The 1-Inch Sensor Is a Lie

The 1-Inch Sensor Is a Lie

It’s shocking in 2020 that you can go on to most electronics stores and still purchase a point-and-shoot camera for north of $500. Many of these cameras justify their high price tag by heavily advertising a “1-inch sensor.” Unfortunately, that’s not really a selling point when the 1-inch sensor never really lived up to its photographic promises.

Let’s be real here, the 1-inch sensor was the compromise no one wanted. It’s “The Good Place” analogy of only getting yogurt when what you really wanted was ice cream (a larger sensor). And more to the point, with many phones sporting wide angle and telephoto lenses and a raft of computational imaging smarts and processing, a 1-inch sensor in a traditional point-and-shoot camera means nothing these days.

Look, I bought heavily into the idea that a 1-inch sensor camera could make a viable point-and-shoot walkaround to take when out with the kids. The Canon PowerShot G9 X made a serious bid to be my diaper-bag, carry-all-the-time camera while the Canon PowerShot G3 X was an attempt at a Zoo/Aquarium camera. But after using each only a few times, they’ve been collecting dust on the shelf. When I critically pixel-peeped at the files, there wasn’t more detail there than what a good phone with good software could do with a smaller sensor, such as an iPhone 11 Pro Max or Google Pixel 3a. That’s where phone manufacturers have the camera makers beat: Their programmers work magic in the small space of a cell phone. The autofocus systems in these cameras were woefully inadequate even for light-duty family photography.

Sure, there’s a case to be made for the extreme zoom of something like a G3 X, but at $850 (for a camera introduced 5 years ago!), that’s a lot of DSLR and lens to be had there, or if you’re looking for smaller, a mirrorless camera. And even with a Micro Four Thirds model, such as an Olympus E-M10 Mark III you’ll get a lot more image quality for the dollar in about the same size package. I’d argue that Micro Four Thirds was really the sensor size that delivered on the small package/big quality promise that 1-inchers did not, especially when you consider such groundbreaking small cameras like the Panasonic GM series. Nikon tried to make the 1-inch sensor viable in an interchangeable lens system (the Nikon 1 series) but when Micro Four Thirds is vastly better in low light and image quality at a lower price, what’s the point?

Panasonic shoehorned a Micro Four Thirds sensor into a camera the size of a deck of cards. This is smaller than many 1-inch sensor point-and-shoots, and it still gets better image quality and more features.

The flaw in the logic is this: A 1-inch sensor is in a camera primarily because it’s a cost-cutting measure. When Nikon added sophisticated autofocus, interchangeable lenses and other fancy DSLR-like features, the result was a price tag that made used or entry level larger sensor cameras more appealing. Another scenario is true for cameras like the G3 X and G9 X and their close cousins, the Sony RX100 series, where the 1-inch sensor saves costs, but then is attached to a decontented camera at a high price.

I once saw a calendar from Nikon that had wildlife photos from the 1 system right next to the company’s full-frame DSLR images, and the image quality difference, even in print, was noticeable. Trained eyes can tell.

Where Is a 1-Inch Sensor Appropriate?

That’s not to say that 1-inch sensors don’t have their place. Ricoh makes an excellent 360 photo camera in the Theta Z1 that sandwiches two 1-inch sensors together. For video, which has lower resolution requirements than photo, it can be a benefit in action cameras such as the Insta360 One R 1” Edition and broadcast-style ENG cameras such as the Panasonic AG-UX90.

But that said, no one has quite figured out to market these cameras to ordinary folks. Most people don’t care about sensor size or even understand what it does, so making that a prominent part of the name of the camera or the marketing materials misses the point. What can the camera do that will make a user choose to pay money for it over just using a cell phone? It’s the main reason none of the 1-inch sensor cameras have exactly set the world on fire and these cameras are collecting dust on the sales floor.

What do you think of 1-inch sensors, is it time to move on? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

Wasim Ahmad is an assistant teaching professor teaching journalism at Quinnipiac University. He's worked at newspapers in Minnesota, Florida and upstate New York, and has previously taught multimedia journalism at Stony Brook University and Syracuse University. He's also worked as a technical specialist at Canon USA for Still/Cinema EOS cameras.

Log in or register to post comments

I think what bothers me the most about "1-inch sensors" is that they aren't an inch, even measured diagonally. The name is just purposely misleading marketing. The surface area of a 1" sensor is nearly half of micro four thirds, which gives you an idea just how tiny it really is.

