The 1" nonsense

[crashpc]

Still larger with 35mm FoV lens, still larger with kit lens. Sooo....

Anyway, that´s just another thread of insecurity. The truth is this.

There is this MF, which is a reference for a mortal.

Once you step down to FF, there is not much image left in there, but whatever. It has more support, more lenses, is affordable.

Then you step down to APS-C and obviously, there is not much image left in there, but whatever. It´s really affordable, smaller and lighter, cheap, still superb support and even more lenses to use.

Then you step down to MFT, and as usually, there is not much image left in there, but for whatever reason, it still sells.

Then you step down to 1", and there really is not much of the image left. But it got pocketable, so why not, even when they milk us with current prices.

Then you step down to smaller crops, and there really is not much image left! But hey, it´s compact, and it has this feature - SUPER ZOOM!

Then you step down even a little bit, to 1/3" in many smartphones. There is hardly any image left in there, but it is most used format! :-D

Now tell me MFT users, why should your format be any special, or reach up to the other format, in the sea of clearly more capable formats? Get over yourself! You´re small fish in the pond with APS-C users, FF users, MF users and Hubble users!

It gets as funny as angry hamster screaming at elephants!

 

[FrancoD]

Is there a 1" forum?

No because it would have been too noisy.

BTW, rumour comes from the Latin word for noise.

 

[KameraKnut]

In other words, 1", as it stands, is complete, utter and total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

So stop the auto-recommendation of 1" as a knee-jerk and only do that in the right circumstances.

Apart from auto-recommendation part which I agree IF it really happens, have you actually tried an 1" camera??? And if yes, what did you actually try to do it with it?

The main benefit of the 1" cameras is the good IQ on a very small package. For some people including myself, this is a great benefit and definitely not a "complete, utter and total nonsense"!!!

+1 from me, totally correct.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

I appreciate that when people use 1" as an argumentation tool, it's usually for the purpose of rhetoric and not really suggesting it as a practical solution (the recommender often does not own or use a 1" camera). However, once this rhetoric becomes an automatic reflex, it's worth pointing out that practically, it is often nonsensical.

The usual train of posts goes something like this:

FF: Your mFT shot is noisy as hell and in this situation a larger sensor would win.

FT: I print this large and the noise does not affect the result.

FF: In that case a 1" sensor would be sufficient and you get all sorts of operational advantages by moving that way.

FF has not noticed that they were talking about a series of photos, the best of which was taken with a Laowa 7.5/2.

And here is the problem with regard to theory and practice. 1" may be a marvel of engineering with wonderful (and wonderfully expensive and large/heavy) products, but it's not in any way an automatic recommendation if one is happy with mFT's noise performance, and presumable would be happy with that of 1". Noise is not the only determinant when choosing gear. It may not even be the most important one.

I seriously considered 1" on many occasions, some of the all-in-one solutions look marvelous on paper. Then I look at what I normally use most often, 45/1.8, 20/1.7, PL25, Laowa 7.5, and 45-175 power zoom. Apart from the slow zoom, all of the primes are mostly used at f/4 or larger apertures. In other words, 1", as it stands, is complete, utter and total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

So stop the auto-recommendation of 1" as a knee-jerk and only do that in the right circumstances.

It wasn't me.

 

[Martin.au]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

 

[Martin.au]

NCV wrote: the smallest system camera is now M43.

Panasonic didn't get the memo.

Panasonic thinks you're full of it, but commends you for such blatant dishonesty.

 

[TN Args]

.... I can easily say there is no MFT camera and lens that can do what a Sony RX10-IV does.

...A system camera allows you to build a SYSTEM that allows you to do what is needed.

One can take ie. GX85 with a 12-32mm + 35-100mm + 100-300mm. And then swap to lens that is needed at the moment. When going to restaurant at the evening, take just the GX85 with 12-32mm and leave rest behind.

That is exactly why the SYSTEM is always superior to any all-in-one cameras. You tailor it as you need it.

If we follow your argument and logic through, one can say that smartphone wins every day the Sony RX10-IV in every situation. And you know it ain't true.

What?

You've literally proven my point. What is a "system"? The MFT "system" encompasses dozens of camera bodies and lenses. Are you suggesting that I carry several bodies and lenses just to accomplish what the RX10-IV can do with just one, fixed lens camera?...

If your 'point' is that an RX10-IV is the only camera that can meet the needs of someone who wants exactly what the RX10-IV does, then it is a pretty stupid point. That's just a self-evident truth that is equally true for any camera.

Do you have a real point?

 

[AmbleYonder]

FF: Your mFT shot is noisy as hell and in this situation a larger sensor would win.

FT: I print this large and the noise does not affect the result.

no noise just your colour and tonality shot to hell .

 

[Kurgo]

NCV wrote: the smallest system camera is now M43.

