Quality from a 1/2.3" sensor: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

gcbodie wrote:

Can you help me out with understanding the significance of the different sensor sizes. I have been hung up on getting a 1" sensor thinking that lead to greater image quality. Many of the cameras that others have recommended to me are 1/2.3" but are otherwise interesting cameras. Just what will I see in image quality? The only challenging shots I take are hand-held, available light, in the outdoors - pictures of birds in trees or on rocks or on water or flying by. Those shots may get cropped and then printed in 8x10 sizes - rarely much larger. Does a 1/2.3" limit me?

Here's a shot from a Sony S50 (1/2.7, smaller than a 1/2.3) and one from an FZ1000 (1") for comparison.

With the 2 MP Sony,though, I couldn't print 8x10s without getting noticeable pixelation .

I own and use the P900 (tiny sensor ) and the fz1000 with the 1" sensor. to get good quality pics you need good quality light . Both cameras are very good . You shouldn't need to crop using the P900 so printing 8" by 10" wont be an issue . The fz1000 has faster focus, better low light ability but less reach.

Only you can decide on that one.

heres a few from the P900 to give you an idea so you can make your own mind up .

.

gcbodie wrote:

Can you help me out with understanding the significance of the different sensor sizes. I have been hung up on getting a 1" sensor thinking that lead to greater image quality. Many of the cameras that others have recommended to me are 1/2.3" but are otherwise interesting cameras. Just what will I see in image quality?

I don't tend to do much with 1/2.3" sensor cameras - my impression of their IQ is from pixel peeping, so it's not realistic. My daughter has a Panasonic FZ200, with the excellent f/2.8 superzoom lens. My experience has been that images from the smaller sensors are fine printed small in photo books or even on our calendars, but I've never tried printing even 8x10s. So I took a look at imaging-resource.com. The FZ200 is a bit older so newer sensors may be better, but they claim that ISO 100 shots will print a nice 13"x19" print, allowing you some cropping room if you'll only print 8x10.

It does say, though, that by the time you hit ISO 800, it's only good for a 5x7, so if you do go with a 1/2.3" sensor model, I'd definitely look for a fast lens.

The only challenging shots I take are hand-held, available light, in the outdoors - pictures of birds in trees or on rocks or on water or flying by. Those shots may get cropped and then printed in 8x10 sizes - rarely much larger. Does a 1/2.3" limit me?

The main limitation would be in those available light shots if you need to shoot much above base ISO. But if you're looking for long zoom range (you mentioned that some of those 1/2.3" sensor cameras are "otherwise interesting" ... not sure if the long zooms are interesting) then it still might be a good compromise. The Panasonic FZ1000 and Sony RX10-III are both f/4 at the long ends of their zoom ranges, so you'd be shooting at a higher ISO to start with. The imaging-resource review of the FZ1000 makes it out to be about 2 stops better (ISO 1600 still okay for an 8x10 or so print, but ISO 3200 similar to ISO 800 on the FZ200 - good for a 5x7). So the bigger sensor with the slower lens ends up being a bit better in low light, but not tons better.

The other thing to consider is dynamic range - in daylit scenes, the smaller sensor is going to be a lot more prone to blown highlights (or, if you expose for highlights, blocked up shadows). But the newest sensors are probably better than they used to be and you can work around this with your compositions (or by using HDR modes on the cameras) ... plenty of people are more than happy with smart phones, after all.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

@Dennis

Brief, accurate, informative'analysis'

I own a Sony DSC-H300 which has a 1/2.3" sensor. It has a 35x optical zoom which is about 835mm equivalent. The image quality is fairly poor pixel-peeping at higher resolutions but works okay at 8x10" prints. I shoot almost all my pictures at 100 ISO. Action shots are not really that viable as you need a fast shutter speed and quick focus. I take very few photos of birds in flight, though sometimes I try.

Basically with wildlife photography, wildlife is skittish and a super long zoom comes in very handy. I routinely take pictures of birds at the full 35x optical zoom.

When I pixel peep, I am immediately shocked by the noise in many of the images that actually look okay as 8x10" prints. It's disappointing.

However, my camera is a sub $200 35x optical zoom that I can easily take with me to a park.

The most disappointing part is that the industry cost models do not make an improvement in IQ affordable for the long-zoom wildlife market.

If you look at the 4/3 cameras, you'll see that 600MM equivalent lenses for a 4/3 camera are $450-$550 alone.

In the one inch space, you are looking at closer to $1000 for an 800mm equivalent lense.

