wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

To a certain degree, yes. With each size smaller sensor, enlargement image quality is reduced. If the 1" sensor is a high quality sensor, the image is recorded properly, the image isn't overenlarged for its file size, and the image is viewed at the proper distance for the enlargement size, then more that likely it will be difficult to easily see the difference. If one is expecting to take a picture of thirty people with a 1" sensor and have it come out looking like a Hasselblad medium format image at an enlargement size of 30 X 40, they will be very disapointed. If they only want a 4 X 6 or 5 X 7, those prints will look very similar.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

You said it, now didn't you? ;-)

However, I still find that there is more of a difference in going from 1" to 4/3 than there is going from 4/3 to aps-c.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes. All other things being equal, going one step down in format makes a discernible difference, but only if you are really looking for it, and only if you know what to look for. The "average" person who is NOT a trained, knowledgeable photographer, doesn't give a hoot about what format you use. Remember, more photos are made with iPhones than any other camera on Earth. And they can look pretty darn good!

I gave up a multi-format world of professional film photography (4x5 sheet, long roll 70mm, 46mm, and 35mm unperforated films, 120/220 in five formats, and "size 135" 35mm perforated films) for early, low MP digital. I used "full frame" and APS-C digital cameras for nine years. Now I use Micro 4/3. It is plenty for what I do, and the size, bulk, and weight savings are welcome! Modern lenses are great, and the camera sensors just keep getting better and better.

Every format made is a bit of a compromise of certain factors. But there are so many factors that moving from one format to a step up or down is only dramatic "at the margins." If I'm using m4/3 at ISO 6400, I do have visibly more noise than full frame (36x24mm). But it's hard to see the difference between m43 and APS-C, especially when I crop in the camera (a habit learned from years of using slide films) and keep the print at or under 20" wide.

That said, there are few 1" sensor cameras I'd consider at this time.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My favorite camera for a couple years was a Sony RX100 (first version) with a 1" sensor. I got 13x19 prints from it that I liked a lot. Then I got hooked on 4K video and the first small, under $1000 4K capable camera was the Panasonic LX100 with a m/43 sensor. Now the LX100 has been my favorite camera for a couple years.

Note that I've never had a DSLR. For me m4/3 is "large sensor" shooting.

If I try, I can pixel peep and see differences. If I lay out some 13x19 prints and view at normal distances, there are no discernable differences due to camera choice. Of course, my eyes are 70 years old!

If (when?) my LX100 breaks, I would very likely lust after the latest RX100 (now in version 5). I would not be concerned with the "small" 1" sensor.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

RX100 version 5 IS a worthy 1" camera. Like I said, though, there are few I like.

The Lumix LX100 IS truly an awesome little beast.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

For a tourist/travel camera, the LX100 does very well. And, you don't have to travel either! An odd feature is how damned good the auto systems work. I'm not very tolerant of tourists that get in the way with their gear, their slow set ups and selfishness over space. Put the LX100 on auto, take a shot and it will embarrass me at being better than my 60 years of habits and practice.

A fun thing to do is sit outside a shop while your wife is shopping. Shoot 4K clips, even from your lap. Then, go home and look through the clips for stills that have the good captured moments.

Do you think Sony and Panasonic could collaborate a little bit on their camera names? "*X100" is overworked as the best small travel cameras.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Panasonic's iA and iA+ modes are among the best automatic modes on any cameras. The LX100 has an iA button I assume is similar to iA on other Lumix cameras. If so, it is pretty darned accurate. Add the other iModes and you have a great point-and-shoot when you need one, and a fully adjustable camera when you don't.

le boecere

(your reply is) Quite informative and quite "makes sense" for (some of) us rookies to reason through. Much easier for me to "get" than the idea that 'size really doesn't matter'. I'm also told (by at least one working professional) that the larger the sensor, the more light it's apt to gather, and I've had some fine details pointed out to me, as well (on a larger reproduction).

Thanks for posting this.

_Van

le boecere

If I were to begin attempting to shoot 4k video, I could easily justify going "up" or "down" to m4/3, just based upon what I hear and read from people like Bill Burkholder, and so many others. So, why would you consider an RX100___. now? This rookie would be inclined to believe that Panasonic 4/3 is the first small 4k-capable camera family to consider.

Van

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Why an RX100 now? The Panasonic LX100 is small, but not really a pocket camera. The Sony RX100 is. The bigger part is that Sony has taken the RX100 through 5 versions. In each the video capability has improved. The first version that I had would do 1080p but the image stability was only OK. The newest version 5 has 4K and even some "professional" color choices. Stabilization is improved. Oddly, clip length is limited to very short to prevent the camera from getting hot while processing 4K or 4K slow motion. For most that does not matter because watchable video is always made up of a collection of short clips.

When I started doing video 5 or 6 years ago I started interacting with a video camera forum. There has been a steady march of incremental progress. I've watched and participated as Sony and Panasonic have alternately stepped ahead of the other with hybrid cameras. Canon and Nikon, favorites on this forum, never seem to come to the party. Various regulars on that forum will buy a camera when they see a significant forward step and display their results. To keep up with that group, one needs to buy three or four cameras a year! As a follower, I've learned a lot.

The main thing I've learned is that there are now quite a few cameras that are not just equal at both video and still photography, but they excel at both. The only one in that group that is truly pocket sized is the Sony RX100.

To your specific question about why the RX100, my key interest has been watching one particular owner display his results. The color, clarity and stability have been extremely good. You can see what he has done at http://vimeo.com/user1945704 He has been using a couple different cameras lately so you have to scroll through for some RX100 work. It is in 4K so it helps if you have that kind of gear.

le boecere

Always appreciate your straight-forward and succinct posts, Bill.

But, when this rookie (me) follows this "no discernible difference" thought path, then (from a sensor-size perspective) there's little or no reason for the person with the 1/1.7" Canon S90 to buy another camera (for stills), as there'll be "no discernible difference" 'twixt it and a 1" sensor camera.
In fact, could one not "reason" that none of us really have a practical purpose in owning anything other than a smartphone? (And, yes, I've both heard and read such utterances.)

le boecere

(And, yes I'm aware that 1" to 1/1.7" is QUITE as step down. ;^)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I need to find words in the English language that better describe the experience of my prints from the two cameras. Due to display wall space, I've limited my system capability to 13x19. For many, that may be only an oversized snapshot!

How do I write that both sensor sizes produce completely satisfying results for me? And, I should probably add that I've got some satisfying results from some family owned and operated Samsung Galaxy S5 phones too!

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

I have been a Canon user and shooter, two years ago I bought a Sony A6000 and found that I can purchase adapters to couple my Canon lenses in many instances. The Sony A6000, and now it's brother cameras the A6300, and the A6500 are a great line of camera bodies.
The Sony A6000 series have so many options that my Canon bodies do not offer. NFI for one take a photo and without a WIFI connection be able to upload it to a website instantly. My nephew started me down the Sony path and now he shoots with a Sony A7 Rii that he raves about the A6000 is reasonable priced now, as a body and with the bundle offers with the 16-50 mm lens and the 55-200 lens, can be found at the usual suspects Best Buy etc. for $699. If your choice is a Sony, be sure and purchase an extra battery, and a stand alone charger. Sony's come the an adapter to charge the battery in the camera in the package.