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.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

I think of these as 'good light-far reach' cameras. I suspect it is a numbers game for buyers with little knowledge, and the far reach is seldom used after the initial phase.

it seems compact superzooms need small sensors AND need dark lenses, to start, and to finish to get that much reach.

this model starts dark f3.5 and darkens further to f6.4

I bet it darkens fairly quickly.

.............................

and, you are right, the step up in IQ from 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" sensor size is more than you would think, actually visible at the sizes we post online.

My Jacket Pocket size Oly Stylus 1 was one of a very few with 1/1.7" sensor size. Are there any now?

They put a superb constant f2.8 lens on it

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

Compare camera dimensions side by side

camerasize.com

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

 

[tbcass]

A 1/1.7" sensor would require either a shorter zoom or a larger body. Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?

 

[tbcass]

I think of these as 'good light-far reach' cameras. I suspect it is a numbers game for buyers with little knowledge, and the far reach is seldom used after the initial phase.

it seems compact superzooms need small sensors AND need dark lenses, to start, and to finish to get that much reach.

this model starts dark f3.5 and darkens further to f6.4

I bet it darkens fairly quickly.

.............................

and, you are right, the step up in IQ from 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" sensor size is more than you would think, actually visible at the sizes we post online.

My Jacket Pocket size Oly Stylus 1 was one of a very few with 1/1.7" sensor size. Are there any now?

They put a superb constant f2.8 lens on it

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

https://camerasize.com/compare/#494,306

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

Don't the RX cameras answer that question?

 

[Phaser]

A 1/1.7" sensor would require either a shorter zoom or a larger body. Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?

Yes. They can make it a little thicker around the size of the RX100 VII, with the shorter zoom. I bet they can get at least 500mm reach out of it. Panasonic already got 360mm with their 1" ZS200. It shouldn't be impossible.

 

[tbcass]

A 1/1.7" sensor would require either a shorter zoom or a larger body. Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?

Yes. They can make it a little thicker around the size of the RX100 VII, with the shorter zoom. I bet they can get at least 500mm reach out of it. Panasonic already got 360mm with their 1" ZS200. It shouldn't be impossible.

I once owned a Fuji s9000 with a 1/1.7" sensor. It was the size of a small DSLR and had a 28-300mm equiv lens.

 

[Phaser]

A 1/1.7" sensor would require either a shorter zoom or a larger body. Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?

Yes. They can make it a little thicker around the size of the RX100 VII, with the shorter zoom. I bet they can get at least 500mm reach out of it. Panasonic already got 360mm with their 1" ZS200. It shouldn't be impossible.

I once owned a Fuji s9000 with a 1/1.7" sensor. It was the size of a small DSLR and had a 28-300mm equiv lens.

A 2005 classic. Did you ever hear about Casio's EX-100 from 2014? Same sensor size and focal range but in pocket size.

 

[Enders Shadow]

You're not going to see any new cameras using a 1/1.7" sensor. The last BSI version designed for still cameras goes back about a decade. It had marginal noise performance and by current standards, pathetic readout speeds. Nobody would use it today. There's zero demand for that size sensor and it's unlikely Sony would update it. The industry has long settled on the 1" type sensor as the next step up from 1/2.3".

 

[elliottnewcomb]

A 2005 classic. Did you ever hear about Casio's EX-100 from 2014? Same sensor size and focal range but in pocket size.

The Casio is the same sensor and lens as the Oly Stylus 1, except, larger lcd, no evf, and they had an incredibly fast shooting speed.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

https://camerasize.com/compare/#494,306

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

Don't the RX cameras answer that question?

JACKET pocket size. Call it intermediate size.

RX10's too big for me.

rx100m6,7 IF enlarged to intermediate size, what lens, what reach, what brightness ..?

 

[Phaser]

You're not going to see any new cameras using a 1/1.7" sensor. The last BSI version designed for still cameras goes back about a decade. It had marginal noise performance and by current standards, pathetic readout speeds. Nobody would use it today. There's zero demand for that size sensor and it's unlikely Sony would update it. The industry has long settled on the 1" type sensor as the next step up from 1/2.3".

