>>4352758Anon you are retarded.
Yes. Digital point and shoots from 10-15 years ago had great sensors.
I'm not talking about the forced auto mode, unusable JPEGs, shitty lenses, and other things.
They were a shit package as bundled and got ABSOLUTELY BTFO by RAW capable smartphones for a reason. Their market was obliterated and it deserved to be. They started swapping to CMOS at the end and that was the least of their issues. JPEG only was the real problem.
Those Canon ELPH shits with CCD sensors at 80 ISO for like 8-14MP were clean as hell if you actually had proper exposure. Even modern full frame sensors with base64 ISO aren't that much cleaner but they do perform better at higher ISO settings due to better signal processing and lower noise introduced further down the pipeline. Even ISO 400 was an unusable meme on those old CCDs but if you actually weren't 3 stops underexposed you'd have VERY clean data coming from the sensor. Something all current gen micro four thirds can't compete with for whatever reason, hell they are all for the most part base 200 ISO which is a joke. We should have MFT that are low noise with like 25 ISO for stills in good lighting but nah they all would rather chase meme sports ISO shit and not deliver low noise stills with proper exposure. It's all a joke.
>>4352774The cameras were shit, the sensors were good.
99% of them didn't even allow you to control your shutter speed so millions of people had billions of photos ruined by being forced into a shitty auto mode.
These devices were purposefully neutered to shill larger format cameras with manual controls. On top of that they forced some shitty presets with comical amounts of unsharp masking onto your images so they never produced good images even if used properly.
They were shit cameras made to be shit by people being shit (the manufacturers) and all the manufacturers agreed together to make them shit. Sensors inside were gems, but crippled by firmware and software. And shit lenses.
