1/1.7 and 1/2.3 sensor sizes: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

I am trying to decide between a 1/1.7 sensor P&S and a 1/2.3 sensor. I like the 1/2.3 because of the smaller size camera. The camera would be to supplement my DSLR on hiking trips and other quick shots.

I would like to know know exactly where I would sacrifice in IQ by choosing a 1/2.3.

i.e. Excluding low light noise,

For outside sunny daylight shots, does the 1/1.7 have any IQ benefits in colour or sharpness? or are the benefits only in lowlight noise.

Thanks
Elad

eladschreiberwrote:

I am trying to decide between a 1/1.7 sensor P&S and a 1/2.3 sensor. I like the 1/2.3 because of the smaller size camera. The camera would be to supplement my DSLR on hiking trips and other quick shots.

I would like to know know exactly where I would sacrifice in IQ by choosing a 1/2.3.

i.e. Excluding low light noise,

For outside sunny daylight shots, does the 1/1.7 have any IQ benefits in colour or sharpness? or are the benefits only in lowlight noise.

It's not low light that's the real problem, it's that low light frequently forces you to use a high ISO, and in addition to adding noise to the images, you also get drab colors. If the subject is stationary and you use a tripod, a long shutter speed that allows you to stick to a low ISO (such as ISO 100) helps to retain vivid colors. If you have to use a high ISO in bright light (for action shots), colors will also suffer so larger sensors are preferable if you don't mind the larger camera size that they require, all other things being equal.

The other thing that smaller sensors do (if the number of megapixels is the same) is reduce the pixel size. If you photograph an extremely tiny point of light and the focus is perfect, it will not produce a tiny point of light on the sensor plane. It produces a tiny ring of light (an "Airy Disk"), and the disk's diameter is inversely proportional to the lens aperture. In other words, at smaller apertures, you get larger disks. This isn't noticed until the disk diameters approach the size of the sensor's pixels. When they exceed the pixel size you get "diffraction" blurring. With tiny sensors (1/2.3", 1/2.5", etc.) most P&S cameras that have sensors with 10 or more megapixels will already be producing slightly blurred images even with the lens aperture wide open. This doesn't mean that they won't be able to produce good IQ images, but don't expect them to show more detail than you'd get from a 5mp camera. The larger sensor cameras (having larger pixels) can get all the resolution that you'd expect . . . unless they're used with small apertures.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

eladschreiberwrote:

I am trying to decide between a 1/1.7 sensor P&S and a 1/2.3 sensor. I like the 1/2.3 because of the smaller size camera. The camera would be to supplement my DSLR on hiking trips and other quick shots.

I would like to know know exactly where I would sacrifice in IQ by choosing a 1/2.3.
i.e. Excluding low light noise,

For outside sunny daylight shots, does the 1/1.7 have any IQ benefits in colour or sharpness? or are the benefits only in lowlight noise.

...is not the only factor. So, while a 1/1.7 sensor has 54% (~ 2/3 stops) more area than a 1/2.3 sensor, if the 1/2.3 lens is 2/3 stops faster, it makes up for that (at higher ISOs -- at base ISO it's still the sensor size that matters most). And all that, of course, assumes that the sensors have nearly the same efficiency and read noise (usually a good assumption, however, given sensors of the same generation).

Also, we have to consider that the lens on the 1/2.3 sensor has to be 24% sharper to resolve as well as the lens on the 1/1.7 sensor, in addition to the effect of any differences in pixel counts (10 MP vs 15 MP, for example). Then we have to consider how strong the AA filter is as well.

Of course, there are other considerations, as you bring up, but generalizations on those points cannot be made as a function of sensor size, as the lens, the CFA (color filter array), the option for RAW (as opposed to jpg only), the jpg engine, and involuntary processing applied to the pic in-camera, among other factors, are all very important.

Billx08 wrote:

It's not low light that's the real problem, it's that low light frequently forces you to use a high ISO, and in addition to adding noise to the images, you also get drab colors.