The Sony Xperia 5 III has a 1/1.7" sensor. That came out in 2021.

 

[Guy Parsons]

A 2005 classic. Did you ever hear about Casio's EX-100 from 2014? Same sensor size and focal range but in pocket size.

The Casio is the same sensor and lens as the Oly Stylus 1, except, larger lcd, no evf, and they had an incredibly fast shooting speed.

In my gear I have a Casio ZR3700 12MP with 1/1.7" sensor and "25-300mm" lens in a pocketable size.

Also the useful ZR5100 12MP with 1/1.7" sensor and "19-95mm" lens. Again pocketable size.

Both models from 2017, no more after that.


Left ZR3700, right ZR5100.

They made some nice cameras and with easy to use menus.

 

[tbcass]

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

https://camerasize.com/compare/#494,306

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

Don't the RX cameras answer that question?

JACKET pocket size. Call it intermediate size.

RX10's too big for me.

rx100m6,7 IF enlarged to intermediate size, what lens, what reach, what brightness ..?

OK, I didn't get the difference between jacket pocket size and pocket size.

 

[tbcass]

A 1/1.7" sensor would require either a shorter zoom or a larger body. Would you be willing to make that sacrifice?

Yes. They can make it a little thicker around the size of the RX100 VII, with the shorter zoom. I bet they can get at least 500mm reach out of it. Panasonic already got 360mm with their 1" ZS200. It shouldn't be impossible.

I once owned a Fuji s9000 with a 1/1.7" sensor. It was the size of a small DSLR and had a 28-300mm equiv lens.

A 2005 classic. Did you ever hear about Casio's EX-100 from 2014? Same sensor size and focal range but in pocket size.

The Fuji had an EVF and a mechanical zoom which contributed to its larger size. The lens could not retract into the body. I think Fuji was trying to offer an alternative to DSLRs so the size appealed to those users.

 

[Bender79ita]

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

https://camerasize.com/compare/#494,306

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

Don't the RX cameras answer that question?

JACKET pocket size. Call it intermediate size.

RX10's too big for me.

rx100m6,7 IF enlarged to intermediate size, what lens, what reach, what brightness ..?

OK, I didn't get the difference between jacket pocket size and pocket size.

The correct technical terms used from the world's best engineers would be "jacketable" and "pantable" IIRC :-D

 

[elliottnewcomb]

A 2005 classic. Did you ever hear about Casio's EX-100 from 2014? Same sensor size and focal range but in pocket size.

The Casio is the same sensor and lens as the Oly Stylus 1, except, larger lcd, no evf, and they had an incredibly fast shooting speed.

In my gear I have a Casio ZR3700 12MP with 1/1.7" sensor and "25-300mm" lens in a pocketable size.

Also the useful ZR5100 12MP with 1/1.7" sensor and "19-95mm" lens. Again pocketable size.

Both models from 2017, no more after that.


Left ZR3700, right ZR5100.

They made some nice cameras and with easy to use menus.

let's assume the same 12mp 1/1.7" sensor as the Oly and Casio EX100

both like the EX-100, no evf, larger lcd. I need an evf.

photo of it's lens face, they tell you f2.8 to f6.3

AND they tell you it is specifically at f5.4 at 64.8mm, interesting







the constant f2.8 lens 28-300mm on the Oly is incredible. 2x with darn good IQ makes it 28-600mm f2.8


Elliott

 

[Guy Parsons]

[Casio] They made some nice cameras and with easy to use menus.

let's assume the same 12mp 1/1.7" sensor as the Oly and Casio EX100

both like the EX-100, no evf, larger lcd. I need an evf.

Aha! I gave up on those years back and made life easier not having to hold a camera to my face.

photo of it's lens face, they tell you f2.8 to f6.3

AND they tell you it is specifically at f5.4 at 64.8mm, interesting [ZR3700]



the constant f2.8 lens 28-300mm on the Oly is incredible. 2x with darn good IQ makes it 28-600mm f2.8

Elliott

The ZR3700 aperture control is the usual smaller sensor compact camera arrangement where they use an ND filter, so the actual aperture is always the maximum, and the alternate way "smaller" due to the ND filter.

