At first glance, the question is strange, because the answer to it seems obvious. Better technique means better quality. In general, it is. But if you start to understand in detail, then everything becomes not so obvious, especially in the light of current equipment prices.
Why did I even come to this question? It is always important for me to be at the forefront of technological progress. More megapixels, more lens resolution, more dynamic range.
And recently my colleagues asked me: why? At first I fell a little into a stupor: well, how about more, better, faster. It is obvious. They gave me an argument in response: no one will be able to distinguish a shot taken in the studio and reduced for the site, made on the 5D Mark2 (2008) from the same one taken on the Canon R5 (2020). At the same time, the difference in price, today, is enormous.
And in general they are right. With rare exceptions, when a photo is needed for high-quality or large-format printing, no one will see the difference, even the photographer. Mark2 is a legendary camera, a huge number of masterpieces were made on it, that is, it seems to be that it does not limit the photographer. And if there is no difference, why pay more?
And here lies a very big, in my opinion, mistake.
It makes no sense to compare cameras head-on one frame at a time!
You need to look at the averages of the results of many surveys in a variety of conditions. And here technical progress will show itself to the fullest! Even in the ideal conditions of a photo studio, a modern camera will greatly benefit in terms of the percentage of successful shots: its autofocus is much faster and more accurate, plus it has the ability to focus on the face. I’m not talking about the presence of wi-fi, which allows you to view photos on the computer screen right during the shooting. And more megapixels, even leaving aside the print aspect, allows for much more freedom in cropping.
And as soon as we move from the studio to more extreme conditions, then the superiority of modern technology becomes simply overwhelming. Modern sensors allow you to shoot at much higher iso values in very poor lighting conditions with almost no noise. Add to this the built-in stabilization, the fast and accurate autofocus mentioned above … In general, in a dark room and dynamic models without additional lighting on the mark2, you are fine if you take one good shot, while the R5 will produce a stable result with an extremely low percentage of defects.
Let me summarize. Of course, if the photographer shoots only in the studio, not for advertising / magazines and tries to save on quality, then old cameras are an acceptable option. The result will be slightly worse than with modern technology.
But if you are a commercial photographer who shoots a lot and in different genres, modern technology will greatly improve the quality and stability of the result.