If only they would use a 1.1/7" Sensor...

[Phaser]

30X optical Zoom in a pocket size is nice to have. Video stabilization with Intelligent Active SteadyShot enabled is very good.

Pictures come out noisy with muddy details often, so you have to adjust your settings carefully.

Performance in low light is unacceptable. They probably could have made it a little thicker and used a 1.1/7" Sensor. There would be a noticeable difference in image quality and low light performance.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

The industry has long settled on the 1" type sensor as the next step up from 1/2.3".

Pocket format

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors for a couple of reasons.

1 - reach, for starters.

what's the furthest 1" type sensors can achieve, 300 mm? That's a lot better than 75 mm but, still, a far cry from the 720 mm or 840 mm or even 1000 mm that 1/2.3 " sensors can achieve.

I think you mean to say 1" pocket cameras because the Sony RX10iv achieves 600mm "reach" with a 1" sensor. It's not pocket-sized for sure but it's far smaller than a FF camera with a 600mm lens and no FF lens covers the 24mm to 600mm range with one lens. It also takes very close examination to discern an IQ difference between it and FF below ISO800.

yeap, i was talking about pocket format

the end results are very close, cause, yes, you can crop the image a little to get a little more range with the larger sensor but with the longer lens the smaller sensor is taken further optically .

2 - those 1"sensors that have 200 mm of reach, they do have slower lens, normally, 2.8 aperture vs 3.5 aperture, in the real world usage the difference is small.

you can shoot night shots with a ultra long zoom camera (1/2.3 " sensor) but a good outcome it's very situational...extremely situational but still possible.

What i'm discovering now, a 1" sensor coupled with a 1.8 -2.8 lens it's not that great either in low light, they are still dependent of good conditions to perform well.

That is not true. 1.2.3" sensors begin to fail above ISO 200 while 1" sensors are good to ISO 800-1600 and can achieve good results to ISO 3200-6400 if you shoot RAW.

No they don't. above 200? you still have room to spare, traditionally the limit is at 800 but you can go further at your own risk . How far?... I don't really know is situational.

Base ISO is at 80, i have to check but i think newer models than mine, they have the base ISO at 100 you can go down to 80 using the extending ISO

If they don't have them, they fall apart as easy as the 1/2.3" sensor.

Incorrect. I estimate a 1" sensor is about 2 stops better than a 1/2.3" sensor.

I'm new in the 1" sensors territory, i grant you that, but i'm not being impressed, so far...

Then you are doing something wrong.

Most certainly. I have the 1" sensor two month now and the smaller sensor, i've been shooting with it for 5 years now (i stopped for 2 years due to the covid pandemic).

So, i feel much more familiarized with the later.

DSLR killer...right.

3 - ISO

with 1/2.3 sensors 800 ISO it's the max you can go 80 % of times, sometimes with1600 ISO you can have good enough pictures and that's it.

In my experience, a 1/2.3" sensor is bad above ISO400 while a 1" sensor breaks down above ISO 1600 when you shoot JPEG (2 stops). If you shoot RAW decent results can be achieved at ISO 3200-6400.

Again, no. 400 ISO is well within the small sensor capabilities

Here's an ISO 6400 shot from my RX100vii processed RAW with DXO PL5.



Here's an ISO 3200 sample. Please be advised these were just test shots taken in my cellar.



No 1'2.3" sensor can come close to these. In fact I have seen ISO100 samples from the smaller sensor that looked worse.

Both examples that you provided are well lit, both sensor should do well in such conditions

I'm getting some pictures with 6400 ISO with the 1" sensor (i don't go that far with a DSLR) At first i thought it was me, but then i checked with the DPREVIEW sample gallery and i saw pictures with the same ISO values as mine. So i concluded it was the camera.

The maximum and minimum ISO used can be set in the camera very easily.

Yes, i know but i was expecting much more from the 1" sensor and faster lens combo like shooting at comfortable handheld shutter speeds (30 fraction of a second) with relatively low ISO values, not having this kind of values (6400)

even in the samples provided by the DPREVIEW, a sample taken in a bar, one can see the right corner starting to fall apart (less lit)

Smaller sensors are extremely unforgiven, if the frame don't have light equally distributed you can see mush starting to appear

Bottom line, I'm being as careful with the larger sensor cam as i am with the smaller sensor cam when i'm taking low light shots.

Learn how to use the camera. It takes some time.

I know, i took a step back. Instead of A or S priority i set my cam to auto to see what it does, and take it from there.

