Thanks for the, ah, illumination!

Meanwhile, in Finland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJj6d5QSYaE

I really need to understand this theory more!

Please explain in what ways that aperture is different. The "I know something you don't know" applies to me. I don't know what you are talking about.

Your wife might enjoy hearing his. These are the kinds of issues people deal with when preserving any computer files.

About 15 years ago I was asked by a Catholic diocese to preserve audio interviews from the very early 50's regarding a Vatican inquiry into alleged miracles in our area. The events were not proven to be genuine.

The recordings were done on a WIRE RECORDER. I actually was able to track down a wire recorder but it failed after a few minutes of play. [It was fascinating to hear how good the audio quality was!]

Fortunately, somebody had "backed up" the audio using a Wollensack monaural reel-to-real recorder in the early 60's. I was able to find one of those, a tube model, and patched it into a computer so I could "backup" the audio using Adobe Audition. That also let me EQ the audio for better clarity. Then I burned the WAV files to DVD disks and gave them to the archivist.

It has been 15 years and I'll bet there isn't a single PC with a DVD drive in their whole building. I also guess nobody has looked at the discs. Online storage was not an option do to privacy concerns. One wonders what would have happened if an encryption program was used that no longer worked with Windows 11.

But those audio tapes probably still work. At least I didn't use ZIP disks for storage!

It does give pause to realize how many people have now never looked through a true optical viewfinder. A few in my beginner class 15+ years ago still had some digis with finders, but either never tried them or never even knew what they were for.

Oddly, my Fuji X-10 appears to have been 'discovered' and is selling for about 3x what I paid for mine as a factory refurb after the sensor recall.

All carefully composed in bright sun, no doubt.

I think we are not talking about snapshooters.

People fail to migrate. Skip a generation or two and...oops!

For those of use who grew up looking at the real world through optics, there is a "one-step-removed" feel even with the best electronic finders. But better than 15 years ago!

Thousands of Leica users giggle.

Digital technology changes. Storage media quickly becomes obsolete. Online storage goes out of business.
I have on my shelf a gold-infused "100 Year CD" disk. Kind of like having an Edison cylinder. 100 years from now? Give me a break!

Think of something else to throw out that will take up the same space.

"Blurry" is a generic term kind of like "not feeling well."

Here are some ideas to help narrow down the causes.

Lens quality, including a teleconverter. The TC magnifies lens flaws. The TC itself could be poor quality.
Not using the "best" lens aperture. Most lenses have a "sweet spot" or aperture providing sharpest image.
Subject movement.
Low shutter speed/camera shake.
Insufficient aperture to cover the depth of field needed to have everything sharp.
High ISO resulting in degraded image quality.

It can be more than one of these.

Hope this helps!

Actually, better optical finders zoom along with the lens, if there is a zoom lens. Not as simple as an Instamatic.

That's a bingo! I have an X-10 and a few 12 & 16 MP little Powershots with matching optical finders.

While I do appreciate focus peaking in some situations, if optical finders worked for film Leicas for years, they perhaps were onto something?

Cheap Chinese cards often are over rated and have poor quality control.