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.
God the comments section on this website reads like yelp reviews of McDonald's
It is ridiculous that the name 1 inch sensor is meaningless. Try asking a salesperson at B&H or anywhere what the 1 inch refers to. You get either total BS or a blank stare. This should be an indication that the product itself is a con job.
What's the big deal? All sensors have their use. I use to walk around with 1/1.7" sensors like the Canon S110 and got whatever I needed. Whatever noise I got from them didn't matter, I got a shot I otherwise wouldn't have. I was also surprised by how much dynamic range you can eek out of their raw files, especially the highlights on 1-inch sensors.
The 1 inch sensors are fun to play with. I use a Nikon J4 with an FT1 and throw a 300 or 400mm lens on it and just go to town. ;-)
Awesome image!
Articles like this remind me of the online equivalent of the magazines that for years have been available to buy in US supermarket checkout lines with headlines like:
"78 year old virgin goat and giraffe cross the Atlantic in a gas filled adult diaper!"
Or
"UFO abductions in Dafuqizastan are behind the global warming lie!"
The article is misguided. The 1-inch sensors are in sale for something like 10 years. For a long, long time they provided noticeably better IQ than the smartphones and point-n-shoots. And they still do today, with only the most advanced (expensive) smartphones catching up or beating them. In SOME aspects, I have to add. The latest RX goes to 200mm eq. Go shoot with your 11 Pro Max at such a zoom and compare the results... In short, maybe the 1-inch lost some relevance with the advancements of the phones' cameras, but to brand them "a lie" and to argue they have no place is just wrong.
I have the 1 inch sony rx0 and a p30pro for my phone but the sony wins everytime. Dynamic range is noticeably better, low light shots are better (even with all the phone post processing). I just got the rx0 a few months ago because I had written off 1 inch as too small but I am rethinking that now.
It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it.
I have a Lumix FZ1000, 1" sensor and 20MP. I also have a 6D, full frame sensor and 20MP. Take the same shot at the same focal length and exposure settings and it's not all that easy to choose which is which - until you get away from the mainstream, that is.
What "ordinary folks" want from a camera is nice pictures of family, friends, holidays, grandma's birthday, daughter's graduation, and so on. They don't care what the magical photo pixies inside the camera do, so long as they make nice pictures and do it at a reasonable price.
Not everyone is Ansel Adams, not everyone is looking for artistry or perfect clarity. Just nice pictures.
Always remember that virtually all of the universally recognised iconic and classic photographs were taken with equipment that today (and often even then) would be seen as very basic, if not primitive.
Technical specs aren't everything.
You do have to remember that many of the photographers that made those photos still chose to use very high end gear so they could get the shot. Not much has changed since then. Just the quality of the output and the ease in getting the shot on the first try.
What a twisted, convoluted article to justify a dumb premise. I have shot a 1" sensor camera for a number of years and the image quality is excellent for a, yes . . . 1" sensor. Better than a smaller size sensor but not as good as a larger size sensor. A !" sensor is a perfect comprise for a pocket-able camera when you don't want to lug around a non-pocket able camera. Click Bait article. Fstoppers come on, you are better than this!
"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"
It's in the lens. Sony's Zeiss lenses in their RX cameras have consistently been tested to be sharper than their competition, especially in the corners. The RX10 series is constantly praised for how sharp their lenses are, as well. I have the original RX100 from 2012 and see no issues with sharpness vs my APS-C and FF cameras, and there have been 2 newer lenses released since then.
"the Sony RX100 series, where the 1-inch sensor saves costs, but then is attached to a decontented camera at a high price."
Not sure what you mean. The RX series cameras (especially since RX100 IV/RX10 II) have had an incredible array of features and performance in them. To the point that some say they have too much going on. Not to mention premium build (all metal bodies) and flexible viewing options that some of their competitors still lack (EVFs, tilting/fully articulated LCDs).
That said, I wish Nikon would have continued their 1 series. The J5 was VERY close to being excellent, just lacking in an EVF and usable adapted lens performance. The V3 could've been great, but was behind due to the poor sensor (J5 was the first to use Sony's) and super high price for the full body (modular = $$$$).
Agree that the lens attached to these 1" sensors make a huge difference (especially with the Sony RX10 IV with it's ZEISS Vario-Sonnar T* lens). One cannot just look at a sensor and determine it's quality. There are many components that when combined can enhance a sensor or cripple it.
All good points.