In the non-ILC offerings, you have a much lower range with 16x optical (about 400mm) with Panasonic FZ1000 and 480 (20x) with the FZ2500. The Canon G3x with equivalent 600mm was criticized by DPreview as having a soft lens. The Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III with roughly 600mm equivalent is roughly $1400.

These prices are why despite problems with image quality, many people, myself included, end up using a 1/2.3" camera. The reach necessary for wildlife photography is out of reach financially.

It's a decision made by the ugly realities of the market, not a personal decision.

With CP+ in a week, some new models may be announced.

I wouldn't buy a tiny sensor point & shoot, lowlight iso800 is bad, iso1600 is a joke, iso3200 = water color by severely Noise Reduction.

Since you care enough about IQ to post a question, why not buy a used APS-C Canon or Nikon DSLR for around $150 used?

IQ is such a significant jump from tiny 1/2.3" sensor, deeper dynamic range, smoother color transition that produce more pleasing Skin-Tone on baby's face.

The Best 1/2.3" sensor camera is actually Google Pixel smartphone. Google combine it with a Fast lens + Fast CPU = Real Time Multi-Frame HDR.

By quickly combining multiple shots, Google is able to increase Dynamic Range, capture more light per shot, and lessen the sharpness lost by severe NR. The only setback is the whopping $649 - $800

Peter - good points. I currently have a Nikon D7000 and 2 lenses: 70-200 and 200-500. It is the 200-500 I am most interested in replacing. It's only f6.3 at the far end and for the birds I am photographing I'd like to be able to get a little more than a 500 reach. Also nice to be able to get into the 70-200 range without having to carry the 2nd lens on my hikes.So I'm already well into the DLSR and multiple lenses world.

My objectives in this query are to find something lighter to carry around with me (hand-held shots in available light), with better focal length range, better image stabilization, slightly faster glass at the long reach but still good enough image quality that I can use the pictures with even a bit of cropping in print formats as large as 8x10.

To find a full DLSR with a 24-900 zoom would be great ... but I'm pretty sure THAT doesn't exist! So I'm looking at the compacts/superzooms and trying to weigh the trade-offs. Does this description make you change your recommendation?

If you only want the zoom range, then the 1" Sensor Canon G3X is what zip would buy.

But I would not recommend P&S for birding (unless you only shoot birds sit stationary on a tree)

DSLR or mirrorless are the only way to track BIF: birds in flight. No 1/2.3" P&S can adequately track BIF, it will be a frustrating experience. Otherwise, thousands of Birders would have done so already instead of carrying their heavy gears.

The best compromise is buying a Panasonic body for a Panasonic 100-400 lens = 200-800mm. Panasonic has the fastest AF in mirrorless and this combo is made for BIF. Good Luck

Why a D7000 in your gear list?

Anyway the difference is a factor of +1. +1 better light gathering, +1 higher dynamic range, +1 lower noise, +1 better image quality etc

Anything a dinky sensor can do, a 1 inch can do a lot better

But in terms of lenses everything is shorter. The P900 for example which goes to 2000mm focal range, could that lens be put in front of a 1" sensor would only equal 1000mm. Still useful, but not as impressive.

And there isn't a camera with one that size - yet. But there are some 1/2.3 cameras that go out to 960mm, and they fit in a pocket.

gcbodie wrote:

Peter - good points. I currently have a Nikon D7000 and 2 lenses: 70-200 and 200-500. It is the 200-500 I am most interested in replacing. It's only f6.3 at the far end and for the birds I am photographing I'd like to be able to get a little more than a 500 reach.

If only f/6.3, I'm guessing it's not the new Nikkor 200-500 ? (Tamron, maybe ?) With the crop factor on your D7000, you have the equivalent of 750mm (and any digicam is going to use 35mm equivalents, so that's what you're up against). You can crop to 900mm equivalent (you mentioned that) and get 11MP. But that lens probably isn't the sharpest at 500/6.3 in the first place.

To find a full DLSR with a 24-900 zoom would be great ... but I'm pretty sure THAT doesn't exist! So I'm looking at the compacts/superzooms and trying to weigh the trade-offs. Does this description make you change your recommendation?

Given that info, I don't have the experience to make a recommendation. Let's say you're at ISO 200 with a superzoom digicam with an f/2.8 lens and you crop a bit to get a decent 8x10 at 900mm equivalent. With the D7000, you're at f/6.3, call it f/8 to get better sharpness and ISO 1600. You'd have to crop a little from that as well. Accoding to imaging-resource, the D7000 can print a good 13x19 at ISO 1600, so that allows for cropping. Assuming that's all true ... and you could always try shooting at 500/8 and ISO 1600 and then cropping a little (you're already at 750mm equivalent, so if you crop too much then keep in mind you'd have to crop from a digicam, too) ... if all true, then the biggest thing you have to gain by going to a 1/2.3" sensor is ease of carrying.