In fact, low light is the problem. The higher ISOs, for a given aperture and shutter speed, produce less noise than lower ISOs. The higher ISO merely makes the camera choose a faster shutter speed (Av mode), smaller aperture (Tv mode), or some combination thereof (Auto and P modes), all of which have the effect of putting less light on the sensor, creating more noise. But the higher ISO, on its own, does not "add noise to the images" -- in fact, it results in somewhat less apparent noise than lower ISOs (again, for a given aperture and shutter speed).

If the subject is stationary and you use a tripod, a long shutter speed that allows you to stick to a low ISO (such as ISO 100) helps to retain vivid colors.

Because more light falls on the sensor with the longer shutter speed, not because the ISO is lower.

If you have to use a high ISO in bright light (for action shots), colors will also suffer...

Because less light falls on the sensor with the faster shutter speed, not because the ISO is higher.

...so larger sensors are preferable if you don't mind the larger camera size that they require, all other things being equal.

The Canon S90 (1/1.7) is pretty small.

The other thing that smaller sensors do (if the number of megapixels is the same) is reduce the pixel size. If you photograph an extremely tiny point of light and the focus is perfect, it will not produce a tiny point of light on the sensor plane. It produces a tiny ring of light (an "Airy Disk"), and the disk's diameter is inversely proportional to the lens aperture. In other words, at smaller apertures, you get larger disks. This isn't noticed until the disk diameters approach the size of the sensor's pixels. When they exceed the pixel size you get "diffraction" blurring. With tiny sensors (1/2.3", 1/2.5", etc.) most P&S cameras that have sensors with 10 or more megapixels will already be producing slightly blurred images even with the lens aperture wide open. This doesn't mean that they won't be able to produce good IQ images, but don't expect them to show more detail than you'd get from a 5mp camera. The larger sensor cameras (having larger pixels) can get all the resolution that you'd expect . . . unless they're used with small apertures.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

More pixels result in more detail, regardless of the size of the Airy Disk:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

The main issue, however, is that a lens on a camera with a smaller sensor needs to be sharper to resolve the same as a lens on a camera with a larger sensor:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#lensvssensor

I think the very pleasing results that my Fuji F31fd produces is a very good recommendation for the 1.7 sensor. That sensor and a reasonable pixel count of 6Meg caused me to make it my camera of choice. Low light performance is exceptional as well.

I am hesitant to suggest you pay the inflated price for an F31fd. I make the comment simply to support the 1.7 sensor capabilities.

derFritz

Fritzdcatwrote:

I think the very pleasing results that my Fuji F31fd produces is a very good recommendation for the 1.7 sensor. That sensor and a reasonable pixel count of 6Meg caused me to make it my camera of choice. Low light performance is exceptional as well.

I am hesitant to suggest you pay the inflated price for an F31fd. I make the comment simply to support the 1.7 sensor capabilities.

The F31fd is/was a very nice camera, but the F200EXR would be a better choice, and some may even still be available new. Although it's touted as a 12mp camera, its sensor is slightly larger (1/1.6") and the EXR sensor design really optimizes it as a 6mp sensor, and unlike Fuji's old F3x cameras, has image stabilization. The F200 should sell for less than the F31fd on the used market and probably does everything better than the F31fd with the possible exception of very high ISO image quality . . . but it should be close.

Crocodile Genawrote:

In fact, low light is the problem. The higher ISOs, for a given aperture and shutter speed, produce less noise than lower ISOs.

Please don't totally confuse new folks on these forums. They are having enough trouble on their own without someone playing practical jokes. There will no doubt be someone that reads this and takes it for fact.

Crocodile Genawrote:

In fact, low light is the problem. The higher ISOs, for a given aperture and shutter speed, produce less noise than lower ISOs.

RAL wrote:

Please don't totally confuse new folks on these forums. They are having enough trouble on their own without someone playing practical jokes. There will no doubt be someone that reads this and takes it for fact.

If someone takes what I wrote for a fact, then excellent, because what I wrote is a fact: higher ISOs do not cause more noise -- less light getting on the sensor causes more noise. Using a higher ISO makes the camera choose a faster shutter speed (Av mode), a smaller aperture (Tv mode), or both (Auto and P modes), either of which results in less light falling on the sensor, resulting in more noise.

If that is too confusing for you, please don't presume for others who are not otherwise confused by a factually correct explanation.