Sensor size descriptions confused the hell out of me until I did some research A few years ago and found out that some of them had had nothing to do with their physical size, but have their origins in vacuum tubes!

For the uninitiated...

“Bizarrely, the mostly fractional measurements used to detail sensor size date back to the age when vacuum tubes were used in video and television cameras. But the size designation is still nothing like as simple as the diagonal measurement of the sensor. Instead, it's the outer diameter measurement of a tube needed to produce an image, when the usable image takes up two thirds of the circle. Yes, it's that crazy.”

Yup. The standard was for vidicon tubes. When the first CCDs were reasonable for use in much of anything, it was video, thanks to standard definition. So they started using the same terminology for CCDs, then CMOS sensors. Apparently a full frame sensor is also a 2.3" sensor, despite only being 1.7" on the diagonal.

A micro 4/3 sensor isn't 1.3 inches on the diagonal either.

And "Full frame" refers to the crippled 35 mm frame that is a pathetic response to larger roll film formats. /s

Huh? Unless you're counting capturing into the perforations, 35mm film is usually 36 x 24, while digital FF is around 35.6 x 23.8. Not much loss there. Medium format, on the other hand...

I think Indy was referring to full frame being the same as 35mm (more properly called 135 format). And he was saying 35 mm was considered a "crippled," small format when it was first introduced. People were used to larger formats. It would be much later when 35 mm was considered a serious format.

Who cares?! It's bigger than a normal compact camera and smaller than a 4/3 who cares about the name, can it take good pictures, that's what should matter!

I own a Sony RX100VA and it is really a big step up from a mobile phone while still being really small and pocketable. I love the form factor and what it can do.

Indeed, 1 inch sensors destroy the older, more common 1 2/3” sensors in cheaper, older P&S cameras.

This is just another crap article.

I have the RX100iii and love it for the same reason. It is a pocketable camera that handle's like a camera. While the EVF isn't great, it works in bright light that obscures the rear screen, so I can avoid that problem you are stuck with in phones. At slower shutter speeds, I can hold it like a traditional camera, so more steady than you'll ever get with a phone. I can control shooting parameters far easier than with a phone.

If I want, I can lock focus and exposure, and shoot action like we did before auto focus.

It's kind of a weird situation. Nearly every 1" camera these days uses Sony's 1" chips, but only Sony gets the latest and greatest. So there's that issue. But the reason for that is because some of the early, non-Sony sensors kind of sucked. I have the Nikon AW1 mirrorless camera, which has a 1" sensor at 14 megapixels made by Aptina. The results... well into the P&S zone. But on my Sony RX10 Mark IV, I'm at least at the edge of the kind of general quality, editability, etc. you'd expect from a "real" camera.

But also, when you're buying an RX10, RX100, or one of the 1" cameras from Canon or Panasonic or whomever, you're also getting a far, far better lens than in the usual 1/2.3" P&S. You're probably not diffraction-limited at full aperture, which you are on just about any cheap P&S. So 20 megapixels actually looks a bit like 20 megapixel should. And of course, the sensor is good enough to shoot raw, while on most phones, shooting raw bypasses all the AI + computational enhancement and you see just how awful the camera really is.

I'm shooting on an RX100 often and the IQ is great. But then you can also obtain high quality prints from a phone

I think my polite rsponse is if you can't produce high quality images from ANY modern camera you should probably find a new hobby/job.

The problem with phones is that they're far more limited in the situations they can be used effectively in vs a 1" sensor camera. Sure, you can "get" the shot, but if you're looking at printing even close to sizes like above, forget it.

If you haven't tried RX100 series of cameras, then you don't have any idea what 1" sensor can do and have no business to trash this sensor.


If money weren't a factor, that could be the case, but at $900?

The problem is that you’re acting like a 1” sensor is somehow being advertised as new tech in 2020. It’s not. The RX100 has been around for 8 years. And yeah, it blew cell phone cameras (and other point-and-shoots) out of the water for the better part of a decade. Plus a 1” sensor was certainly not the only selling point of that camera.

It would be one thing to say, “Is a 1-inch sensor point and shoot still relevant?”, but that’s not what you wrote. So yeah, this is a garbage article.

