Click the picture to embiggen it so you can see the full effect. The difference is stark: the 2001 picture looks like it came out of my iPhone! More seriously, the 2001 picture has significantly more noise, washed out colours and less depth when compared to the 2012 picture. Heck, the 2012 shot is so good it can make Madonna look human.
I can’t wait for the next 10 years when camera ISOs are going to get even better and Steven Tyler will devolve into even more of a mangled mess. [Fstoppers via PetaPixel]
TeamTerry
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 3:41 PMMadonna on a bald guy… never thought I would see that !!!
Barry
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 3:55 PMShe’s done everyone else so why not a bald guy? lol
Raddave
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:03 PMI think he’s referring to Madonnas bush :P
trk
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 6:22 PMhahaha!
If Gizmodo had upvotes, I’d give you one. Or even a Like. Or a +1. ANYTHING in the comments…. and it’s yours.
Jubbing
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 12:01 AMNice to see you took a comment from Reddit and 9gag and used it here. So much for originality.
AnonyGoose
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:08 AMWho cares? God some people whinge.
TeamTerry
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:10 AMI stole it from a mate actually. I have no idea where he stole it from. Some of us work for a living and don’t actually have time to check every website out there and rag someone for posting something they found funny..
Lighten up dude… hopefully other people find it funny.
Oh… I just remembered… I did repost this on my Facebook page. I better put a disclaimer in it.there.
Seed
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM“Yep, camera ISO sure has improved.”
Actually, ISO sensitivity hasn’t changed at all since its inception – and hence, it hasn’t improved. That’s the whole point of the ISO/ASA standard – it’s a reference benchmark for sensitivity to light and the whole point is that it doesn’t change or improve.
Perhaps what the author means is that image quality at a given ISO has improved?
Just This Guy ...
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 4:47 PMClose, but no cigar.
ISO sensitivity HAS changed.
ISO 800 for eg is far less sensitive than ISO 2000
ISO, when referencing photography is the measure of film sensitivity.
Digital camera’s have no film so the ISO spec for digital cams is an equivalent measure.
Digital cams HAVE been able to vastly improve their sensitivity and therefore by definition, the ISO rating.
That said, making statements like “a camera ISO has improved” is a bit of a flub.
What should be said is that camera sensitivities have improved and skip the whole ISO part as it’s not really relevant to digital sensors.
Seed
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:01 PMThis is exactly what I was trying to say. Overall sensitivity on digital sensors has improved, and the performance in terms of image quality at a given ISO has improved, however ISO 800 is still ISO 800, regardless of whether it was shot on a decade-old digital camera or one from today. To suggest that camera ISO has improved is a pretty meaningless comment.
Phil
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:23 PMYes, you’re technically correct, but I think most of us are capable of interpreting and understanding what the author is talking about. Without trolling.
Seed
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:29 PMSorry, thought this was a technology/gadget blog. i assumed technical correctness would be something important to its readers.
If you remove the guff that ISO has improved, all you’re left with is an article stating that digital cameras have imporved over the last decade. I guess that’s one way to make an article more insteresting.
Seed
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:34 PMFurther, for an “ISO to improve”, there must be some sort of meaningful comparison between ISOs. If this is true, can anyone tell me which camera currently has the best ISO?
Graeme
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM“the 2012 shot is so good it can make Madonna look human”
So, still a long way to go on reproduction accuracy then.
Dale
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 8:13 PMSince when is embiggen a word?
Michael
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM..since 1996 when it was first used in an episode of the Simpsons (Episode SF13)
Stew
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:55 AMI think it’s a perfectly cromulent word.