Crocodile Genawrote:
. . .

Please don't totally confuse new folks on these forums. They are having enough trouble on their own without someone playing practical jokes. There will no doubt be someone that reads this and takes it for fact.

If someone takes what I wrote for a fact, then excellent, because what I wrote is a fact: higher ISOs do not cause more noise -- less light getting on the sensor causes more noise. Using a higher ISO makes the camera choose a faster shutter speed (Av mode), a smaller aperture (Tv mode), or both (Auto and P modes), either of which results in less light falling on the sensor, resulting in more noise.

Your "for a given aperture and shutter speed, produce less noise than lower ISOs" is what makes your statement practically useless. Nobody chooses a random aperture and shutter speed and then goes about selecting a good ISO to use. If the best image quality is desired, a low ISO is the starting point and then the camera selects an appropriate combination of shutter speed and aperture, and the low ISO insures that the sensor gets the most usable light to the sensor. If you want to increase the ISO at this point without changing the shutter speed or aperture you'll most likely create a badly overexposed image with severely blown highlights. Sure, the (former) shadow area will have less noise, but the image will most likely be ruined.

IOW, raising the ISO helps only when the "given aperture and shutter speed" would have produced a very underexposed image. What good does "reduced noise" do for images that are grossly overexposed?

If that is too confusing for you, please don't presume for others who are not otherwise confused by a factually correct explanation.

Swiftly switching to the "Crocodile Gena" / "Shull Bitter" / "Joe Mama" insult mode (I'm smart, you're not) at the first opportunity is your hallmark, troll.

Crocodile Genawrote:

If someone takes what I wrote for a fact, then excellent, because what I wrote is a fact: higher ISOs do not cause more noise -- less light getting on the sensor causes more noise. Using a higher ISO makes the camera choose a faster shutter speed (Av mode), a smaller aperture (Tv mode), or both (Auto and P modes), either of which results in less light falling on the sensor, resulting in more noise.

Billx08 wrote:

Your "for a given aperture and shutter speed, produce less noise than lower ISOs" is what makes your statement practically useless. Nobody chooses a random aperture and shutter speed and then goes about selecting a good ISO to use. If the best image quality is desired, a low ISO is the starting point and then the camera selects an appropriate combination of shutter speed and aperture, and the low ISO insures that the sensor gets the most usable light to the sensor. If you want to increase the ISO at this point without changing the shutter speed or aperture you'll most likely create a badly overexposed image with severely blown highlights. Sure, the (former) shadow area will have less noise, but the image will most likely be ruined.

IOW, raising the ISO helps only when the "given aperture and shutter speed" would have produced a very underexposed image. What good does "reduced noise" do for images that are grossly overexposed?

Your problem (at least the one I am addressing at the moment), is that you somehow divine that I am telling people to set an aperture and shutter speed, and then raise the ISO as high as it can go, when, I neither said, nor implied, any such thing.

I merely explained that it is not the higher ISO that causes more noise, but the lesser light falling on the sensor. This is useful information to know, because so many incorrectly believe that if only their smaller sensors were "as good as" FF sensors, then they could match the noise performance of FF. When, in fact, the reality is that the sensors of smaller sensor systems are sometimes even better than FF sensors, it is just that their smaller size, and the smaller maximum aperture diameters of the lenses for their systems for a given AOV, do not allow for their smaller sensors to capture as much light as FF.

If that is too confusing for you, please don't presume for others who are not otherwise confused by a factually correct explanation.

Swiftly switching to the "Crocodile Gena" / "Shull Bitter" / "Joe Mama" insult mode (I'm smart, you're not) at the first opportunity is your hallmark, troll.

I wish I knew as much as Shull Bitter. But insults? Let's play "link and quote" from this thread. I'll begin with your post:

He's baaaaack!!!

• I've been back for some time -- see my posting history

No, YOU are the problem. I've never seen you to be anything other than a monomaniacal troll, fixated on one topic.

• Uh, yeah, right. As demonstrated above:

Monomaniacal. You.

• Sounds familiar:

Sock puppet always quotes from his master's (who was banned) website. http: www.troll's website...