I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Please disregard the fact the sensor is dirty, it's a 7 year camera after all needing maintenance.

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Photos from many cameras (and many phones) are good enough for social media. That's an easy thing to achieve. The story changes when you look carefully at larger images.

I've been shooting with the RX100III (1") and the HX90V (1/2.3") for years. The RX visibly beats the HX every time in terms of quality except when I really need to go far beyond the zoom range of the RX. This is not subject to opinion; it's a verifiable fact. The long end of the HX is the reason for the existence of those cameras.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

 

[Bill Borne]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Photos from many cameras (and many phones) are good enough for social media. That's an easy thing to achieve. The story changes when you look carefully at larger images.

I've been shooting with the RX100III (1") and the HX90V (1/2.3") for years. The RX visibly beats the HX every time in terms of quality except when I really need to go far beyond the zoom range of the RX. This is not subject to opinion; it's a verifiable fact. The long end of the HX is the reason for the existence of those cameras.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Examples???

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Photos from many cameras (and many phones) are good enough for social media. That's an easy thing to achieve. The story changes when you look carefully at larger images.

I've been shooting with the RX100III (1") and the HX90V (1/2.3") for years. The RX visibly beats the HX every time in terms of quality except when I really need to go far beyond the zoom range of the RX. This is not subject to opinion; it's a verifiable fact. The long end of the HX is the reason for the existence of those cameras.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Examples???

Examples of what? Which part of the above do you think needs to be demonstrated?

 

[Bill Borne]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Photos from many cameras (and many phones) are good enough for social media. That's an easy thing to achieve. The story changes when you look carefully at larger images.

I've been shooting with the RX100III (1") and the HX90V (1/2.3") for years. The RX visibly beats the HX every time in terms of quality except when I really need to go far beyond the zoom range of the RX. This is not subject to opinion; it's a verifiable fact. The long end of the HX is the reason for the existence of those cameras.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Examples???

Examples of what? Which part of the above do you think needs to be demonstrated?

Forget it. I misread it

 

[tbcass]

In my experience, a 1/2.3" sensor is bad above ISO400 while a 1" sensor breaks down above ISO 1600 when you shoot JPEG (2 stops). If you shoot RAW decent results can be achieved at ISO 3200-6400.

Again, no. 400 ISO is well within the small sensor capabilities

It's when you go above 400 that things really fall apart with a 1/2.3" sensor.

Here's an ISO 6400 shot from my RX100vii processed RAW with DXO PL5.



Here's an ISO 3200 sample. Please be advised these were just test shots taken in my cellar.



No 1'2.3" sensor can come close to these. In fact I have seen ISO100 samples from the smaller sensor that looked worse.

Both examples that you provided are well lit, both sensor should do well in such conditions

Absolutely not well lit. the lighting was very dim. The first required 1/50 SS at F2.8 and ISO 6400. That is proof it was not well lit. No 1/2.3" sensor could be anything close to acceptable at ISO 6400 at any lighting let alone under this lighting. When viewed at 100% on screen 1/2.3" sensors tend to smear out fine details even at ISO 100.

The maximum and minimum ISO used can be set in the camera very easily.

Yes, i know but i was expecting much more from the 1" sensor and faster lens combo like shooting at comfortable handheld shutter speeds (30 fraction of a second) with relatively low ISO values, not having this kind of values (6400)

I'm beginning to realize there's lot you don't understand about camera settings.

even in the samples provided by the DPREVIEW, a sample taken in a bar, one can see the right corner starting to fall apart (less lit)

Smaller sensors are extremely unforgiven, if the frame don't have light equally distributed you can see mush starting to appear

I know that because I own a Full Frame camera. However, we are comparing 1" sensor cameras with 1/2.3" sensors. I replied to you because you incorrectly implied that 1" sensors were no better than 1/2.3" sensors. I know that is not true because I've used cameras with both sized sensors.

Bottom line, I'm being as careful with the larger sensor cam as i am with the smaller sensor cam when i'm taking low light shots.

Learn how to use the camera. It takes some time.

I know, i took a step back. Instead of A or S priority i set my cam to auto to see what it does, and take it from there.

I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

It's under close inspection that the clear advantage of 1" sensors over 1/2.3" sensors becomes obvious.

Please disregard the fact the sensor is dirty, it's a 7 year camera after all needing maintenance.

This was well lit at ISO 80 yet it's worse than the ISO 3200 and 6400 samples I posted. It's noisy and the detail is smeared out.

