How much better is the IQ on a 1 inch sensor compared to 1 2/3 sensor?

[VOODOOXI]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

To be more specific, I’ve had my eye on both the Panasonic ZS 100 + ZS 200 which both have 1 inch sensors as well as the Canon SX 730. I hate to give up quality images. but at the same time I don’t want to give up the long zoom that my old SX model offers.

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

Thanks in advance!

 

[tedolf]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

A lot.

To be more specific, I’ve had my eye on both the Panasonic ZS 100 + ZS 200 which both have 1 inch sensors as well as the Canon SX 730. I hate to give up quality images. but at the same time I don’t want to give up the long zoom that my old SX model offers.

You don't need that much zoom.

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

A lot.

Big difference in depth of field control too.

Thanks in advance!

It depends on what your output medium is going to be. If it is only social media, then it doesn't matter. If you are going to print, especially larger than say, 5 x 7" then it does matter.

Tedolph

 

[Mystery member]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

Make sure that you know the actual sensor dimensions when discussing performance. The descriptive names such as "1 Inch" are quite misleading, when you consider that such a sensor is actually about 13mm x 9mm.

Scroll down to see a table of sensor dimensions... Wikipedia

 

[lehill]

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

The 1" sensor has four times the area of a 1/2.3" sensor. All your short-listed cameras were announced about the same time period (2017 & 2018).

Theoretically speaking, the 1" sensor has a 2-stop (4x) advantage over the 1/2.3" sensor in ISO performance. This means ISO100 on the SX730 will look about the same as ISO400 on the ZS100/200.

One way to look at it is a 1" sensor gets you 4x the shutter speed for the same level of noise and same aperture. How's that?

--
Lance H

 

[PhotoTeach2]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

To be more specific, I’ve had my eye on both the Panasonic ZS 100 + ZS 200 which both have 1 inch sensors as well as the Canon SX 730. I hate to give up quality images. but at the same time I don’t want to give up the long zoom that my old SX model offers.

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

Thanks in advance!

There have been posts here in the past where no-one could tell the difference between identical photos taken w/ FF and 1/2.3".

But those were at base ISO, in good light, and optimally exposed.

However the 1"-type sensor is indeed 4X the area so there is no question that it will have lower-noise at higher ISO.

I replaced DX dSLR's for 3 years with a 1/2.3" and had no problems, even in (relatively) lower-light, and I printed up to 20"x30" from it. (FZ-200 w/ 600mm-EFL @ f/2.8)

I did eventually replace it with the FZ-1000. There were several reasons in addition to the 4X area, (20mpx vs only 12 and many more options/features on the 1000).

Of course you are aware you can indeed get longer tele w/ 1/2.3", (ala FZ-300 w/ 600mm-EFL @ f/2.8 and Nikon P900 w/ 2000mm-EFL or now P-1000 w/ 3000mm-EFL).

But If you don't need the longer-tele, I highly suggest the 1"-type.

I am now printing 24"x36" from 1"-type.

 

[Badwater]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

To be more specific, I’ve had my eye on both the Panasonic ZS 100 + ZS 200 which both have 1 inch sensors as well as the Canon SX 730. I hate to give up quality images. but at the same time I don’t want to give up the long zoom that my old SX model offers.

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

Thanks in advance!

With the sensors you describe, the difference will be so small that nobody will notice or care. The more important factor for getting the infamous good image quality is getting the right exposure and white balance. These two things will dramatically improve your photography over image quality. And to know what looks best for you, experiment with them to see which gives you better look to your shots.

All the sharpness in the world will not make a poor exposure or way off white balance look good. Because the first thing people will look at is the overall image.

 

[Alex Ethridge]

It got its name back in (I think) the mid 1900s television industry's outside dimension of the one-inch tube that housed a sensor approximately 3/8-inch by about 1/2-inch.

To be grammatically correct, the term should be stated "one-inch type", not one-inch; but, the "on-inch" misnomer persists in spite of its being misleading.

There is no dimension of the one-inch type sensor that measures even close to one inch, not the height, not the width, not the diagonal.

 

[bobn2]

But those were at base ISO, in good light, and optimally exposed.

No point using terms like that to beginners without explaining what you mean. The fact is that the more light captured in an image the lower the noise, and therefore the higher the IQ will be. If the exposure was the same, it is immaterial whether the light was 'good' or not. There is no 'optimal exposure' that will somehow rescue a sensor with respect to one with four times the area, operating at the same exposure.