LOL Wasim seems to be a really passionate size matters type of guy.

Hey wut!?

How did you go from "The 1-Inch Sensor Is a Lie" to "...but at $900".

It's almost as though you have no conception of logic.

I think it's time to look at your work; you have the stench of the gear obsessed/snob.

How about under $400 brand new for original model ? I payed $650 8 year ago and still use it for pocket camera. And I have 18x24 prints taken with this camera that look great.

Get a second hand RX100 u can find them very cheap, maybe than your article would have value, now u are talking about something u don't have first hand experience in! Also I have been using an RX100 and RX100 IV and they take awesome pictures, better pictures than an old D40 and in good light even as good as my old D90!

I have a G3 X and a G9 X ... both one inch sensors, probably the same as what's in a secondhand RX100. I had a D300S, which was the same sensor as the D90, and I can tell you the 1" sensors that I have aren't even close.

No they are not the same sensors and yes in good light they are very comparable in sharpness! I have both and I have taken pictures of the same flower on both camera's!

I have the RX10 IV with a 1" sensor and I have to say i am very impressed with the quality that comes out. I know it has shortcomings not being a FF camera but because it's paired with a 24-600mm equivalent lens it gives me a lot more flexibility when shooting. The 1" sensor does have a niche market and with wildlife it has served me well.

The RX10 IV is great -- I have one, most for shooting music events that don't premit "pro" cameras. It is essentially a $300 camera with a $1400 lens, but still. These cameras are really capable. You don't hit diffraction limits at full aperture, and yet, the lens is sharp pretty much the whole way, with just a little lost at the full 220mm (600mm full frame equivalent). It's also got the latest Sony 1" stacked chip, with on-chip PDAF, fast 24fps raw shooting, and on-sensor buffering of over 180 raw shots. It's like a baby A9. In one long weekend, I shot 7200 images with this camera at a festival. So okay, it's actually larger than some of my pro cameras, and nearly as expensive. But it's no lie, brother!

Oh look, another garbage article by Wasim, knew it was him the moment I read the headline...

Generating web traffic, not useful content.
Rule number one these days.

I want to see GoPro start using 1" sensors to get better low light performance. I know they already have 4k (since Hero5?) but if you've ever tried to use a gopro pre-dawn, its pretty bad.

I have yet to dive into the reviews, but that's exactly what I'm talking about! GoPro has the edge in audio and stabilization, so if they shoe-horned a 1" sensor in there I expect it would be great.

Sony makes 1

The RX0 mark I and mark II. I totally forgot about them! Makes me wonder why they're not more successful? price? lack of accessories (hard to compete with GoPro there). Who knows where the marketing failure resides, but you've renewed my curiosity in this model...

Well they were very expensive and the first one had some really bad points like overheating, slow autofocus, no timelapse, no 4k, poor batterylife, bad IS,...
Don't really know much about the Mark 2, but they were kinda screwed because of the lack of 4k in the first one.

I always thought it was an odd format, but then I'm used to the idea of interchangeable lenses. For the dad that just wants to have 1,000,000mm equiv. zoom range at their kids' sporting events or the frequent traveler that doesn't care about DoF or bokeh quality they do the job quite well. We may see the smartphone market fill those needs soon, but they certainly aren't there yet.

That's not a 1" camera... that's a 1/2.3" camera with the insane lenses Nikon puts on their bridge cameras. Smartphones aren't getting close to that one.

As for 1" cameras and DOF, it's certainly possible. Heck, get close enough and even your plastic 4mm smartphone can get you shallow DOF without software tricks. The key is knowing your tools, not relying entirely on ridiculous glass.

The thing is sensor size is pure marketing hype. Apparently you need larger pixels to gather more light according to the marketing hype. Well pixels can only be one of 3 colours, red , green or blue. It doesn't matter if the pixel is a metre across it can only be red, green or blue. (sRGB)(aRGB)
Larger sensors require larger lenses, so there's a marketing strategy to price a lens north of $10,000.
Apparently it's down to the light intensity, that's why a magnifying glass only produces a concentrated enough array of sun beams to set fire to something when it focuses on a full frame sized sensor..and laser beams are a metre wide. (I'm just taking the marketing hype to its farcical conclusion)
It wasn't the sensor size that was too blame it was poor glass.

