Gregger Loc: Phoenix area

I am curious as to whether those in the know believe that companies will begin or able to manufacture true superzoom (60X at least) with a 1" sensor. The 1" is of course now available, but from what I have read they have no superzoom. Also, it there any difference in Image Quality from one superzoom brand to the next?

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Would you call the Sony Rx10 MkIV superzoom?

Gregger Loc: Phoenix area

I would call it a semi-superzoom. I have the Panasonic FZ200 (25x)and personally I would like to have more reach with a 1" sensor. Especially for the price.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Keep in mind that optics is technology based on physical properties that are somewhat limiting in the real world. Everyone would love a light weight and compact 14-2000 mm f/2.8 lens for $600 with minimal distortion and great sharpness across the frame. Not going to happen.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The longest zoom on a 1" sensor camera is 25x on the RX10 m3 or m4. That comes out to an angle of view equivalent to 600 mm on a FF sensor. It's not a coincidence that the size and weight of that camera is very close to that of the Nikon P900 which has an angle of view equivalent to 2000 mm and uses 80+ zoom ratio. But the Nikon uses a 1/2.3 sensor which is much smaller.

Assuming that your goal of 60X on a 1" sensor would be starting from about the same wide-angle as the RX10's, then the actual focal length of the lens would have to be about 220 x (60/25) or 528 mm. Compare that to the P900 at a true focal length of 357 mm. The P900 lens is about F6.3 at its longest setting. Unless you can accept a much slower lens, the necessary result of a 60X zoom on a 1" sensor camera would be a LOT bigger and heavier than either the RX10m3/4 or the P900. The P900's sensor is about 25% of the area of the 1" sensor (half times half).

All this is saying is that the math is not on your side. Can they manufacture it? Yes. Would you want to carry it? Well, a few people carry the 150-600 zooms on full frame cameras but who in the bridge camera market would buy a camera with an actual focal length of 528 mm? My gut says "very few". Your view may differ.

Gregger Loc: Phoenix area

Thank you for the reply. The answer to your question would of course be no. I don't know very much concerning the physics of photography. I am wondering if there is a huge difference between the 1" sensor and smaller sensors (1.23- ) on the 50X up to the Nikon 900 (83X) that can be substantially noticed. I am speaking of IQ. Also, can the photos from the smaller sensor be made to look sharper using an editing program.

I ordered a open box Nikon B700. When it arrived the lens was scratched. I have returned it. In the mean time I am trying to decide if I ordered the correct camera.

JPL

If I am correct I think Nikon filed a patent for a superzoom 1" sensor camera a couple of years ago. I doubt they will ever make it but we never know. I think the limit for a practical reach of a 1" superzoom camera would be in the 300-400 mm range giving the same angle as a 800-1000 mm lens on the full frame scale. It must be difficult to make a camera with a longer zoom for this sensor size due to weight of the camera.

Today the longest reach is 600 mm equivalent in bridge camera and 810 mm in interchangeble lens 1" sensor cameras. That is the best choice right now for those wanting long zoom for 1" sensor camera.

Update.

Checked the patent I was referring to and found it. It is for a 75x superzoom lens. https://nikonrumors.com/2016/09/11/nikon-has-a-new-patent-for-a-75x-zoom-lens-designed-for-1-sensor.aspx/

Gregger Loc: Phoenix area

Thanks for your reply. I don't think I will wait around as I am learning to take one day at a time. ha!.Thanks again.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The quick answer is that the RX10m3 sensor is twice as long and twice as high or 4X the area. It also has a more reasonable photo-site (read pixel) size. 20 mp / 4 = 5 but 16 mp / 1 is 16. So skipping the actual measurements, the photo-sites are more than 3x larger on the 1" sensor in this particular comparison (RX10m3 vs P900).

The real-world results bear this out. The IQ of the RX10m3 is a lot better. You can see this for yourself by using the "comparometer" on ImagingResource's site and selected the two cameras and the same scene and ISO. Be sure to look at 100% crops. You will also find that the higher the ISO the more pronounced the difference in these cases. Larger photo-sites have a huge advantage for higher ISO settings.

We have both cameras so on the one hand I see value in both but on the other hand I have first-hand, real world experience.

And no, you cannot make one sharper than the other with post processing unless you apply that unequally. In reality, given similar subjects at a distance that is reasonable for the shorter lens, it's not even close. But at extreme distances, the P900 has no peer. The general answer to you question about editing is that you can sharpen and otherwise improve photos regardless of the sensor size but you cannot change the relationship between sensors. The same applies if you were to compare the full frame Sony a7R2 to the RX10m3. The better camera will produce a superior image if all other factors are equal. My a6000 beats my RX10m3 and the a7R2 beats the a6000 by almost as much as the a6000 beats the RX10.

One more thing about post processing: the P900 does not shoot raw and that puts it at a further disadvantage for editing.

Size does matter.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I find it difficult to believe that so many photographers are willing to sacrifice IQ and purchase superzooms. Any zoom lens over about 3x will begin to (noticeably) lose IQ. For those who crave really long range but still want reasonable IQ the aswer surely needs to be 3/4 lenses. (say 25-75, 75-220, 220-600, 600-1200). I do understand that you get what you pay for - but even so...........

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

4X zooms can also be quite acceptable depending on the lens. For instance, the Canon 100-400, and the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses are all 4X. However, I can't think of any lenses over 4X that don't compromise. Yes, there are a few flavors of the popular 24-105mm lenses available today made by Canon and Sigma, which are almost 4.4X, but those lenses start to compromise noticeably with regard to sharpness across the frame and distortion.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

In the meantime, get back to the gym and hit the weights. That sucker is going to be real heavy if and when it hits the market

Deanie1113

I purchased both a Canon Powershot SX60 with a 1/2.3 sensor and a RX10m3 with the 1". Realistically, I saw absolutely no difference between the two in terms of image quality for the kind of photos I bought these for, bird and wildlife photography. I suggest renting or purchasing two of your front runners and do the tests yourself. I've found for myself that online tests, reviews, etc. can't hold a candle to what you can do yourself with the typical pictures you take.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

I trust that you are aware that the so called "one inch sensor" is actually only 9mm x 12mm.
How it came to be called a "one inch sensor" I'll never know because nothing about it is even
close to one inch.
The image quality of such a tiny sensor will be limited.

cthahn

There are laws of optics which can not be changed. A 60x lens would be 3000mm. Not at all practical.