One compact option for reach that is popular with some birders is a Nikon 1 camera with the 70-300 (840mm equivalent) ... it's f/5.6, but cropping is minimal and f/5.6 on 1" is about equivalent to f/2.8 on 1/2.3". I'm just not sure I'd buy into the Nikon 1 system right now ...

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Mark Blauhoefer wrote:

Anything a dinky sensor can do, a 1 inch can do a lot better

No.

Dinky sensor is better for size, low cost, greater depth of field (if important).

The kind of photography you intend doing, you are basically looking at a Bridge camera that has a fixed lens with enough zoom. And you will find that most bridge cameras with zooms above 20X are all based on 1/2.3" sensor. This ensures that their size and weight is reasonable, although some do reach more than 750gms.

IQ wise, 1" will always beat the smaller sensor, but for 8X10 prints, you should be OK with the smaller sensor. It depends on how much you have budgeted for. The best bridge camera running right now is Sony RX10 III which has a 1" sensor. 25X zoom for US 1400.0 approx. with a weight of 1Kg. Nikon, Panasonic also have lots of options. Many choices are available. At longer zooms, you will need a stand anyway.

I dont know the availability of Nikon 1 J5 and its lenses (1" mirrorless), otherwise I would have suggested this option. You can visit tomstirrphotography.com to check it out. This is reasonably priced yet gives you lens options that you wish to carry.

D7000 is what I have and am looking to replace and wrestling between 1" and 1/2.3" ... hence the query.

You said "there are some 1/2.3 cameras that go out to 960mm, and they fit in a pocket". Would you care to recommend any of them?

gcbodie wrote:

Can you help me out with understanding the significance of the different sensor sizes. I have been hung up on getting a 1" sensor thinking that lead to greater image quality. Many of the cameras that others have recommended to me are 1/2.3" but are otherwise interesting cameras. Just what will I see in image quality? The only challenging shots I take are hand-held, available light, in the outdoors - pictures of birds in trees or on rocks or on water or flying by. Those shots may get cropped and then printed in 8x10 sizes - rarely much larger. Does a 1/2.3" limit me?

image quality is fairly poor

I think you need a Nikon D7200 which has an APS-C 24meg Sensor which is very good

just my opinion

Tom G

In good light you can get good shots of birds - I use a Canon SX50HS with a zoom that goes up to 1200mm equiv but I stick to about 850mm equiv (the last point before the minimum aperture closes to something like f6.3). I always reduce the size, typically by a third or a half, so the room for cropping isn't as great as it may be with a large-sensor camera, so in reality my 850mm equiv is nearer 400-600 say. Remember that at the long end of the zoom in some cases the aperture means that things have already entered diffraction territory - it isn't disastrous, but things could be better.

Low light is a problem. Image stabilisation is pretty good at the photographer's end of things, but birds don't keep still - so I take a burst of shots. Keeper rate isn't very high but I'm old and shakey - however, usually I get one or two successful shots per burst. 320ISO is the maximum I am comfortable with, and most of my bird-in-flight shots have been an unmitigated failure, at least some of which is due to the photographer.

Satisfactory? Yes, and very enjoyable. Of course I'd like better, but then there is weight and cost to consider. For a purist I'd say be very wary - these small-sensor cams seem to rely on a fair amount of processing so if you look closely you can sometimes see where the camera has applied sharpening.

I suggest looking here http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=111 as well aschecking around the internet on what people are getting with the cameras that interest you, but always being aware that there is a wide range of abilities.

It's a bit like 'you pays your money and you takes your choice!'

tom1234567 wrote:

gcbodie wrote:

Can you help me out with understanding the significance of the different sensor sizes. I have been hung up on getting a 1" sensor thinking that lead to greater image quality. Many of the cameras that others have recommended to me are 1/2.3" but are otherwise interesting cameras. Just what will I see in image quality? The only challenging shots I take are hand-held, available light, in the outdoors - pictures of birds in trees or on rocks or on water or flying by. Those shots may get cropped and then printed in 8x10 sizes - rarely much larger. Does a 1/2.3" limit me?

image quality is fairly poor

I think you need a Nikon D7200 which has an APS-C 24meg Sensor which is very good

just my opinion

This is an unretouched photo from my camera which has a 1/2.3" sensor.

It is only 12mp but I think it's astonishingly good for what it is. I didn't have anything but my phone on me so that is what I used.

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.