The bigger the sensor (at equal MP), the more sampling happens for each pixel. More sampling in = less noise out. Less noise out = more DR and cleaner high ISO. There's a MASSIVE difference between 1" and (non-Canon) FF in IQ. Even something like the 60MP A7R IV vs the 20MP RX100 VII will show a huge difference in IQ. APS-C is still a big jump, with m4/3 splitting the difference.

I'm one of those guys who actually bought the Sony ZV-1, and I think the discussion of how micro four thirds bodies are about the same size as a point-and-shoot like the RX100 or the G9 X is kinda misleading

Those point and shoot cameras have built-in lenses that collapse into the camera body, meaning I can fit it into my pants pocket. Once you put a lens on a micro4/3 body, it becomes much thicker and you don't have that same portability. If someone is going on a hike or something and doesn't want to carry a camera on a strap or in a dedicated bag, having a camera that actually fits into your pocket can be a selling point.

Don't get me wrong, a large sensor, interchangeable lens camera will give you better image quality, but you can get 1" point and shoot cameras that excel in portability while also being noticeably better than a cell phone camera.

The Panasonic GM1 came with a collapsible lens which helped it more or less match the GX 9. Also several power zooms that were very small that are available. I own both the G9 X and the GM1. When I get the chance I'll have to take a picture of them side-by-side and circle back here.

But your aguement sucks, u can't get a GM1 anymore (trust me I tried to find one), and as for the GX9, I think u took the worst example of the modern 1" camera's u can find as the lens is very unsharp!

I had several Nikon 1 cameras and lenses, but whether it was my own photos or the test shots on DPreview, the 1/1.7" sensor Olympus XZ-2 and Stylus 1 I also owned just blew them way by being sharper, and having wider apertures which led to lower ISOs for less noise, and more shallow DOF. Sensor to sensor the 1" may have been better, but as a complete system including lenses, the 1/1.7" compacts were far superior.

Going down further, however, I have tried several 1/2.3" sensor cameras, and can't stand any of them due to aggressive noise reduction creating an ugly watercolour painting effect. So, my sweet spots have ended up being 1/1.7" compacts and m43.

Here's an ISO 100 comparison. The 1" sensor on the left should be superior, but clearly isn't, mostly if not all due to the lens.

Look at a scenario where you would want the same shutter speed while using the V1's kit lens, requiring ISO to be set two stops faster, and the difference is even greater. The bigger sensor sure didn't live up to its promises!

It might be due to the lens. Consider that higher end P&S models (the XZ-2 with its larger sensor was out before 1" really caught on, but 1/1.7" is still twice the area of the 1/2.3" chip from cheap P&S. Meanwhile, a Nikon 1 V1 with a kit lens.. not so good. But also, those Aptina sensors used in most of the Nikon 1 series were not very good. They were spun out of Micron Technlogy as a sensor company mostly making chips for cheap cellphones. The Nikon 1" chips were, I believe, their first attempt at a larger sensor. I own a Nikon AW1 with the 14 megapixel Aptina chip. While it's useable, the Sony RX10 Mark IV is dramatically better. I only own the two AW lenses and one longer zoom fo the Nikon 1 system, so I can't presonally verify if there was a totally abysmal kit lens when the V1 first shipped, or if there's other stuff happening there.

Also the Nikon 1 system had horrible sensors as Dave said it was the first try at a sensorsize in between compact camera and 4/3 sensors, but it doesn't compare to a more modern 1" sensor.

I always figured it was the lens letting the system down, so thank you both for sharing your insights into the quality of the sensor!

"It’s the main reason none of the 1-inch sensor cameras have exactly set the world on fire and these cameras are collecting dust on the sales floor."

Yes. Things like the Canon G7/9, Fuji X100, Panasonic TZ1/200 or Sony RX10/100 really don't sell well,


The X100 has always been APS-C. A few of the fixed lens X-series: the X10, the X-F1, the X-S1, etc. had a 2⁄3 sensor with an interesting color filter pattern. None of the Fujiiflm cameras used a 1" chip.

Given that Sony makes a new RX100 variation just about every year, and keeps most of the older ones on sale, I'll wager they sell pretty well. And in fact, to folks with big cameras. I currently own a Fujfilm X-F1, a Sony RX10 Mark IV, and a Panasonic TZ100.

Also it isn't directed to the average customer, it's made for the photographer who also wants a compact that he can take everywhere!

More comments