mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Actually, a 1" sensor is not a 1" sensor. Yes, it is larger than the 1/2.3" sensor. It is a selling ploy that has worked in selling cameras. As for a choice on pocket cameras between Sony and Panasonic, I would choose Sony. Although both are very good. Good luck on your choice.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Larger sensors generally provide better image quality, dynamic range, etc. However, if you haven't exceeded the capabilities of your current camera, then why spend money on more equipment.
--Bob

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

These days there is so much to choose from that deciding what you want can be a daunting task. The fact is, there really are no bad cameras, but some are just better than others. For my part, I have to say that a camera with a shorter lens is likely to produce better quality images, and I have to agree that in the compact category, it's hard to beat any of the Sony RX100 series cameras or the Canon G7XII. If long zoom is important, then of course, you might look at the Panasonic, either the ZS100 or 200. The Leica lenses in their cameras are very good lenses. In any case, whatever you choose, you should be happy with it.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Because one never knows if one has exceeded the capabilities of their current camera.
If I was to wait before "exceeding" the capabilities, I would still be shooting with my D90.
Spending money is fun, and lends itself to better photography; and happiness.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

Another vote for the RX-10, even the original. Perfect optics are matched up with the sensor and there is no worry about the sensor cleaning, etc.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

The Panasonic will more then meet your desires and Panasonic has a record of being one of the most reliable

Kuzano

That's a very good point, and one has nothing to do with the other. A camera's technical specifications has absolutely nothing to do with winning photo contests, or selling one's work.

Winning photo contests and selling photography has every thing to do with subjective and objective judgement of the viewer/judge/buyer. Nothing about camera or post processing technology necessarily makes a photograph more of a winner, or the commercially presented image more of a selection to buy.

Photography, for decades, has won contests and been sold to the buying public even when shot with some truly CRAP! camera's. What are you people beating yourselves up for to engage in this mental masturbation research of the best camera???

Give it a rest. I sell only used and mostly old film camera's that work well in contest and photography sales arenas. I've never purchased a new digital and only occasionally new film camera. Why purchase any camera that in a few months can be purchased refurbished or used from a disgruntled seller?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Alan's discussion was indeed good, but he only indirectly referenced pixel size by mentioning pixels per square millimeter.

The pixel pitch that you mention is a direct measure of pixel size (in microns). That is the correct measure to use in determining the sensor's resolving power in line pairs per millimeter. It is also a relative measure with any given generation of sensor design for the actual signal to noise ratio, and a direct measure of what the maximum dynamic range of an ideal sensor would be at any given ISO.

The pixels per square millimeter numbers are beneficial in giving very general comparisions, but the pixel pitch is the really important technical value to understand.