well, back in those days those ISO levels were not considered rubbish, just like film before it wasn't considered rubbish. It's only "rubbish" by modern standards and even then; without those cameras, the cameras we have now would never have existed.
Users tend to be more rubbish than their gear and the better cameras get, the more obvious this is.
Oh absolutely, and back in the day it was as good as it gets for sure. Frustrating at times but the bar was set way lower.
I liked them so much I still have them even if just as paperweights in the office.
"Users tend to be more rubbish than their gear and the better cameras get, the more obvious this is."
To that I partially agree though.
I agree that most of the users will never squeeze 100% of the capabilities of the camera, mainly because we usually niche ourselves into genres that tend to disregard some of the technologies cameras have these days (what does a landscaper care about extreme AF speed or a birder about focus stacking for example). But I think with cameras getting better and better and the inevitable intrusion of AI, it can make up for some lack of skills in certain areas.
Also, and this is slightly off topic, as much as (I assume) we all here may have some level of critical thinking when it comes to viewing images, the vast majority of the public loves a highly saturated, over-sharpened, orange and teal "moody" edit. So it gets hard to measure "rubbishness" since clearly unskilled photographers are killing it as "content creators" while real hardcore professionals are grinding 12 h shifts and struggling to get published, and in many cases, using the same gear. So if success is a metric for rubbish, we are utterly effed. . .