Travler

I have a Sony HX20V and am considering upgrading to a camera with a 1" sensor (i. e., a Lumix ZS100). My goal is sharper, better looking pictures, but the lens on the ZS has been criticized as "soft". Most of my viewing is on computer/tablet screens and I don't crop radically. The HX images appear reasonably sharp (to me at least). Will the images on the ZS be noticeably sharper, clearer, better when viewed?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Welcome to the forum. Stick with what you have. Don't have GAS Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Tweak shares in Lightroom

Travler

GAS can be found in so many areas (e. g. TV's, Hi FI, cars, smart phones, model trains!). Sometimes it's the wrong thing to do, sometimes it's ok (the trick is separating the one from the other).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

A larger and "less crowded" sensor will generally make for better image quality. For example, all other things being equal, it can make for less heat gain and cross talk between pixels and that translates to less image noise, higher usable ISOs and potentially better images in low light conditions.

Your 18MP Sony uses a 1/2.3" size sensor. The total area of that is approx. 28 square millimeters. This means there are approx. 640,000 individual pixel sites per sq. mm.

In comparison, that Lumix ZS100 is 20MP with a so-called 1" size sensor, which is roughly 4X larger with approx. 116 sq. mm area. This means a little over 170,000 pixel sites per sq. mm. So it's considerably less crowded... and might use larger individual pixel sites as well.

Now, the reason manufacturers use the tiny digital sensors (some even smaller than 1/2.3") is to "leverage" a lot of telephoto "reach" out of reasonably compact lenses. Your Sony uses a zoom lens with actual focal length range of 4.45 to 89mm (20X zoom).... but thanks to the small sensor's 5.6X "lens factor", that lens will act like a 25 to 500mm zoom would on a 35mm film/full frame digital camera.

In comparison, the Lumix ZS100 uses an actual 9.1 to 91mm lens (a less extreme 10X zoom)... which with the 1" sensor's 2.7X lens factor will act like a 25 to 250mm would on full frame/film. (FYI: It's common practice to state the full frame/film equivalents with these cameras, to give some common point of reference and comparison between a cameras with a wide variety of sensor sizes, even if you don't have experience with full frame/film.)

In addition to the benefits of the larger sensor mentioned above, the less extreme range zoom lens of the Lumix ZS100 would also very likely help with image quality. BUT, you are "giving up" about half the "reach" that the Sony offers... instead of "500mm equivalent", you'd only have "250mm equivalent". But maybe you usually don't use all the Sony camera's zoom offers anyway, so wouldn't miss iit's longer effective focal length. Only you can say.

Will images really be better? It's hard to say. "Sharper" is only one aspect of "better"... and is influenced by a lot more than just the size of the sensor. (Lens quality, autofocus accuracy and performance, image stabiliztion, photographer skill both with the camera and in post-processing... to name a few.)

As other responses have mentioned, there are methods of sharpening images in post-processing software. In fact, many digital cameras use an "anti alias" filter over the sensor, which deliberately blurs the image to prevent an optical effect called "moire" (Google it for more info). Most digital images require sharpening... in-camera, in post-processing, or perhaps a bit of both. This can (and should) be controlled to some extent by the photographer. There are different methods of sharpening to choose among... and more or less should be applied depending upon how the image will ultimately be used.

In fact I often see images that I consider over-sharpened... again, there's a lot more to image quality than sharpness. But I think often people look at their images too large... much bigger than they actually be used... then are overly critical and tend to over-adjust sharpness and other aspects of their images. Often sharpening is best done as one of the last steps, after an image has had any noise reduction applied and been resized for it's intended use. An image being made into a 24x36" print needs quite different sharpening than an image that will be displayed online at typical web sizes and resolutions.

You should look for thorough reviews and carefully research the Lumix ZS100, before running out to buy one. There are so many different cameras on the market, it's hard to find someone on a forum like this who has used two particular models extensively and can give you comparative feedback about them. Plus you have no way of knowing their expertise. Look for more detailed online "professional" reviews of each camera... .and even then take them with a grain of salt!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Great advice from a knowledgeable pro. Especially the last paragraph!