Panasonic didn't get the memo.

Panasonic thinks you're full of it, but commends you for such blatant dishonesty.

Ehum...how was that dishonest exactly?

Is the GH5 a MFT camera? Yes.

Is the M50 an APS-C camera? Yes.

Is the former quite bigger than the latter? Yes.

-

He wasn't saying, I think, that the Canon M or APS-C systems are smaller than MFT, just answering to the overplayed and not always truthful "fact" that MFT cameras are always smaller, which as he pointed out, isn't always the case at all. You can accuse him of cherry picking if you want, but unless he photoshopped a d850 with a lumix gh5 branding in there, I can't see how it was dishonest.



Is it always like this when discussing sensors? Good grief, chill out chaps.

 

[kiwi2]

Still larger with 35mm FoV lens, still larger with kit lens. Sooo....

Anyway, that´s just another thread of insecurity. The truth is this.

There is this MF, which is a reference for a mortal.

Once you step down to FF, there is not much image left in there, but whatever. It has more support, more lenses, is affordable.

Then you step down to APS-C and obviously, there is not much image left in there, but whatever. It´s really affordable, smaller and lighter, cheap, still superb support and even more lenses to use.

Then you step down to MFT, and as usually, there is not much image left in there, but for whatever reason, it still sells.

Then you step down to 1", and there really is not much of the image left. But it got pocketable, so why not, even when they milk us with current prices.

Then you step down to smaller crops, and there really is not much image left! But hey, it´s compact, and it has this feature - SUPER ZOOM!

Then you step down even a little bit, to 1/3" in many smartphones. There is hardly any image left in there, but it is most used format! :-D

Now tell me MFT users, why should your format be any special, or reach up to the other format, in the sea of clearly more capable formats? Get over yourself! You´re small fish in the pond with APS-C users, FF users, MF users and Hubble users!

That's why when buying a new camera, I look at the dpreview test scene and decide what level of IQ I would be happy with.

 

[Martin.au]

NCV wrote: the smallest system camera is now M43.

Panasonic didn't get the memo.

Panasonic thinks you're full of it, but commends you for such blatant dishonesty.

Ehum...how was that dishonest exactly?

Is the GH5 a MFT camera? Yes.

Is the M50 an APS-C camera? Yes.

Is the former quite bigger than the latter? Yes.

-

He wasn't saying, I think, that the Canon M or APS-C systems are smaller than MFT, just answering to the overplayed and not always truthful "fact" that MFT cameras are always smaller, which as he pointed out, isn't always the case at all.

Except no one made that claim. The claim he was "refuting" was that "the smallest system camera is now M43." I think I'm just going to assume you are having trouble understanding these sentences.

You can accuse him of cherry picking if you want, but unless he photoshopped a d850 with a lumix gh5 branding in there, I can't see how it was dishonest.

Is it always like this when discussing sensors? Good grief, chill out chaps.

 

[kiwi2]

Panasonic thinks you're full of it, but commends you for such blatant dishonesty.

There are mirrorless APS-C cameras that are just as small...

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[perry rhodan]

I appreciate that when people use 1" as an argumentation tool, it's usually for the purpose of rhetoric and not really suggesting it as a practical solution (the recommender often does not own or use a 1" camera). However, once this rhetoric becomes an automatic reflex, it's worth pointing out that practically, it is often nonsensical.

The usual train of posts goes something like this:

FF: Your mFT shot is noisy as hell and in this situation a larger sensor would win.

FT: I print this large and the noise does not affect the result.

FF: In that case a 1" sensor would be sufficient and you get all sorts of operational advantages by moving that way.

FF has not noticed that they were talking about a series of photos, the best of which was taken with a Laowa 7.5/2.

And here is the problem with regard to theory and practice. 1" may be a marvel of engineering with wonderful (and wonderfully expensive and large/heavy) products, but it's not in any way an automatic recommendation if one is happy with mFT's noise performance, and presumable would be happy with that of 1". Noise is not the only determinant when choosing gear. It may not even be the most important one.

I seriously considered 1" on many occasions, some of the all-in-one solutions look marvelous on paper. Then I look at what I normally use most often, 45/1.8, 20/1.7, PL25, Laowa 7.5, and 45-175 power zoom. Apart from the slow zoom, all of the primes are mostly used at f/4 or larger apertures. In other words, 1", as it stands, is complete, utter and total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

So stop the auto-recommendation of 1" as a knee-jerk and only do that in the right circumstances.

To give all the highly insecure m4/3 users a bone to chew, you succeeded totally!

LOL

 

[Martin.au]

Panasonic thinks you're full of it, but commends you for such blatant dishonesty.

There are mirrorless APS-C cameras that are just as small...

First.........."whoooosh"

Second.....it's bigger anyway.

