PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**Matt Ion**

wrote:
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion

Don't leave the lens out of the equation. I used to get some great
shots from my ancient Argus C-3 "brick", but Argus were renowned back
then for their optics. Similarly my old Minolta X-700 got great, sharp
shots with a sweet little Tamron 70-210 zoom, while both the lenses I
have for my Rebel G - the kit 28-90 and the EF 75-300 - are painfully
soft when compared side-by-side with those old Minolta/Tamron shots.
Pics taken with the same 75-300 on my Digital Rebel are no better or
worse than with the Rebel G.