SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m usually printing to fit a 16x20 mat, so usually 16” wide and I’ve gotten good prints from my 1” sensor Sony RX10MIV, even with some cropping. I much prefer printing from my M4/3 OM-1 or my FF Nikon Z9, but 1” is fine. I’m not sure about 1/2.3” sensors. Many have the resolution to handle it, I dunno about the “quality” of that resolution.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Lots of pixels have little to do with sensor size. Saying APS-C is better for small prints is ridiculous. Any size sensor is good enough for small prints. My old Nikon D40, an ASP-C camera with a 6mp sensor did very good 10x16 prints.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

We (wife and I) have Nikon P1000 and Sony RX10m4 respectively. I also have Sony ɑ6500. These cameras' sensors are: "1/23", "1 inch" and APSC respectively. A few of the Nikon's pics of birds in good light printed 16x20 pretty nicely. The RX10m4 (same sensor as RX100m7) takes much better image quality and has much better dynamic range. The ɑ6500 image quality is very obviously better than either when I pixel peep. Consequently, the larger sensor can provide a better picture of, for example, birds when it's necessary to enlarge. I once made a print for a friend that was IIRC, 2'x3' from the ɑ6500 and Sony 70-200G. Glass matters.

Now, to be kind to the P1000, there have been some times when the bird was too far away and/or too small to get a decent picture with anything else. In those cases, the smaller sensor with a (actual length) 540 mm lens in front of it is the only reasonable choice. Notice the print size for the P1000?

I have a home-made spreadsheet with most of the relevant numbers for many cameras. This screenshot is the part that is useful for this thread. The columns and sensor sizes are also shown. The distances and object sizes are arbitrary on my part, designed for some comparisons. If anyone wants the spreadsheet in its entirety including other cameras and lenses choices, PM me. These are merely facts. What one does with them is more debatable.

FYIO, the Sony HX-50, the Sony HX-99 and the Nikon P1000 all have the same size sensor.

I apologize for these 3 screen captures being out of order; I'm too lazy to figure out how to resequence them. It should also be obvious that for the ɑ6000/6500 the lens length is only one possibility. The other cameras have non-interchangeable lenses but they are zooms. I used the maximum zoom length for those.

You may find it interesting that the print size for the APS-C sensor (with 400 mm) and the "1 inch" sensor are very close. But the image on the sensor is almost 2X. You will have to take my word for it that the image quality is not that close. As an opinion, the RX10 and RX100 deliver outstanding pictures when used properly. The P1000, even when using raw, is very limited on dynamic range. And IMO, the APS-C is much better if used with suitable glass.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

It would be good if we each listed our assumptions about the characteristics of the two cameras—their lenses and their sensors—which we are comparing. I think there are only two scenarios we need to consider. The sketches defining each one, the characteristics of the equipment, and the outcome of the photos are described below.

As to the two sensors, they are fictional with the smaller one having 1/2 the width and 1/2 the length of the larger one. Thus, the area of the smaller one is 1/2 W x 1/2 L=1/4 A(larger). And I am assuming the quality of each body, including its sensor, is the same between the two cameras, and this holds true for their lenses, too. Also, it is assumed that each sensor has the same number of pixels. On the diagrams, the sensors are represented by a dotted orange line.

CASE A: Both cameras use the same lens. Since the smaller sensor covers only 1/4 of the area with the same number of pixels, the smaller image is sharper with more details, but it shows only 1/4 of the scene.

Since the same number of pixels are sampling the smaller scene, each pixel receives 11/4 of the light shining on each pixel in the larger sensor. Thus is this scenario, the smaller sensor is not as good in low light.

CASE B. The camera with the smaller sensor also has a lens with 1/2 the focal length of the lens used by the camera with the larger sensor. With the shorter focal length, both sensors frame in the same scene and thus with these assumptions neither sensor is better. In this scenario, the smaller sensor can work with a smaller body. Both sensors work the same in low light.

I hope this discussion is clear. --Richard

(Download)


(Download)

cptiger Loc: Englewood, FL

WOW, I never expected this extensive discussion! Y'all are just plain awesome!
I have narrowed my choices to 3, all are 1" sensors. I gather that sensor size is not quite an issue unless you are really going BIG! in order:
1. Sony DSC RX100 VII - pricey, a comment disturbed me that Sony's RAW codec in Windows is unsupported. I'm a PC user. What, if anything, does one have to do to use Sony's RAW files in LrC on a PC? Others commented that camera was small, but this pretty much applies to all. Always have considered Sony's products to be outstanding.
2. Lumix DMC-ZS 100 or 200 - Being a PC user, my question about Panasonic's RAW files is the same as with the Sony's. Cannot beat Leica's quality lenses.
3. Canon G7x III - shortest zoom of the 3. Had the most negative comments. I liked the Canon grip. Familiarity, being a lifelong Canon user.

So, there I is! Two of the 3 are on backorder, so I can continue to ponder! For almost twice the price, is the Sony that much better?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's kind of up to you. I shoot both Sony and Canon. I know what to expect from every Canon digital camera, both the resulting JPEGs and RAW. Somewhat the same experience and expectations from my Sony cameras. On one hand, a camera is a camera and a digital image is just that, a digital image. But, the two camera types and their files have subtle differences as your approach how to edit each type. Your experience to-date with Canon might make that a more logical choice, maybe not.... The availability may prove to be the driver, over price, brand and performance.

cptiger Loc: Englewood, FL

Thx, sound advice.

markwilliam1

If you can afford it the Sony RX100vii is a no brainer! I own this fabulous camera. I have no problems with using its RAW files on Windows 10. Other than taking my Apple 14 Pro Max it’s the only camera I take now. I even leave my Sony RX10M4 at home now. These 2 cameras have the same sensor and software. The only advantage of the RX10 is it’s reach and fixed focal length at f4.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I'm not sure the Sony is any better. I faced the same choice and for me it came down to the Sony versus the Canon. The deciding factor for me was the lens as I much preferred the lens on the Canon over the Sony. The Sony has a larger zoom range but that had no attraction for me. I have no use for long lenses. The price for that in the Sony is a lens that's 1.5 stops slower than the Canon. That was meaningful to me and I bought the Canon (now my most used camera).

I have to also admit I have a bias that's probably unfounded, but I prefer buying cameras made by camera manufacturers as opposed to electronics manufactures. 40 years ago I fondly remember taking photos with my Canon VI-T rangefinder; the Canon G7 has a lineage that I appreciate and respect.

markwilliam1

If you never used the Sony then you don’t know! The picture quality is Amazing and I can print 13x19 pictures that are as good as any I’ve seen from Any camera! Canon makes lots of electronics. They don’t just make cameras!

markwilliam1

BTW which Canon are you referring to?

markwilliam1

I also have the Canon Pro 100 printer which is not a camera but an electronics item.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Do you use the Canon G7 a lot? Then we both don't know. I've owned 5 Sony digital cameras, but not the RX100. I have the Canon G7xmkII and the picture quality is Amazing! I can make 13x19 prints that are super good, but not quite as good as I can get from my FF Leica or Nikon. Still I use the G7 more than any other camera I own. Here's some snapshots from the G7:

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

markwilliam1

Was just comparing the Sony with the new Canon G7mkIII. Man both Great cameras! The Sony’s reach is 100mm longer but it is much more expensive. I’d have a hard time deciding between the two if I was in the market for a new camera.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

And to pay for that extra reach the lens is 1.5 stops slower than the G7's. That's the factor that made my decision as I have no use for long lenses.