 

[crashpc]

That's why when buying a new camera, I look at the dpreview test scene and decide what level of IQ I would be happy with.

Not that easy, If you count with lenses you would want, compatibility, price, ergonomics, etc.

 

[KameraKnut]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

--

https://www.flickr.com/gp/131683376@N08/hfcyS7

 

[TomFid]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

Now you're just trolling.

 

[Tommi K1]

I appreciate that when people use 1" as an argumentation tool, it's usually for the purpose of rhetoric and not really suggesting it as a practical solution (the recommender often does not own or use a 1" camera). However, once this rhetoric becomes an automatic reflex, it's worth pointing out that practically, it is often nonsensical.

You don't buy the sensor, you buy the system.

You need different focal lengths, you need different sequential speeds, you need different ways to trigger the camera, you need different ways to program the camera, you need different kind lenses (macros, super telephoto, ultra-wide angle etc).

There is no 1" camera nor 1" system that does what the m4/3 system does.

That cuts both ways. I can easily say there is no MFT camera and lens that can do what a Sony RX10-IV does.

No it doesn't. As system camera allows you to build a SYSTEM that allows you to do what is needed.

One can take ie. GX85 with a 12-32mm + 35-100mm + 100-300mm. And then swap to lens that is needed at the moment. When going to restaurant at the evening, take just the GX85 with 12-32mm and leave rest behind.

That is exactly why the SYSTEM is always superior to any all-in-one cameras. You tailor it as you need it.

If we follow your argument and logic through, one can say that smartphone wins every day the Sony RX10-IV in every situation. And you know it ain't true.

What?

You've literally proven my point. What is a "system"? The MFT "system" encompasses dozens of camera bodies and lenses. Are you suggesting that I carry several bodies and lenses just to accomplish what the RX10-IV can do with just one, fixed lens camera?

I did proof you wrong.

Where in your RX10-IV is the macro that m4/3 can get with them, like 30mm and 60mm? Where is the automatic focus stacking in the RX10-IV for macro, architecture, landscape and even close-up photographers? Where is the fast lens for evening street photographs or for general use at the events? etc.

Yes, SYSTEM means that you OWN SYSTEM. And you will even CARRY some or even whole SYSTEM with you to different places.

There is no single camera that can do all that the SYSTEM camera can do.

I have multiple bodies, multiple lenses, fairly complex flash system, tripods, monopods etc back of the car. I have few different kind bags from small shoulder bag (body + lens or 2 lenses and camera at hands) to full packbag. All next to tents and all. I can drive to location and either pick up on the route from grocery store the dry food and water for a week hike, or I can just stop by somewhere along road and pick one lens and one body and go after a moose with super telephoto or some wildlife flower with a macro lens. I can take the same lens and mount it to drone and fly it up in the air. I can put the camera in the watertight box and submerge it while snorkeling.

I have more capabilities, more possibilities, more creativity with the SYSTEM than with any bridge camera that there is.

That is what you buy for, not the sensor, but the system. That is what was great with Canon and Nikon that you could get so a lot of possibilities with those systems, but m4/3 has evolved so far more than what it was 10 years ago. And that is because the m4/3 is a open standard system, and same thing is with Sony now, they are exactly going after the SYSTEM first, not the sensor.

 

[sportyaccordy]

M43 advocates are a very special breed. Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

 

[Schrodingers_cat]

I appreciate that when people use 1" as an argumentation tool, it's usually for the purpose of rhetoric and not really suggesting it as a practical solution (the recommender often does not own or use a 1" camera). However, once this rhetoric becomes an automatic reflex, it's worth pointing out that practically, it is often nonsensical.

The usual train of posts goes something like this:

FF: Your mFT shot is noisy as hell and in this situation a larger sensor would win.

FT: I print this large and the noise does not affect the result.

FF: In that case a 1" sensor would be sufficient and you get all sorts of operational advantages by moving that way.

FF has not noticed that they were talking about a series of photos, the best of which was taken with a Laowa 7.5/2.

And here is the problem with regard to theory and practice. 1" may be a marvel of engineering with wonderful (and wonderfully expensive and large/heavy) products, but it's not in any way an automatic recommendation if one is happy with mFT's noise performance, and presumable would be happy with that of 1". Noise is not the only determinant when choosing gear. It may not even be the most important one.

I seriously considered 1" on many occasions, some of the all-in-one solutions look marvelous on paper. Then I look at what I normally use most often, 45/1.8, 20/1.7, PL25, Laowa 7.5, and 45-175 power zoom. Apart from the slow zoom, all of the primes are mostly used at f/4 or larger apertures. In other words, 1", as it stands, is complete, utter and total nonsense as far as I am concerned.

So stop the auto-recommendation of 1" as a knee-jerk and only do that in the right circumstances.

Is there a 1" forum?

Only for body parts, but it’s on a different site