy?

 

[rabski]

Moved on? In terms of ease of use and consistency, most certainly. IMHO, not overly in ultimate image quality.

I have some Fujichrome taken many decades ago on Hasselblad medium format, and others taken at a similar age with a Contax RTS. I'd struggle to match the perceived quality with any of my modern stuff. Ultimate sharpness and detail is doubtless better, but 'quality' goes deeper than that.

On the other hand, before our Canada holiday I decided that lumping around the Pentax and a load of lenses was going to be a right royal PITA, so I went and bought a Canon compact (a G9X), which is about the size of a matchbox and has turned in some stunning images. There is no way that something that small even a few years ago could have produced image quality anywhere near as good IMHO.

 

[jessilet]

Camera technology has indeed progressed significantly in the last decade. In the past, digital cameras relied on CCD sensors, which are slow and consume a lot of power. Today, however, most digital cameras use CMOS sensors, which are smaller, faster, and more power-efficient. In addition, camera manufacturers have been able to cram more and more pixels onto CMOS sensors, resulting in ever-increasing image resolution. Consequently, today's digital cameras are capable of capturing far more detail than their predecessors. Information is taken from this resourse: Digital camera technology. Moreover, thanks to advances in image processing algorithms, today's cameras can produce images that are far sharper and more vibrant than those of the past. In short, camera technology has come a long way in the last decade, and there is no sign of it slowing down anytime soon.

 

[StingRay]

Camera technology has indeed progressed significantly in the last decade. In the past, digital cameras relied on CCD sensors, which are slow and consume a lot of power. Today, however, most digital cameras use CMOS sensors, which are smaller, faster, and more power-efficient. In addition, camera manufacturers have been able to cram more and more pixels onto CMOS sensors, resulting in ever-increasing image resolution. Consequently, today's digital cameras are capable of capturing far more detail than their predecessors. Moreover, thanks to advances in image processing algorithms, today's cameras can produce images that are far sharper and more vibrant than those of the past. In short, camera technology has come a long way in the last decade, and there is no sign of it slowing down anytime soon.

I disagree. More pixels, yes that produces more noise and also lenses produce worst results, check tests on lenses, some are good on lower mp cameras say 20mp but not so good around 50mp.

CMOS has been around for about 20 years, believe its on the Canon 20d which came out in 2004. Not very good camera, imo, the 40d was much better. Then I had a 5d, a bit better and full frame, then 5d mk2, this was was a step up but since then apart from larger images not really that much has changed IMO. Unless you doing really large prints, I think cameras like the Canon 6D or 5D2 are fine and can be cheaply, I regret selling my 5D2.

I find with 50mp cameras you need to get everything right, they are less forgiving than 20mp ones. I will probably sell my one and use my 6D, images are cleaner. I don't understand your comment about sharpness.
Yes some take the anti-alaising filter off but I dont think its makes much difference.

 

[Tony_J]

I believe both Canon and Nikon are axing their SLR ranges in favour of their "mirrorless" systems - they use a digital viewfinder rather than the optical TTL finder on the SLR systems, and are significantly more compact. The upshot is that it is likely that there will be a good supply of used SLR gear in the market - the SLR lenses aren't necessarily forward compatible with the mirrorles. bodies, although Nikon sell an adapter. So there could be some great bargains to be had if older gear that still takes excellent pics.

 

[tkimages]

I believe both Canon and Nikon are axing their SLR ranges in favour of their "mirrorless" systems - they use a digital viewfinder rather than the optical TTL finder on the SLR systems, and are significantly more compact. The upshot is that it is likely that there will be a good supply of used SLR gear in the market - the SLR lenses aren't necessarily forward compatible with the mirrorles. bodies, although Nikon sell an adapter. So there could be some great bargains to be had if older gear that still takes excellent pics.

Camera, and to some extent, lens technology has moved on in leaps and bounds, but I’d rather have a visually stunning image taken with 20yr old technology, than a boring, sterile photo taken with the latest tech. Generally, it’s the photographer that matters not the equipment.