Those look worse, even the low ISO ones, than my ISO 6400 sample from the RX100VII I posted. Based on your Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO it appears my samples were at least as poorly lit as the samples you provided.

--
Tom

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Sure, do that. While we're waiting, here are two examples in the same place, some of which is well it and some of which is not. ISO 800, identical camera settings. I have to compare in-camera JPEGs because the HX90V doesn't offer RAW output:


HX90V


RX100M3

Exactly as expected, the smaller sensor version is noisier and less detailed in every area from bright to dark. And this is not even using the two-stop advantage of the RX100M3 lens.

Sony 1" cameras are absolutely the next step up from the 1/2.3" models.

As I said earlier, the value of the HX90V lies in the long end of its zoom range. I own one because when that range is needed the results far surpass what the RX100M3 can do.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

You have a wonderfully complicated camera, we can help you master the beast.

What model do you have?

The Fn Menu is THE KEY to using them, adjusting a few things shot to shot easily, after you set them up

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3856052

if you scroll the titles of the 'too many' threads here, there are specific setup suggestions for the rx100m3 and specific setup instructions for the m6 (my 2 versions).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4637229

Hope you bought a spare battery and wall charger. I buy from a supplier who already has them in my country, like this one.

Loading…

www.ebay.com

 

[tbcass]

In your examples, the superiority of the 1" sensor is clearly evident.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

Yes i know it's the next level, but what i meant by what i said is... (pocketable format) 1" sensors will never be the next step up from the smaller sensors IMO.

If you see the lens evolution of the RX cameras you will see that they are becoming slower, for two generations now they only have 200 mm vs 720 mm.

For a RX camera to have 720 mm, the lens needs to be twice as big as a HX lens.

if you pay attention you will see that even inside HX pocket format line up there are differences in maximum focal length between those who have G lens and those who have Zeiss lens .

I'll give you an example.

Those who have G lens have a maximum focal length of 129 mm.

Those who have Zeiss lens have a maximum focal length of 118 mm.

But i'm not for long zoom for the long zoom alone, Sony is falling behind in focal length but for what i've heard 840 mm and even 1000 mm in pocket format have their own problems

What i'm trying to say is RX and HX are for different type of shooters.

Listen, i wouldn't mind to have a slightly bigger RX with a 3.5 lens with a longer zoom close to what i have now

... I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

Photos from many cameras (and many phones) are good enough for social media. That's an easy thing to achieve. The story changes when you look carefully at larger images.

I've been shooting with the RX100III (1") and the HX90V (1/2.3") for years. The RX visibly beats the HX every time in terms of quality except when I really need to go far beyond the zoom range of the RX. This is not subject to opinion; it's a verifiable fact. The long end of the HX is the reason for the existence of those cameras.

I'm not crazy nor deluded , it's why i bought a 1" sensor to back up my main camera which is the HX.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Bullseye. That's my problem now.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

In my experience, a 1/2.3" sensor is bad above ISO400 while a 1" sensor breaks down above ISO 1600 when you shoot JPEG (2 stops). If you shoot RAW decent results can be achieved at ISO 3200-6400.

Again, no. 400 ISO is well within the small sensor capabilities

It's when you go above 400 that things really fall apart with a 1/2.3" sensor.

Here's an ISO 6400 shot from my RX100vii processed RAW with DXO PL5.



Here's an ISO 3200 sample. Please be advised these were just test shots taken in my cellar.



No 1'2.3" sensor can come close to these. In fact I have seen ISO100 samples from the smaller sensor that looked worse.

Both examples that you provided are well lit, both sensor should do well in such conditions

Absolutely not well lit. the lighting was very dim. The first required 1/50 SS at F2.8 and ISO 6400. That is proof it was not well lit. No 1/2.3" sensor could be anything close to acceptable at ISO 6400 at any lighting let alone under this lighting. When viewed at 100% on screen 1/2.3" sensors tend to smear out fine details even at ISO 100.

The maximum and minimum ISO used can be set in the camera very easily.

Yes, i know but i was expecting much more from the 1" sensor and faster lens combo like shooting at comfortable handheld shutter speeds (30 fraction of a second) with relatively low ISO values, not having this kind of values (6400)

I'm beginning to realize there's lot you don't understand about camera settings.

even in the samples provided by the DPREVIEW, a sample taken in a bar, one can see the right corner starting to fall apart (less lit)

Smaller sensors are extremely unforgiven, if the frame don't have light equally distributed you can see mush starting to appear

I know that because I own a Full Frame camera. However, we are comparing 1" sensor cameras with 1/2.3" sensors. I replied to you because you incorrectly implied that 1" sensors were no better than 1/2.3" sensors. I know that is not true because I've used cameras with both sized sensors.