For my underwater work, I opted for the Nikon1 J3 with its 1” sensor. My dive buddy used here Sony RX100. Both delivered great shots. I found the J3 easy to use with better menus for underwater work than the messy Sony menus. It is also a good size for diving - big enough to get a good grip and small enough that you can easily handle it underwater. Also, much cheaper than larger sensor bodies, lens and housing combos. I have taken over 50,000 underwater shots with a couple of different bodies and believe the sensor does not get due credit for what it can deliver. Likely have to retire from diving due to medical stuff, but the cameras, lenses and housings will go to someone else who can put them to good use.
Indeed the 1" camera-sector should be replace by m4/3 - the market is shrinking and there is no way the price can justify the quality you get for your hard earned cash.
This is where the word patience comes into the story. If a camera is a good buy at 800.00, it's even better at 400.00.
All cameras go on sale sooner or later. How much would you like to bet, that people buying these "1 inch" wonders leave the mode dial on Auto.
I can’t say I agree with the 1” nay sayers here. I have shot film, now digital for over 40 years and am amazed at the quality of these cameras. I own APS-C cameras and lenses and now find they are a bit too much to carry on trips or photo excursions. I got a Sony RX-10 to lighten my travel load and was blown away by the quality: 8x10 and 11x14 as good (to my and many others eyes) as my APS-C IQ, or close to it. On a lark, I now considered a Lumix GM-1 M43 or a Nikon 1 used. Considering how M43 may be on the way out, I got the Nikon 1. One poster here got poor results compared to a 1/1.7 sensor but I just don’t see it; I get terrific IQ, RAW or jpeg. There is a good site called “Small sensor photography” I urge you to check out; all Images taken on M43 and 1” sensors. Fewer people buy digital thanks to cell phones so point and shoots soon will be dead, followed by M43 (Olympus went bankrupt). FF and APS-C will be used by pros and super serious users. I think 1” will replace M43 as the new “In between” format if Sony keeps improving it.
It's funny that you think Micro Four Thirds MIGHT be on the way out, so you bought into a system that was discontinued over two years ago. I was quite deep into the Nikon 1 system myself - four bodies and six lenses. Unfortunately, the aperture mechanisms on four of those six lenses all failed, simply due to poor design, and Nikon would repair some of them, for free, but only once, and are discontinuing that after January 15th 2021. I replaced my Nikon 1 system with Micro Four Thirds and they have proven to be far more reliable. I do miss how compact the 30-110mm lens was, however.
Fake controversy. Clickbait. Pocket cameras with 1" sensors produce better technical image quality than any current smartphone (if you know how to use a camera effectively) and will do until smartphones start fitting 1" sensors. Even more important ... the ergonomics, versatility and controllability of a "real" camera allow you to get all kinds of photos that a smartphone just cannot make.
As for the marketing BS ... trying to con us that the 1" sensor is biger than it really is ... well we are used to marketing BS ... we have suffered it since the evil ideas of Edward Bernays were adopted by capitalism, so we research the truth rather than basing our decisions on what the marketers tell us.
Even if you put the exact same 1" sensor in a smartphone, the limitations of lenses being only 4mm or so thick means they will never outperform a camera with a 1" sensor and a superior lens that can be 36mm thick, for example.
“. . .no one has quite figured out to market these cameras to ordinary folks.” You haven’t invested any serious time into 1-inch sensors.
I own two 1-inch cameras. I took my Sony Rx10 iv to Botswana because it was half the weight and size of my Fuji set up. My photos rival those of the Canon boys lugging around APS and full-frame cameras with their wrist crippling 300mm lens. My Sony a7 iii out performs the RX10 in low light but in daytime the photos are comparable. The RX10 is great for distance photography and I use it for Nature and sports.
No matter where I go, I take my Sony RX100 vi. It fits into my pants pocket and the photos that it takes are stunning. It’s a great all-around travel companion.
Don’t waste your time looking at 1-inch cameras from Canon and Panasonic – they never get top billing. And how can you say that Sony cameras are “decontented”? They have the best focus acquisition time and excellent video capabilities.
Don’t bad mouth a sensor that deserves respect. It has already started to make inroads into action cams, trail cameras, dash cams, and cell phones. The camera world seems OK with this sensor.
