FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

1" sensor

Page  12>
Author
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 2362
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 1" sensor
    Posted: 29 July 2019 at 11:56
Looking for a pocket camera I investigated the RX100 series. The idea of a 1" sensor appealed - a decent size I thought. Then I saw the specs - 13.3 x 8.8mm - how can that be 1"? Even the diagonal (15.9mm) is way short of an inch (25.4mm). Does 1" no longer mean 1 inch? Have the Japanese invented a short inch?
 



Back to Top
Pallanza View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 235
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pallanza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 12:05
Back to Top
mirthseeker View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 October 2011
Country: Australia
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Posts: 762
Post Options Post Options   Quote mirthseeker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 12:10
Or see here.
Back to Top
bonneville View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 May 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: East Midlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 2250
Post Options Post Options   Quote bonneville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 13:49
Hi Phil. My two pence worth. Donít bother with the sensor specs, look at an earlier version of the RX100 for a great value, good quality pocket camera. The later versions, not least the latest mk vii, are expensive and stuffed with features I donít particularly want or need in a camera for the glove box.

My recently bought RX100iii goes with me everywhere, takes amazing images and was a real deal. Good revue here.

Good luck with your quest.
Back to Top
Aavo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 April 2013
Country: Estonia
Location: Tallinn
Status: Offline
Posts: 5401
Post Options Post Options   Quote Aavo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 13:52
If you can accept, don't take superzoom models.
a6500 & some nice e-mount af lenses 20/24/56/17-70/18-135 mm
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 4019
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 15:07
The compact size of the RX100 series is appealing especially if you have small hands (and small pockets and a large wallet ) but for me it is essentially a very expensive toy camera however good the performance is. It's simply too small to use and is so weak and plasticky it's not for me. A Nex is much nicer to handle.

But if that doesn't bother you, the image quality and feature set are pretty good.

For me, the Canon S100 is a nicer camera to use; it's about the same size and much cheaper. Less Mp though, if that bothers you.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ...
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3515
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 15:52
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

It's simply too small to use and is so weak and plasticky it's not for me.

The RX100 series have alloy bodies not unlike the later A7 cameras (or the NEX 5, 7).

I don't like the feel of metal surfaces, but the market prefers them as quality signals.
Sony A7RIV NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA5 Metabones-IV Sigma MC-11 Yongnuo EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
bonneville View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 May 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: East Midlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 2250
Post Options Post Options   Quote bonneville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 16:47
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

The compact size of the RX100 series is appealing especially if you have small hands (and small pockets and a large wallet ) but for me it is essentially a very expensive toy camera however good the performance is. It's simply too small to use and is so weak and plasticky it's not for me. A Nex is much nicer to handle.

But if that doesn't bother you, the image quality and feature set are pretty good.

For me, the Canon S100 is a nicer camera to use; it's about the same size and much cheaper. Less Mp though, if that bothers you.


I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I too have a NEX-5 (hasn't seen the light of day for ages due mainly to the impossibility of viewing the screen in bright conditions). I then bought a NEX-6 for its viewfinder, which is much better but, the OP is looking for a "pocket camera" and whatever size lens is fitted to a NEX body, even the diminutive 16mm f2.8, it doesn't fit into any of my pockets other than a safari type jacket.

Edit: But the NEX-6 has been a great tool for exploring the world of adapters and "interesting" lenses, so each have their own strengths IMHO.


Edited by bonneville - 29 July 2019 at 16:52
Back to Top
Pallanza View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 235
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pallanza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 17:25
I have the RX100 iii parallel to my Sony A7R iii as stand-by camera. My criterion was "small" and "best image quality", so I accepted the minor zoom range (24-70 mm). On my last travel through Poland I had a problem with my A7R iii, so I used only the RX 100 iii. Not really a problem in most situation, except very (!!) low light. Most people will not see any differences in image quality.
If you do want a longer zoom range, you'll get the normal draw backs due to a smaller aperture.
Back to Top
jvandegr View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 April 2008
Country: United States
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Posts: 1004
Post Options Post Options   Quote jvandegr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 18:09
My strong advice is to stay away from one inch sensors, unless you only intend to take daylight snapshots that you won't develop much or make even medium size prints from. The small photo sites create too much noise for any other application. And yes, this is truly image destroying noise that is readily visible. On the other hand, I'm impressed with how far the sensors have come and they are certainly better than any cell phone camera. However, Micro Four Thirds is noticeably better than the one inch sensors in every aspect (except size for long telephoto focal lengths) for approximately the same size, weight, and cost. The Panasonic Lumix LX100 and Leica D-Lux Typ 109 are particularly easy to recommend.
Jon Van de Grift
Photojournalist and Educator
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12955
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 18:11
1" sensors have two downsides for me: 4x3 aspect ratio and 1" sensors are still quite small. That is why went for the APS-C sized Canon G1x3. Not quite as small, but it fits a coat pocket - noticeable smaller then a NEX or A6x00 camera.

But it is a weird way to measure sensor size calling this sensor 1". But it is catchy name
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3515
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 19:02
Sensor size doesn't matter for noise. Lens size is the main thing that matters. There's always a depth-of-field/noise trade-off. And by lens size multiply crop factor by the relative aperture. There are relatively huge lenses in some formats.

Sony's one-inch sensors are more efficient than their current APS-C sensors. But even the 8.8 mm F1.8 wide end of the faster lens is quite limited.
Sony A7RIV NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA5 Metabones-IV Sigma MC-11 Yongnuo EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 12955
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 20:03
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Sensor size doesn't matter for noise. Lens size is the main thing that matters. There's always a depth-of-field/noise trade-off. And by lens size multiply crop factor by the relative aperture. There are relatively huge lenses in some formats.

Sony's one-inch sensors are more efficient than their current APS-C sensors. But even the 8.8 mm F1.8 wide end of the faster lens is quite limited.
I am not that interested in noise, but DXO Mark reports about a full stop difference between the RX100 V and A6400 in noise. More interesting is Dynamic Range, there the difference is about one and a half stop.

But the most important, tree foliage is mush with all 1" sensors I have seen. I do not know why this is so, but it is what I see. Maybe if lenses get better it changes, but for now it is the way it is. This is the reason I decided on the G1x3.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3515
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 July 2019 at 20:40
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

But the most important, tree foliage is mush with all 1" sensors I have seen. I do not know why this is so, but it is what I see. Maybe if lenses get better it changes, but for now it is the way it is.

Well, I agree about mush, which seems to be be caused by over processing.

I am very disappointed in the images taken by my new iPhone 8 Plus. There's hardly even 3 MP of image data left at ISO 20 in bright sunlight. No third-party application can reduce Apple's processing either. I mainly use my phone camera for my job where detail is important. Evidently their market thinks reality should look like a poorly rendered video game.

My Pentax Q7 is similar.

And I see calls by photographers to add more computational photography to cameras to be more like cellphones. I want less. Sony, get rid of the star eater; get rid of the raw vignette correction. But at least Sony allows turning off sharpening completely for JPEGs.

Edited by QuietOC - 29 July 2019 at 20:46
Sony A7RIV NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA5 Metabones-IV Sigma MC-11 Yongnuo EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > Other camera systems Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.