Bottom line, I'm being as careful with the larger sensor cam as i am with the smaller sensor cam when i'm taking low light shots.

Learn how to use the camera. It takes some time.

I know, i took a step back. Instead of A or S priority i set my cam to auto to see what it does, and take it from there.

I will return next week with samples from the 2 cams , same place well lit.

Meanwhile, i will leave some lowlight SOC tests taken with the smaller sensor from my archives. I will throw a photo with subject separation with a telephoto lens

They may not pass to a close inspection, let alone pixel peaking, but i think for social media or forum it will do.

It's under close inspection that the clear advantage of 1" sensors over 1/2.3" sensors becomes obvious.

Please disregard the fact the sensor is dirty, it's a 7 year camera after all needing maintenance.

This was well lit at ISO 80 yet it's worse than the ISO 3200 and 6400 samples I posted. It's noisy and the detail is smeared out.

Those look worse, even the low ISO ones, than my ISO 6400 sample from the RX100VII I posted. Based on your Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO it appears my samples were at least as poorly lit as the samples you provided.

Let me be clear about this.

taking low light photos with a 1/2.3 " sensor it's not using it for what they were build for, nor i'm saying they are better than 1 " sensors.

I bought a bigger sensor coupled with a much faster lens to take from the smaller sensor when the time comes, after all.

Initial results with the newer cam don't fall far from what you are seeing

 

[sybersitizen]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

Yes i know it's the next level, but what i meant by what i said is... (pocketable format) 1" sensors will never be the next step up from the smaller sensors IMO.

They won't if you expect the same zoom range as the HX90V in the same form factor. There is no next level of that because current technology prohibits it.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Bullseye. That's my problem now.

The improvement of a 1" model is enormous in the wide-to-short-tele range. To go much beyond that, it has to be a smaller sensor camera if you want to carry it in your shirt pocket.

This is why I keep both an RX100M3 and an HX90V. If I wanted to give up something at each end of the zoom range but still maintain similar size it would be the RX100M6 or M7.

This thread started out with wishes about an intermediate camera that doesn't exist. If we stick to what does exist, every choice involves unavoidable compromises and trade-offs.

 

[Guy Parsons]

In your examples, the superiority of the 1" sensor is clearly evident.

Clearly.

Plus I know the limits of each sensor as I may regularly use any of 1/2.3", 1/1.7", 1" and 4/3" sensors and it's abundantly clear when each one fails in lower light as the ISO increases.

In good daylight I usually can't tell the results apart at full screen, but at 100% pixel display (or any severe crop) it becomes very clear even at lowest ISO that the bigger the sensor the better the result.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

I'm not seeing 1" type sensors cameras being the next step up from 1/2.3" sensors ...

But they are, in the Sony world.

Yes i know it's the next level, but what i meant by what i said is... (pocketable format) 1" sensors will never be the next step up from the smaller sensors IMO.

They won't if you expect the same zoom range as the HX90V in the same form factor. There is no next level of that because current technology prohibits it.

You can of course have the opinion that the 1" sensor doesn't offer the level of improvement you would personally like over the smaller sensor, but that's a different thing.

Bullseye. That's my problem now.

The improvement of a 1" model is enormous in the wide-to-short-tele range. To go much beyond that, it has to be a smaller sensor camera if you want to carry it in your shirt pocket.

This is why I keep both an RX100M3 and an HX90V. If I wanted to give up something at each end of the zoom range but still maintain similar size it would be the RX100M6 or M7.

From where i'm sitting

RX Mk 1 or MK 2 had the most desired lens of the 7 generations, one drawback of almost all HX cameras share with the first two RXs is the lack of evf.

HX99 it's the natural upgrade to my HX50. RAW, zoom assist and EVF, very powerful arguments absent in all the other models.

RX MK6 and MK7 are something in between , according to reviews in DPReview and others, said cams are weaker in LL than the others and 200 mm is simply to little.

Having the two series, certainly they complement each either and one ends up not compromise at all.

This thread started out with wishes about an intermediate camera that doesn't exist. If we stick to what does exist, every choice involves unavoidable compromises and trade-offs.