--
Ride easy, William.
Bob

 

[skyglider]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

To be more specific, I’ve had my eye on both the Panasonic ZS 100 + ZS 200 which both have 1 inch sensors as well as the Canon SX 730. I hate to give up quality images. but at the same time I don’t want to give up the long zoom that my old SX model offers.

Any idea how much of a drop off in IQ from the ZS’s to the SX 730?

If you're shooting with 1/2.3" sensor and up to 40x optical zoom, then you will be shooting in daylight. Shooting in daylight with a 1" sensor and 15x optical zoom, you will be hard pressed to see any difference. IOW, daylight shooting is a wash.

The difference is shooting in low-light. Although most discussion is having less noise in low-light images using a 1" sensor which is a main advantage, another advantage hardly or ever discussed is image sharpness in low-light without flash.

When shooting without flash in low-light with your current 1/2.3" sensor camera, you have undoubtedly seen the red camera shake icon pop up. That indicates that there is not enough light to allow the optical image stabilization to overcome handheld camera shake, resulting in a probable blurry image. Shooting with a 1" sensor, you will be able to do more handheld shooting in lower-light situations without the camera shake icon popping up, thus have sharper images.

So sharper handheld images with less noise in low-light situations for 1" sensors. Maybe weigh the amount of long zoom daylight shooting that you do that's over 15x zoom against having sharper, less noise images in restaurants and other low-light shooting that you do to decide. If your current low-light image quality is acceptable to you, then having a 1" sensor may not be the advantage you're looking for.

Finally, note that the Panny ZS200 with 1" sensor and 15x zoom has a lens with maximum aperture of F/3.3 - 6.4. A starting aperture of F/3.3 is not very good. That kind of negates the 1" sensor low-light image quality. If you have a late model smart phone with an aperture of F/1.x, even with a small sensor, it may give you the low-light image quality in restaurants, etc that you want. Maybe use your small sensor long zoom SX camera during the day and your smart phone in the evenings.

Sky

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

There is no single answer to this question (the bit I've emphasised). In some cases there will be effectively no difference at all while in others the difference will be huge.

Let me put it in monetary terms. We want to buy a meal I a cheap restaurant at $20. I have $25; you have $50 - for that meal and restaurant will your $50 get anything better than my $25? No, because we both have more than enough money.

Now we go next door where a meal costs $40 - if my $25 gets me anything it won't be a full meal but your $50 is still ample.

Swap money for light and the situation is similar - both cameras are fine until the light gets poor, and then the 1" sensor wins. But how much it wins by depends on how poor the light is.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

As somewhat of a novice who takes a ton of pictures ( mostly of family and friends) I’m wondering how much better on a percentage basis is a 1 inch sensor in a compact camera compared to a 1 2/3 sensor?

There is no single answer to this question (the bit I've emphasised). In some cases there will be effectively no difference at all while in others the difference will be huge.

Let me put it in monetary terms. We want to buy a meal I a cheap restaurant at $20. I have $25; you have $50 - for that meal and restaurant will your $50 get anything better than my $25? No, because we both have more than enough money.

Now we go next door where a meal costs $40 - if my $25 gets me anything it won't be a full meal but your $50 is still ample.

Swap money for light and the situation is similar - both cameras are fine until the light gets poor, and then the 1" sensor wins. But how much it wins by depends on how poor the light is.

--
---
Gerry

OR ... we could play like we have $100 and go to an even better restaurant and pretend we have FF while enjoying our "$100" meal.

Great Post Gerry .... nice analogy. (+1)

 

[Bob]

See for yourself. This website has test photos from most cameras.

Imaging Resource Comparison Tool

 

[OpticsEngineer]

"A lot."

crudely stated but accurate

Rather than percent better like the OP asked for, I look at it this way. With my SX730 I only occasionally get a photo so nice I share it with my family. But with my Canon G7X I get a lot of photos that just look so good I find myself sharing them.

 

[VOODOOXI]

Thanks for the help!

 

[jonikon]

The 1/2.5” sensor is just too small for what I would call very good image quality in a compact camera because it has two big problems.

