Sensor size v. low light quality? My original post was questioning the decision regarding quality of a Sony Nex 55-210 lens v. a new Olympus Stylus 1 camera. Looking for the best...

nature1031

My original post was questioning the decision regarding quality of a Sony Nex 55-210 lens v. a new Olympus Stylus 1 camera. Looking for the best quality result. My Nex 5 has questionable low light quality with the 18-55 lens. Going to the larger zoom i'm expecting an even worse result. The Stylus 1 and the Canon sx50 have great reviews with comments such as great low light results. Both of these cameras have smaller sensors than the Nex 5.
So I'm wondering what the opinions are regarding new more recent technology with a smaller sensor vs. a few years old technology with a larger sensor?

GaryI Loc: NY & Fla

nature1031 wrote:

My original post was questioning the decision rega... (show quote)

I've read a number of articles from both sides, and my observation over the past 20-30 years is that Moore's law applies (chip densities double every 18 months). That's primarily why cell phone cameras are so good today. There are many other factors, but I think this is the heart of it.

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

nature1031 wrote:

My original post was questioning the decision rega... (show quote)

The site, DPreview, gives one the ability to directly compare the high ISO abilities of most cameras side by side so that you can see for yourself how the various sensors react to various ISO settings. Have a look and I think your questions will be answered. Good luck.

nature1031

Thanks I'll check this out, TK.

jpanar Loc: Reston, VA

It's not just sensor size that counts. The low light effectiveness of a DSLR is also affected by the actual construction of the array, effective noise reduction circuitry and the computer's ability to develop the data into meaningful information. A camera with high ISO is a great tool. And fun, too!

Peekayoh Loc: UK

nature1031 wrote:

My original post was questioning the decision regarding quality of a Sony Nex 55-210 lens v. a new Olympus Stylus 1 camera. Looking for the best quality result.

I didn't see your original post but I doubt the Stylus 1 will come close to the NEX in terms of noise.

nature1031 wrote:

My Nex 5 has questionable low light quality with the 18-55 lens.

In what way? Are you talking about the slow maximum aperture of the lens or the camera's highISO performance?

nature1031 wrote:

Going to the larger zoom i'm expecting an even worse result.

The maximum aperture is smaller (f/4.5) so yes, low light ability slightly worse.

nature1031 wrote:

The Stylus 1 and the Canon sx50 have great reviews with comments such as great low light results. Both of these cameras have smaller sensors than the Nex 5.

Great low light results compared to what? Certainly not compared to the NEX-5 which has a HUGE advantage in terms of highISO performance over the SX-50.

nature1031 wrote:

So I'm wondering what the opinions are regarding new more recent technology with a smaller sensor vs. a few years old technology with a larger sensor?

Doesn't signify. If you take the first Sony DSLR (A100), the highISO performance, although poor by modern standards, is still better than the SX-50 or any other small sensored camera come to that.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

nature1031 wrote:

My original post was questioning the decision rega... (show quote)

The Sony RX-100II uses a 1" Exmor backlit sensor that gives REALLY good low light rendition up to ISO 3200. It's a true pocket camera that provides RAW capture, full manual control, and a Zeiss 10-37 (24-100mm 35mm equivalence) & GREAT video.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Photogdog wrote:

The Sony RX-100II uses a 1" Exmor backlit sensor that gives REALLY good low light rendition up to ISO 3200. It's a true pocket camera that provides RAW capture, full manual control, and a Zeiss 10-37 (24-100mm 35mm equivalence) & GREAT video.

If I were in the market for a pocket-able camera, this is the one I would buy but to say it gives "really good light rendition at iso3200" I would have to ask, compared to what?

In any case, it cannot be described as "really good" at iso3200 and although it's better than the SX-50, it's a lot worse than the NEX-5.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

Peekayoh wrote:

If I were in the market for a pocket-able camera, this is the one I would buy but to say it gives "really good light rendition at iso3200" I would have to ask, compared to what?

In any case, it cannot be described as "really good" at iso3200 and although it's better than the SX-50, it's a lot worse than the NEX-5.

Sorry but I beg to differ. I owned the Sony NEX-5N & currently own the NEX-7 with multiple lenses including the Zeiss 24mm f1.8.

There are plenty of cameras out there from Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, etc, that are in the same size class but top out at about ISO 800-1600.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Photogdog wrote:

Sorry but I beg to differ. I owned the Sony NEX-5N & currently own the NEX-7 with multiple lenses including the Zeiss 24mm f1.8.

There are plenty of cameras out there from Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, etc, that are in the same size class but top out at about ISO 800-1600.

You may beg to differ but facts are facts. As I said before, the RX-100 is very good for a compact camera but like all small sensored cameras, highISO performance is not it's forte.

The point at which acceptable noise turns to obvious noise kicks in at iso483 compared to iso1015 for the NEX-5T whilst the SX50 manages a niggardly iso179. These stats are not mine of course but taken off DxO Mark. You can also look here for further confirmation.

Obviously, you can go to higher ISOs for the must have shots but images will be degraded either by noise or by detail destroying noise reduction. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, just that it's pointless to turn a blind eye to the consequences or worse, fail to appreciate the consequences.