At "25mm" wide the indicated aperture in A mode is f/2.8 or f/7.9, at "105mm" it is f/4.5 or f/12.6, at "192mm" it is f/5.3 or f/14.8, and at "300mm" it is f/6.3 or f/17.8 as what I see right now when I tried a few different focal lengths in A mode.

Naturally to use a constant f/2.8 lens the camera grows in size in a spectacular fashion. This Casio ZR3700 is meant to be pocketable and sold to the young urban Japanese female for selfies. In practice it works well in daylight but as light gets lower, and/or the tele extends the problems creep in.

Really confused where they get that "f/5.4 at 64.8mm" (="300mm") from.

The zoom moves in giant steps and can't select discrete numbers at any point. With care with control ring step zoom (preset coarse steps) I see on the screen these FF equivalent focal lengths and these apertures...

25/2.8, 28/3.0, 35/3.2, 50/3.7, 80/4.1, 105/4.5, 140/4.8, 192/5.3, 300/6.3

With care flicking the zoom lever I can get some other focal lengths like 223/5.5, 258/5.9 and no other focal lengths between "192mm" and "300mm".

So completely confused where the f/5.4 happens, seems to be somewhere in between "192mm" and "223mm" which is actual 41.47mm and 48.17mm, not at 64.8mm.

Sorry folks to wander off talking about Casio, but the Casio is one that I simply used and never worried about any of its technicalities. A bit like jumping in a rental car just to get somewhere.

If anyone is faintly interested, I did make a page gathering all the ZR (High Speed) Casio cameras that were made in a simple chart. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/casio/ZR/index.html of those listed we have ZR100, ZR200, ZR850 (the best), ZR1000, ZR3700, ZR5100 somewhere in the dry cabinet. Mainly used by my wife but also for a serious percentage by me at times in the past.

What's not to like about a 16MP or 12MP pocketable camera with 30fps at full resolution and plenty of tricky scene modes to cope with various situations like low light and macro stacking plus all the usual scene mode stuff. Dual CPU dual image chip design to speed things up. Same battery through all models, nice.

 

[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[lomoapontaechuta]

I think of these as 'good light-far reach' cameras. I suspect it is a numbers game for buyers with little knowledge, and the far reach is seldom used after the initial phase.

This.

Most reviews of ultra zoom cams are reduced to

Would this cam be good for vlogging?

They are reviewed with parameters for what they aren't meant for, and compared with cameras they shouldn't be compared with by people more related to video than to photos. For people not that interested in cameras, photos, people that are happy with what phones have to give.

Just an example.

HX99 vs RX100VA

At a certain point the reviewer complained that the HX99 didn't have built in ND filter, a minus for that camera and the RX100VA had built in ND filter, a plus for that camera.

What the reviewer failed to mention is that the HX99 has a 3.5-6.3 lens, it doesn't need a built in ND filter and because the RX100 has a much faster lens it needs a ND filter to be able to shoot at day time.

He didn't even found a reason to test the zoom

it seems compact superzooms need small sensors AND need dark lenses, to start, and to finish to get that much reach.

There are bridge cameras with 600 mm focal range with constant aperture (2.8). I think has more to do it with manufacturing, costs and size.

this model starts dark f3.5 and darkens further to f6.4

I bet it darkens fairly quickly.

It darkens slower than many RXs that are 1.8 only to 26 mm and then starts to close, but still too bright for daytime and too dark for low light.

I shoot in aperture priority 5.6 it's my favourite aperture with this type of camera (ultra zoom)

.............................

and, you are right, the step up in IQ from 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" sensor size is more than you would think, actually visible at the sizes we post online.

My Jacket Pocket size Oly Stylus 1 was one of a very few with 1/1.7" sensor size. Are there any now?

They put a superb constant f2.8 lens on it

I don't think a little thicker body would be enough. See the body size Oly needed to get 28-300 optical, constant f2.8

https://camerasize.com/compare/#494,306

I've always wondered, it they took that Jacket Pocket size body, put a 1" sensor inside, what lens/reach could be achieved?

 

[tbcass]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--
Tom