• Are you jealous?

My point is that I'm sure everyone reading this exchange is very glad to have you nipping at my heels, and would love to see the thread go to 150 with this lovely banter. So, please, continue with the insulting posts. Everyone thanks you for a job well done.

Crocodile Genawrote:
. . .

IOW, raising the ISO helps only when the "given aperture and shutter speed" would have produced a very underexposed image. What good does "reduced noise" do for images that are grossly overexposed?

Your problem (at least the one I am addressing at the moment), is that you somehow divine that I am telling people to set an aperture and shutter speed, and then raise the ISO as high as it can go, when, I neither said, nor implied, any such thing.

Your problem is that you're simply stating and restating and restating the obvious, while simultaneously trying to pretend that you've got some amazing secret method that reduces noise, if only people would follow your instructions. But these are instructions that never materialize. You've got your pet photographic talking points and spew them endlessly. You're also inventing words to put in my mouth, since I never said what you claimed. Try reading for comprehension next time.

I merely explained that it is not the higher ISO that causes more noise, but the lesser light falling on the sensor.

I already said that this is a true, but a uselessly true fact, and explained why it's not useful. As you're committed to misunderstanding (wouldn't want to admit that you're wrong now, would you?) there's no point in explaining again.

This is useful information to know, because so many incorrectly believe that if only their smaller sensors were "as good as" FF sensors, then they could match the noise performance of FF. When, in fact, the reality is that the sensors of smaller sensor systems are sometimes even better than FF sensors, it is just that their smaller size, and the smaller maximum aperture diameters of the lenses for their systems for a given AOV, do not allow for their smaller sensors to capture as much light as FF.

Again, you're stating the obvious but not providing anything that could help someone with a real camera (as opposed to a theoretical one) to improve their images. Yes, as you noted, it's possible to reduce noise by increasing the ISO "for a given" shutter speed and aperture, but a camera's metering system is designed to maximize the amount of light collected for any chosen ISO. I never said anything about using the maximum possible ISO. It's YOU that has said the a higher ISO would produce less noise. But raising the ISO would only be wise if the chosen exposure (aperture and shutter speed) was insufficient. This may well happen if they are selected manually, but in Program Mode, Aperture Priority Mode and Shutter Priority Mode, the metering system is designed to maximize the light that the sensor collects, with a small margin of safety to minimize the risk of blown highlights. So for all practical purposes, most people never have their cameras set to your mythical shutter speed/aperture combination that would see a lower noise benefit by increasing the ISO. Only a fool, a troll, or someone that simply doesn't understand photography would disagree. I'm sure that you will disagree, but I also realize that you're a troll. One that never has a new thought. Your useless message is well beyond its "Use By" date.

My point is that I'm sure everyone reading this exchange is very glad to have you nipping at my heels, and would love to see the thread go to 150 with this lovely banter. So, please, continue with the insulting posts. Everyone thanks you for a job well done.

Yes, when you enter a thread, it's much more likely to go to 150, but it sure isn't what most of use want, troll.

Billx08 wrote:

Your problem is...

Sorry -- didn't get past that part of your post this time. I'll just go back to the heart of the matter. You said:

It's not low light that's the real problem, it's that low light frequently forces you to use a high ISO, and in addition to adding noise to the images, you also get drab colors.

I said:

In fact, low light is the problem.

and proceeded to correctly explain why. Then I had some pretty compelling counterexamples to your abusive comments a bit futher down:

One closer to 150, eh? I bet I tire before you, and I bet others have already tired of it.

Crocodile Genawrote:

Your problem (at least the one I am addressing at the moment), is that you somehow divine that I am telling people to set an aperture and shutter speed, and then raise the ISO as high as it can go, when, I neither said, nor implied, any such thing.

Although that is a sensible way of working if your the type who demands control over the creative parameters (depth of field and motion blur) and also wants the lowest possible noise. It is equivalent to set your desired depth of field and motion blur, the expose to the right. If you want lowest noise there isn't any point setting a smaller aperture than you need for your chosen DOF, or a faster shutter speed than you want for your desired motion blur. Let the ISO control take the strain of getting the output density right.
Not a technique that suits everyone, but a valid one.