This level of detailed, knowledgeable, and relatively unbiased (I say relatively only because it’s nearly impossible for an experienced shooter to not have developed opinions) response is the best part of the hog.

Andy

User ID

One other aspect of sensor size, a sorta
"housekeeping" concern is whether the
camera has interchangeable lenses. It's
safer, dust-wise, to use tiny sensors in
cameras that can't be opened up to the
environment. If the lens is removable,
you'll sooner or later need to clean the
sensor. Larger sensors are just easier,
and somewhat safer, to clean !

Travler

Thanks for the detailed information. So far, the lack of a definitive vote in favor of the ZS 100 has me slowing down a bit. I'll keep listening.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

While I can't answer the question because I have no firsthand experience with either camera, I will say that a 20 mp 1" sensor, when coupled with an excellent lens, does a great job, will likely be able to be used with higher ISO without serious damage to the image.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

AS already mentioned, a larger sensor has several advantages - as do the lenses on premium compacts. Other possibilities to consider are the Canon G7X mkii (this will probably be the cheapest 1" sensor option) or one of the Sony RX100 series. If you're feeling rich, get one of the most recent RX100s - if not, the RX100 mkiii is only marginally less good but you should be able to get it cheaper.

ELNikkor

I just picked up a ZS100 yesterday at Best Buy and was impressed with its features and zoom from 25-250 equivalent; the range I do almost all my shooting. It is an excellent second camera. For twice the price, the new Sony RX100 mark 6 will zoom to 200mm, and (I'm guessing), will have a sharper end result.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Really, I owned a HX20V, now given to my son, and I made some 16X24 prints with that camera that not only won photo contests but one shot I have sold about 5 times at gallery shows.
Any way, I now have Sony's HX50V, and a HX90V that has a 24-720 mm Zeiss lens and a pop up viewfinder that I really like. I also take a Sony RX100 II because it has a hot shoe,but you talk about sharp photo's, I can match any of my Nikon and Canon DSLR's with that little baby. But honestly, that HX20V was one of my favorite camera's of all time.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Amfoto1's discussion very timely for me. Decided on Best-Buy "open box" great price .... "Out of Stock". In stock full price locally... will go get hands on and will take my two other cameras with me and take same subject with each and view when I get home with a side by side. Perhaps I should photograph a stack of 550 dollar bills.

I have done a lot of reading... the ZS100 ranks better than the ZS200... of course the Sony gets the better marks... but the $$$$ become very real. Any where the ZS100 is going for about $550 one company offer package for $565 that includes "stuff."

Why 1", ???, my Sony HX50 does a great job and with Topaz post processing 8x10s are better than my eyes can see. I also have Canon SX50 and often remark that it takes photos better than they should be with an little eye-speck sensor. Yes, also a Sony A65 with every lens you can imagine... but who wants to carry that bag around. The virtue of small cameras is that they are there with you 24/7 and to say they are point and shoot is an insult.

Why do I need/want a 1".... I don't.... more the want than the need... just sounds better....

bengbeng Loc: Houston, Texas

." So it's considerably less crowded... and might use larger individual pixel sites as well."

Alan, fantastic explanation and you raise something almost never talked about - many reviews compare pixel pitch but it's very rare to see info on actual individual pixel size and ( big leap here) quality. Keep sharing.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

If you want a sharp 1" sensor camera stick with Sony. Get a Sony RX10 original version for just a little more money. They still sell new ones and it's a better camera. I have both and while I like the portability/pocket-ability of the Panasonic I use the Sony way more often. The only times I use the Panasonic are when I'm going out with my wife and want to carry a smaller camera and in the bag as a back up camera. All other times I use one of my RX10s. The RX10 II is marginally better than the original and maybe you could find a good used one in your price range but even the RX10 I would serve you better than the Panasonic, unless you particularly want a small camera.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

You get what you pay for; and you don't get what you don't pay for.
GAS is Good.