Why bash the 1 inch sensor or any sensor size for that matter? No matter what size you use, the person with the bigger sensor will look down on the one you are using, just like when the 35mm film camera came out. I have had a 35mm film format, a 6x6 medium film format, a ASP-C digital format, a 1-inch digital format, a Full Frame digital format and a myriad of smartphones and the quality of each image had more to do with the person, me, behind the lens, rather than the (medium) film/digital sensor size. Now, I'm not going to pull out my Canon G9X camera to take a landscape photo that I will print and mat in a large format, however, I will pull it out for Street Photography, Family Travel Photography and other family events where the target display is Instagram or an 8 x 10 print for my wall, a picture book or a photo album. And I believe this is where 95% of photos taken today end up anyway. Enjoy Photography with any camera and focus more on your composition rather than the sensor size of the camera in your hand. I sure do!
This is ridiculous. 1" sensors ROCK. Quit quibbling over sensor measurements and look at RESULTS.
First, portability. The Sony RX100 series are very pocketable. The picture? Astounding. There is more to picture quality than just sensor size, like lens, image pipeline, and in a fixed lens camera the abilty to match the lens to the senor, etc. Shoot one and and look at the images, compare them to your favorite APS sensor camera. No difference.
Wasim seems to think there is no place for a pocketable camera that competes with a Canon T7. The best camera is the one you have with you.
The other thing a smaller sensor allows you to do is have faster, more compact lenses. Sony's RX100's are legend for outstanding optics, and you get a 24-200 (equivalent) with a constant f/2.8, or a 24-400 2.8/4.5. In a package no bigger than an entry-level DSLR.
A lot of people like to bitch about Ken Rockwell (sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but I don't think he's evil or anything), but look at what he has to say about the RX100iii, and look at the images. It makes the case well.
I do pro work, often in rough field conditions and no longer carry a couple DSLR bodies and a bag of lenses. I carry an RX100 and an RX10. I defy any of you, even with full frame sensors, to beat the qualilty of my images unless it's EXTREME low light or EXTREME blowups, situations I never encouter in the field.
Rahim is wrong. These cameras are the perfect compromise.
I'm late to this discussion, but I registered to respond. The 1-inch sensor isn't a bad compromise. It suffers from manufacturers largely not having updated their 1-inch sensor cameras to most recent software standards while smartphone makers are updating their flagship phones every year or so, so we're mostly comparing current technology to 5-6 year-old technology.
The advantage of 1-inch sensors is that they are compact cameras, and the lens needs to be in consideration here, not just the sensor size. My old Pentax MX1 had a sensor not much bigger than a smartphone, just 1/1.7 inch. But it took very good photos compared to phones back in 2012 and to regular point and shoot cameras. Why? Because it had a f:1.8-2.5 lens with equivalent focus range of 24-116mm. The slightly bigger sensor allowed it to reach a bit higher in the ISO range, but it was the lens that made the magic happen, that kept me from having to raise ISO past the sensor's limits.
If you look at 1-inch sensor cameras, most of them have lens that are just as fast as my old MX1, with a much larger sensor to boot. 1.8 is typical, Panasonic even had a 1.4 lens on the lx10. There are a few 1-inch sensor cameras that have slower lenses because they trade it for zooming capacity. The ZS100 has a 10x zoom, can any phone do that?
The standard kit lens on a mirrorless is just f 3.5. The difference between a 1.8 and 3.5 in aperture is two full stops of light, you'll need to quadruple your ISO to have the same brightness and exposure time. In fact, that's why smartphones are doing so well, their lenses are also 1.8-2.0, which helps keep ISO low. Now, sure, you can buy better glass for your mirrorless, but at what cost? And that 1.8 pancake you buy for your mirrorless will have a fixed focal range and not offer the flexibility of a 3-4x zoom that comes with a 1-inch compact camera lens.
Another advantage here is video. Sure, smartphones compensate their small sensor size with computational photography, but that only works for photos. For video, you can't process each frame through the entire process of computational improvement, it would be way too heavy on the processor for a real-time process, and the results would likely be jarring as each frame is adjusted slightly differently. That means that, for video, having good raw image quality (not RAW quality) is vitally important, as you can't process the images as much as with stills. That's where having a larger sensor can make all the difference, especially in low-light conditions when you have to increase ISO.
And can we talk of integrated ND filters? The ZV-1 has it. As a result, it can take 1/50 24 fps 4K film in the middle of the day, respecting the 180-degree rule between shutter speed and frame rate. All in a package that fits in a pocket.
There's a lot that can be offered with a 1-inch sensor camera that makes them an interesting package. Even if the segment is slowly falling, it still offers things that neither smartphones nor mirrorless can replicate.
"Sure, smartphones compensate their small sensor size with computational photography, but that only works for photos."
Have you seen Cinematic mode videos on the iPhone 13 and 14?