My newest digital camera is Lumix G9, and I have a pretty nice set of lenses for it. It is a great camera, and every time I use it I laugh cause it probably thinks I am a moron as I only use a fraction of it's features, and there are parts of it's menus I probably haven't ever explored. However, it mostly sits on a shelf these days. I use it predominately for telephoto use - as the PanaLeica 100-400 is a 200-800 equivalent on micro 4/3rds. It also performs some video duty as it is really good at that. But, like most "new" digital cameras I don't find the images as pleasing to the eye as my older cameras. The "modern" stuff it too good, it is too sharp, has too much microcontrast, and to my eye the images are too busy and too "crunchy." While this is great for people who spend their free time pixel peeping, I don't like the look visually for most subjects.
The color reproduction of my Minolta 7D digital (6mp) is very appealing, and my Nikon D800 produces nice, "smooth" images that I find very nice to look at. The Nikon I usually have to tweak the colors a little, but I like the images and I like the full frame dof.
The other thing where the "old" cameras win out - lens sharing. I really like that my Minolta 7D and Minolta a7 35mm share the same lenses. The cameras even mimic the same control layout and look nearly identical. I usually shoot my D800 along side my F4S 35mm - as they also share the same lenses, and everything works the same (minus VR on the F4s.) This saves a ton of space in the camera bag as I can use two different mediums (digital, film) but not have to have two sets of lenses.
I recently switched my negative scanning from the G9 w/Oly 30mm Macro to the Nikon D800 w/ Nikon 105mm macro. The D800's lesser sharpness over the G9 does a better job of capturing the look I want from my film shots. The G9 went too "hard" on the grain and the pictures look oversharp and fake. The D800's sharpness (or slightly lack of) makes the pictures look way more natural.
I also miss less shots with the Minolta 7D/a7 Nikon D800/F4S combos. The more simplistic autofocus is more intuitive and easier to use. The G9 and it's myriad of options and modes leads to user error. I shoot fast moving aircraft fairly often (F-35s and F16s) and I rarely ever miss a shot with the old stuff. The recent pics I posted of a P-51 that buzzed me when I was out on Wednesday - I got a few pics of it with the G9 but I know I probably would have gotten better shots with the D800 and my Nikon 80-400mm.
For most photographers I think autofocus speed isn't the concern people think it is, and having 14264 autofocus points, 14 different modes, and laser/lidar/microwave/nuclear-telepath sensors isn't necessary unless you make your money shooting fast moving subjects. However, I do like features like face / animal / etc recognition. Like most modern technology there is a ton of useless, confusing feature creep and complexity that leads to poorer end results, but looks great in an advertisement.
I guess it is like the automobile. Our household has 4 cars, I will use the newest and the oldest as an example. The newest is a 2020 Lexus NX300 "special edition." It has a 500 page manual of features, and probably has about as many buttons and controls as an airliner - and more computing power than modern day Russia. The oldest car is a '97 Camry with ~200k miles on it. The Camry is better in nearly every measurable aspect, it rides better, the aircon is better, it is way less distracting and easier to drive, the powertrain is smoother, and it is more efficient. Long after the stupid Lexus is being crushed at the junkyard - the Camry will still be roaming the earth.
. So does this foretell some images to be shared
