Old Digital Cameras

I cannot afford the latest 'must-have' cameras, so I make do with older equipment (I use a Canon  5D MK 1 DSLR which came out in 2005, and a Canon G5 compact, which came out in 2003). Lately, I realise that a benefit of using older cameras (apart from saving money) is that it can improve one's photo technique by making one think how to get the best results out of the limited capability of an older camera. I have been accused in jest of having the same mindset as those who use pin-hole cameras with film.

However, on a serious note, I would recommend anyone on a limited budget not to ignore older equipment. There are many excellent cameras from ten years ago which can be bought second-hand for a fraction of their original price and can still turn in very good results. 

Interesting point, John. Do you ever go back and review your first shots taken with the Olympus and compare them with what you are getting now? You may well find that with the knowledge you have acquired over the years, you could get better shots out of that Olympus today than you did first time round. Thats the beauty of photography, theres always something new to learn. 

You may be surprised at what you can buy second-hand, if you were interested in playing with that old camera again.

As a rough guide, I would expect to pay about one tenth of the new price for a ten year old camera, so a ten year old digital compact in good working order should cost peanuts. If you have a local camera shop, it might be worth seeing what they have in the window.

Many cameras of that age are quite good, though the display is much smaller than that on current cameras. For anyone looking at older compacts, try to get one that can be set to output RAW files for maximum quality. 

PS I have just been looking at the RAW output of a Canon Powershot G5  from 2003. The results are approaching SLR quality. At the time, ten years ago, memory card capacity was very limited and shooting RAW was not popular because the card soon got filled up. Nowadays, card capacity is not an issue. So if you can get an older compact that shoots RAW, go for it !  

Pity there is no second-hand dealer near you, John. Maybe I am fortunate. I live near Reading and there is one independent shop that sells cheap second-hand kit and also London Camera Exchange for the more up-market kit.

As for RAW, I didn't use it for years (which I now regret). There has been plenty of discussion of the pros- and cons- of RAW elsewhere in the forums. Never think you won't understand it. It depends if you are satisfied with the .jpg you get out of the camera. If you are happy with it, then using RAW is unnecessary.   

Well I think everyone submitting photos here will say the same thing John....  You Never Stop Learning ! ! ! !

RAW is not as frightening as it seems, just a bit time consuming. And also you do not lose the original. All adjustments made to a RAW file are transferred to the jpeg final image. Think of the RAW file as simply the negative you would have had when using film.

It seems to me, John, you are just doing what most keen photographers do - being critical of your own efforts. This is the way you will improve your skills. The worst attitude is to be totally self-satisfied, you are definitely not that !

As for the equipment, all cameras, even the professional top-of-the-range ones, have their limitations. For example, the range of light intensity which can be recorded is much less than the human eye is capable of seeing. The skill is being aware of the limitations and working around them. 

Here on PoE, we are generally honest enough to say we could do better, myself included. That's the fun of it.