How well do older digital cameras stack up?

[Pollock]

So, I'm going on vacation shortly, but I don't have anything nicer than a point and shoot. My dad, however, does have an older Canon S2 IS circa 2005 that I could borrow. Although this used to be a nice camera, being something like 7 years old at this point, will the image quality be beaten by modern point and shoots?

I was hoping to avoid spending ~$200 on something like this only to rarely touch it again.

 

[fralexandr]

older cameras of the same type tend to have worse high iso performance (as well as reduced iso range), more noise, and slower/more clunky autofocus

other than that, they should be still be excellent in daylight and for taking pictures of slow moving objects or portraits
with a budget superzoom, if you plan on taking pictures at night, or indoors with low light, you will most likely need to use a flash or tripod anyway though, since super zooms tend to have slower lenses

 

[slashbinslashbash]

You say you have a P&S already... what is it? BTW the S2 is technically a P&S as well, of the superzoom type.

Everything that fralexandr said is correct... if your use for the S2 is stuff like wildlife in broad daylight, then it will be a good addition to your vacation. (Because I'm assuming your P&S doesn't have anywhere close to the 12x zoom of the S2.) But for general travel photography (wide angle shots, people shots, scenery shots) a standard pocket P&S from any of the decent brands will outclass it by quite a bit. In particular, low-light performance, and also wide-angle performance. The lens on the S2 has a wide end that is only 36mm equivalent, so indoors shots, group shots, and scenic vistas will all be from a very limited POV. A modern P&S with a 28mm (or, better, 24mm) wide angle will be much more useful for those kinds of things.

In short, the S2 will be able to "zoom in" much, much more than your P&S, so if you're going to be taking photos of small and/or distant things, then it would be a good camera to have along with you. Conversely, it will not be able to "zoom out" nearly as much, so anything where you want a wide angle of view will probably be better suited to the P&S you already have.

 

[radhak]

The biggest difference in newer cameras is the bulk, or lack thereof. The s95 or S100 are really slim and pocket-able, which the S2 IS can never claim to be. But even internally, the S2 IS had a 5MP, 1/2.5" sensor while the S100 has around 12MP, 1/1.7" sensor.

So overall, you are inheriting a camera from yore, and it will feel like it. BUT, remember :

a) a camera in hand is worth a dozen in the bank

b) the S2 IS has a 12x zoom, or equivalent to 35 - 425 or so, IIRC. That there is an awesome capability, and you might end up with some very nice close-ups that you'd be proud of.

So, please take the camera with no qualms.

Of course, you should take precautions : those days cameras used to take AA batteries; make sure you discard any old ones inside ! And check (and double-check) the memory card, or just replace it.

good luck!

 

[Paladin3]

If you understand the particulars of your chosen tool then older cameras can still take great photos. I'm rocking a 2006 D80 and it does just fine if I hold up my end and don't push it beyond it's abilities. Remember that there was a time when 400 ISO was considered fast and plenty of good images were still made.

 

[blastingcap]

So, I'm going on vacation shortly, but I don't have anything nicer than a point and shoot. My dad, however, does have an older Canon S2 IS circa 2005 that I could borrow. Although this used to be a nice camera, being something like 7 years old at this point, will the image quality be beaten by modern point and shoots?

I was hoping to avoid spending ~$200 on something like this only to rarely touch it again.

In bright light, all compacts are decent or better. Even the relatively old S2. It's only when you jack up the ISO (usually because you can't use flash and are in a museum or something) that the sensor noise becomes a problem. A newer compact might also have faster autofocus.

Bottom line: an S2 is fine in bright light or in low light w/ flash, but probably worse than a modern compact camera when in low light w/o flash.

 

[Pollock]

In terms of P&Ss, I have an Olympus FE360 and my girlfriend has a Canon SD630, so they are getting a bit dated too.

Thanks for the detailed responses - I only have time right now to skim them, but I will take re-read them this afternoon.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

In terms of P&Ss, I have an Olympus FE360 and my girlfriend has a Canon SD630, so they are getting a bit dated too.

Thanks for the detailed responses - I only have time right now to skim them, but I will take re-read them this afternoon.

Yikes. Forget what I said about wide-angle above. Both of those cameras start at 35mm or so on the wide end. Neither of them will go noticeably wider than the S2IS. IMO if you want to just go with one camera on your trip, then the S2 is the one I'd go with. The other two are pretty much equivalent.

My recommendation if you're looking for a cheap update would be the Canon ELPH 100HS. It's similar to the SD630 but has a 4x zoom (28mm-112mm so it will not go noticably longer than your SD630, but it goes quite a bit wider). Image quality will be quite a bit better, especially in low light (high ISO). It runs $150-$175 but it is regularly on sale at Target, Staples, etc. for $125 or so. I'm pretty sure I've seen it as low as $110.

Imaging-resource.com has a great comparison tool for all cameras in their database. Here is the 100% sample from the ELPH 100HS vs. the SD630, both at ISO 800 (which would be used in low light situations). The ELPH 100HS image is larger because it has more megapixels (so the images don't quite match up exactly), but the noise improvement is huge:

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Oh, dear... after looking at the Olympus FE360 and the Canon SD630, there's no doubt in my mind that the S2 will spank either one of them in terms of overall quality and versatility.

Here's a 2007 review of the S3... there isn't much difference between the S2 and S3:

"The photo image quality is on par with my Digital Rebel (except at ISO values of 400 and above, where noise grain appears), and the IS really works. Colors are pleasing, and the 12x zoom is smooth and easy to control.

The video quality is very similar to DV camera quality (considering that 640x480 @ 30 fps is really close to NTSC full D1 DVD at 720x480 @ 29.97 fps).

The MJPEG codec is an oddity, but the fact that you record audio in full stereo (and the microphone sensitivity goes up to 15 kHz!) is a big bonus. With the optical zoom perfectly functional while filming, you get a surprisingly solid video camera, comparable to the first generation of digital camcorders that came out a few years ago...

IMHO, the two biggest drawbacks, as far as the video is concerned, are 1) the lack of widescreen (16:9) capability and 2) the fact that every video session is limited to 1 GB (which translates to maximum of 7'44" non-stop filming in 640x480@30 fps, and about 22 minutes non-stop in 320x240@30 fps)... Of course, you can film until the 1 GB limit is reached, and when the camera stops automatically you can start recording again - with a bit of practice you can make it almost seamless.

All in all, this is one of the first true hybrid devices, bridging photo and video capabilities. Add the fact that you can run it with standard AA batteries (available practically everywhere in the world) and you got yourself a winner!"

 

[AnitaPeterson]

By the way... I have an S3, and my father has one of the Fuji S2xxx series (linked in the OP). My father came to visit me during the summer, and was really displeased with the quality of his camera's shots. The noise reduction is really aggressive, and there's s a very pronounced watercolour effect which decimates fine detail. The colors are also dull and seem lifeless.

So I lent him the S3 instead, for the time he stayed over, and he really enjoyed the pictures produced by the Canon. He was sorry that he hadn't tested the Fuji properly and returned it to the store.

 

[notposting]

We have an S2 as well, ended up picking up an ELPH 100 HS over the holidays for the indoor shots of the toddler. Heck it was only $110, but has image stabilization (which was fairly amazing to have on the S2 at the time), back-illuminated sensor, built in red eye detection, and shoots some damn fine photos.

But obviously if it was a trip where some long shots would be nice, the S2 would be great. For around our apartment or even just outside, the ELPH works fine and is a lot less cumbersome.