Got an old digital compact camera in the attic? It might be better than you think

compact cameras
(Image credit: Kodak • Canon)

I keep hearing about the incredible march of progress when it comes to all things scientific. Fair point. Just cast your mind back 25 years (if you’d even been born) and think about the mobile phones, computers, and TV sets that we were using back then, not to mention the digital cameras. I say ‘digital’ but at the turn of the century, most of us were still using film cameras. I was an early adopter and became the proud owner of an Olympus C990Z digital compact camera (D490Z in the USA) in the year 2000.

A year 2000 Olympus C990X / D490Z, resplendent with 2.1MP CCD image sensor and 3x optical zoom lens, plus a pop-up flash and sliding lens cover. (Image credit: Olympus)

Nowadays, if I gave the spec sheet a quick glance, I wouldn’t give the actual camera a second look. It was based on a tiny 1/2.7-inch CCD image sensor with a paltry resolution of just 2.1 megapixels. The sensitivity range topped out at ISO 400 and the continuous drive rate was a sluggish 1.5fps. 25 years later, you can buy a 48-megapixel compact camera for much less money, so I did. Actually, I bought two, thinking that at least one of them might be among the best cheap cameras, the best cameras for beginners, or the best cameras for kids currently on the market.

Lucerne, Switzerland, Olympus C990X / D490Z, June 2002 (Image credit: Matthew Richards)

Surely, with a quarter of a century of technological advancement behind cheap 48MP models like the Andoer Digital Camera and Mutrain Digital Camera X10 must deliver massively better image quality than the poor old Oly from back in the day. Firing up the new cameras, I duly took some test shots and was completely shocked at the dire nature of the image quality. It made me wonder how these brand new cameras compared with the Olympus where it counts most – picture quality.

Lucerne, Switzerland, Olympus C990X / D490Z, June 2002 (Image credit: Matthew Richards)

Naturally, the Olympus can ‘only’ deliver 2.1MP images but that’s big enough to fill a screen or to create 6x4-inch or 7x5-inch prints, or even letter-sized prints at a pinch. What’s more surprising is that images from the old Olympus are highly detailed with good dynamic range and beautiful color rendition. They simply look great, and a world away from the dire image quality of my new cameras. Lesson learned. Newer isn’t always better, and neither is having more megapixels under the hood. I’m giving up on the new cameras and going back to my trusty old Olympus, or at least I would do if I could just remember where I put it all those years ago.

Bath & West Showground, UK, Olympus C990X / D490Z, June 2002 (Image credit: Matthew Richards)

Boscastle, Cornwall, UK, Olympus C990X / D490Z, September 2002 (Image credit: Matthew Richards)

Boscastle, Cornwall, UK, Olympus C990X / D490Z, September 2002 (Image credit: Matthew Richards)
Matthew Richards

Matthew Richards is a photographer and journalist who has spent years using and reviewing all manner of photo gear. He is Digital Camera World's principal lens reviewer – and has tested more primes and zooms than most people have had hot dinners! 

His expertise with equipment doesn’t end there, though. He is also an encyclopedia  when it comes to all manner of cameras, camera holsters and bags, flashguns, tripods and heads, printers, papers and inks, and just about anything imaging-related. 

In an earlier life he was a broadcast engineer at the BBC, as well as a former editor of PC Guide.