Crocodile Genawrote:

Billx08 wrote:

Your problem is...

Sorry -- didn't get past that part of your post this time. I'll just go back to the heart of the matter. You said:

Of course you didn't go past that point, because you wouldn't have been able to credibly defend your lie, so you simply posted snips from earlier replies. Way to go. You're a real Croc.

Billx08wrote:

Fritzdcatwrote:

I think the very pleasing results that my Fuji F31fd produces is a very good recommendation for the 1.7 sensor. That sensor and a reasonable pixel count of 6Meg caused me to make it my camera of choice. Low light performance is exceptional as well.

I am hesitant to suggest you pay the inflated price for an F31fd. I make the comment simply to support the 1.7 sensor capabilities.

The F31fd is/was a very nice camera, but the F200EXR would be a better choice, and some may even still be available new. Although it's touted as a 12mp camera, its sensor is slightly larger (1/1.6") and the EXR sensor design really optimizes it as a 6mp sensor, and unlike Fuji's old F3x cameras, has image stabilization. The F200 should sell for less than the F31fd on the used market and probably does everything better than the F31fd with the possible exception of very high ISO image quality . . . but it should be close.

Camera A

Camera B

Camera C

Crocodile Gena wrote:

Your problem (at least the one I am addressing at the moment), is that you somehow divine that I am telling people to set an aperture and shutter speed, and then raise the ISO as high as it can go, when, I neither said, nor implied, any such thing.

Norbert Deathstrangler wrote:

Although that is a sensible way of working if your the type who demands control over the creative parameters (depth of field and motion blur) and also wants the lowest possible noise. It is equivalent to set your desired depth of field and motion blur, the expose to the right. If you want lowest noise there isn't any point setting a smaller aperture than you need for your chosen DOF, or a faster shutter speed than you want for your desired motion blur. Let the ISO control take the strain of getting the output density right.
Not a technique that suits everyone, but a valid one.

I wasn't saying that a competent photographer might not first choose the aperture and shutter speed, and then choose the ISO -- I was saying that I wasn't saying to "throttle the ISO all the way up" just because higher ISOs have less apparent noise for a given aperture and shutter speed.

Absolutely, I often set the aperture and shutter speed, and then choose the ISO accordingly, depending on the histogram, and it's not uncommon for me to "overexpose" with a higher ISO and pull the image in post to get lower noise, so long as I'm not blowing too much of the image (what constitutes "too much", of course, varies from scene to scene).

So, absolutely, ETTR by upping the ISO is a valid technique, and one I often make use of. But, by the same token, if doing so blows "too much" of the image, then I may even ETTL and suffer the greater apparent noise when highlight control is more an issue than noise.

Crocodile Genawrote:

Crocodile Gena wrote:

Your problem (at least the one I am addressing at the moment), is that you somehow divine that I am telling people to set an aperture and shutter speed, and then raise the ISO as high as it can go, when, I neither said, nor implied, any such thing.

Norbert Deathstrangler wrote:

Although that is a sensible way of working if your the type who demands control over the creative parameters (depth of field and motion blur) and also wants the lowest possible noise. It is equivalent to set your desired depth of field and motion blur, the expose to the right. If you want lowest noise there isn't any point setting a smaller aperture than you need for your chosen DOF, or a faster shutter speed than you want for your desired motion blur. Let the ISO control take the strain of getting the output density right.
Not a technique that suits everyone, but a valid one.

I wasn't saying that a competent photographer

That's maybe where you lost Bill.
--
Norbert

Billx08 wrote:

Of course you didn't go past that point, because you wouldn't have been able to credibly defend your lie, so you simply posted snips from earlier replies. Way to go. You're a real Croc.

..."the lie". I want a link, and a quote, to anything I said that was a lie.

The Panasonic Lumix S5II launched the second generation of Panasonic’s full-frame mirrorless camera system and was the first Panasonic to feature phase detect autofocus. As our review reveals, it’s a heck of an all-around camera for both still and video shooters.

The latest Lumix puts a Four Thirds sensor in a full-frame body with boosted AF and a wealth of stills and video capabilities to create a Swiss Army Knife of a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.