1. Too much image noise that requires noise reduction, which in turn results in the loss of image detail. The more noise reduction that is applied, the more loss of detail. The lower the ambient light, the more image noise so it is more of a problem in low light. Optical image stabization can really help with this issue however.
2. The bigger problem in bright light is Image softening and loss of contrast due to what is known as diffraction when a given aperture f-stop is exceeded. The smaller the sensor the lower the aperture number to see the results of diffraction softening of the image. In practical terms, this diffraction softening begins at about f2 with a 1/2.5 sensor and f/8 with a 1” camera. Cell phone cameras get around this by using large aperture lenses typically f2 or less. Unfortunately most compact cameras have smaller apertures than f2.0, especially at the long end of the focal length range.

OTOH, a 1” sensor camera is capable of very good image quality at base ISO, even at f5.6, as can be seen in these images I shot with a Nikon V2 which has a 1” sensor.



























--
Best regards,
Jon

 

[tedolf]

The 1/2.5” sensor is just too small for what I would call very good image quality in a compact camera because it has two big problems.

1. Too much image noise that requires noise reduction, which in turn results in the loss of image detail. The more noise reduction that is applied, the more loss of detail. The lower the ambient light, the more image noise so it is more of a problem in low light. Optical image stabization can really help with this issue however.
2. The bigger problem in bright light is Image softening and loss of contrast due to what is known as diffraction when a given aperture f-stop is exceeded. The smaller the sensor the lower the aperture number to see the results of diffraction softening of the image. In practical terms, this diffraction softening begins at about f2 with a 1/2.5 sensor and f/8 with a 1” camera. Cell phone cameras get around this by using large aperture lenses typically f2 or less. Unfortunately most compact cameras have smaller apertures than f2.0, especially at the long end of the focal length range.

OTOH, a 1” sensor camera is capable of very good image quality at base ISO, even at f5.6, as can be seen in these images I shot with a Nikon V2 which has a 1” sensor.











--
Best regards,
Jon

I don't know why everybody always bi*chd and moaned about the Nikon 1 sensor. I always thought that the JPEG shots from that camera, in terms of noise and resolution, looked pretty good.



Tedpolph

 

[PhotoTeach2]

The 1/2.5” sensor is just too small for what I would call very good image quality in a compact camera because it has two big problems.

1. Too much image noise that requires noise reduction, which in turn results in the loss of image detail. The more noise reduction that is applied, the more loss of detail. The lower the ambient light, the more image noise so it is more of a problem in low light. Optical image stabization can really help with this issue however.
2. The bigger problem in bright light is Image softening and loss of contrast due to what is known as diffraction when a given aperture f-stop is exceeded. The smaller the sensor the lower the aperture number to see the results of diffraction softening of the image. In practical terms, this diffraction softening begins at about f2 with a 1/2.5 sensor and f/8 with a 1” camera. Cell phone cameras get around this by using large aperture lenses typically f2 or less. Unfortunately most compact cameras have smaller apertures than f2.0, especially at the long end of the focal length range.

OTOH, a 1” sensor camera is capable of very good image quality at base ISO, even at f5.6, as can be seen in these images I shot with a Nikon V2 which has a 1” sensor.











--
Best regards,
Jon

I don't know why everybody always bi*chd and moaned about the Nikon 1 sensor. I always thought that the JPEG shots from that camera, in terms of noise and resolution, looked pretty good.

Tedpolph

I know in my case I shared a common assumption that anything smaller than FF/DX would inherently have more noise and thus I never considered them to possibly be acceptable. I saw the initial announcement of it at CES and virtually ignored it -- but DID shoot lots of photos of their (dancing-HOT) models -- for reasons I can't say here.

So I think it was much more expensive than typical P&S to be successful in that marketplace, and advanced/pro photographers didn't consider it because it was a (too small/unacceptable) 1"-type sensor, (and indeed NOT EVEN 1").

It was only when circumstances changed that I "tried" a 1/2.3" sensor and surprisingly found the IQ was not nearly as bad as I expected, and indeed sufficient to make 20"x30" that I changed my mind and fully accepted them, (even in lower-light and I even shot an "interior" wedding).

Now w/ (4X area-larger) 1"-type, I am printing/selling 24"x36".

Frankly I am not sure why Nikon is "NOW" dropping it, (as 1"-type has become more acceptable).

And as I stated it was "surprised" that the IQ was acceptable, I was even more surprised/amazed that I had taken 10X more images with the speed/convenience/flexibility of the "continuous" zoom and additional fill-flash capability of the "leaf" shutter, (thanks to "fixed" lens) -- combined w/ FULLY-articulating LCD.