logo

1" Sensor Cameras.

Why I will never buy a 1" sensor camera again.
These photographs were taken in and around Guarda, my beloved little village in Lower Engiadina, Switzerland. Surrounded by beautiful mountains and nature Guarda sure is an outstanding little village! All images are copyrighted by ReBaFoto, Reto Battaglia. Without my written permission commercial use is strictly prohibited. Contact me if you intend to use any of the images commercially.

I used a 1" sensor camera, the RX10III, to complement my FF system for about 18 months. Then I sold my RX10III because almost every time I used it, I regretted not having my A7RII (today A7RIII) with me instead.

When I sold it, I lost almost 50% of the money I paid for it. This shows the rapid depreciation of such cameras.The following comparison shows so clearly that the FF camera is far superior that I decided to stop trading quality for convenience! Now I always carry my A7RIII or my excellent APS-C compact camera, the Ricoh GR III, and have not regretted selling the RX10III for a moment, despite the money loss.

By the way, I took about 1700 pictures with the RX in almost 18 months. And here's the thing: out of all those photos, I ended up keeping only 48, which should tell you a lot about my satisfaction with this camera. In terms of price per shot, the RX10III was by far the most expensive camera I have ever used.

I would like to mention that these compact cameras with small sensors have their right to exist. For many users, such as those who take pictures of their kids running around or those who want to bring home some vacation memories or some pictures of their grandchildren competing in a race, these cameras can be ideal. When it's more about memories, etc. than the highest image quality, these tools do a good job.

For me landscape and nature photography are the main focus and the requirements are fundamentally different from those just mentioned. I don't care about fast burst modes. Tracking moving objects is also not a priority. In short, most of the special functions offered by such cameras do not even play a minor role for me! The video functions are also unimportant because for video I always use my FF system.

However, I have problems when users of small sensors make completely exaggerated claims, and when they suddenly want to make a universal king out of tools that are useful for them. And when they claim that their favorites can (almost) keep up with FF systems in terms of image quality, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

I recently came across the following comment from a user of 1" sensor cameras:

IQ? As long as the light levels are good and in a blind comparison of reasonably and equally sized print one might have a hard time to tell them apart.

Really? That's anecdotal and unrelated to the facts. Let's take a closer look.
_DSC6982-f.jpg
Comparison.jpg
rx6.jpg
rx14.jpg
rx16.jpg
rx17.jpg
The next two shots compare the A7RII with the RX10III using two different lenses. On the left is the Sigma 150-600 C, in the middle is the clearly superior Sony 100-400 GM, and on the right is the RX10III image. Again, no pixel peeping is necessary to see the rather pronounced drop in quality on the side of the 1" sensor camera. But first an overview:
_DSC9989-f.jpg
rx8.jpg
rx9.jpg
xr1.jpg
rx12.jpg
rx11.jpg
RX10III_A7RII_3I.jpg
To be fair, I also show three shots which are in the range of what 1" sensors can do pretty well. We are much closer to the mountains here, a much smaller section is shown and therefore much less fine detail has to be revealed. So the RX10III has more pixels to reproduce the fewer details, which leads to much better results, never better than an FF image of course, but better than when there are thousands of fine details in the image.
_RX_1664-f.jpg
RX_00142_996.jpg
_RX_1687-f.jpg

Conclusion

From my point of view, a 1" sensor camera cannot replace an FF or a good APS-C system. If you have an FF camera, I recommend that you stick with it and live with the heavier and bulkier combo. If you're serious about photography, you're not going to compromise image quality just to get a little more comfort. And by shouldering a little more weight, you will be rewarded with a much better IQ and be much more flexible when it comes to more challenging scenarios.

For me personally, it's clear: I will never buy a small-sensor camera again! The convenience may be tempting, but the lower image quality and far fewer photographic possibilities (low light, DOF, etc.) are too high a price to pay.

For those who still claim that the differences are marginal or cannot be seen without pixel peeping, there are two options:

  • You may have a problem with your eyes
  • You may need to get a better monitor.

I understand that for many people all of the above flaws and limitations are not a problem, and that for them convenience is more important than getting a better IQ and having more creative options. And I also understand it when some people replace their previous system with a 1" sensor camera. What I do not understand is when people just deny the obvious...

I have noticed that users of small sensors are particularly sensitive when their cameras are criticized. They immediately go into defense mode and can become quite aggressive if someone dares to criticize them. Sure, they have to keep telling themselves that their 1" sensor camera is almost as good as their previous FF system, even though, as we've seen, that's total nonsense. But that's life... isn't it?

What I have also noticed is that users of very small sensors often only publish small images on the web. Only a few dare to publish full resolution photos or at least 4K images. Logically, the defects are much less visible in smaller images. But maybe they shouldn't talk about image quality when they post such small images on the web that don't prove anything.

Another user of 1" sensor cameras recently made a bold claim:

"The beauty of the RX100VII and RX10iv is no other fixed lens camera can compete with them."

Such generalizations should be avoided by all means! Does he even know all the fixed-lens cameras? How can he possibly know if his claim is true? If he comes up with such claims, he should have solid evidence to back them up. Anecdotal experience does not count. The above statement is by no means universally valid.

First of all, it depends on who is reviewing the cameras and what the photographer wants to do with the camera of his choice. For me, as I have already said, the Ricoh GR III beats the RX100VII by a long way (I have worked with both and kept the GR III and I honestly hated to work with the slippery RX100VII).

For my use case it's primarily the image quality that counts and in this respect, the RX doesn't even come close to the GR III. On top of that, as mentioned before, the ergonomics of the GR III are far superior! That's why there are definitely competitors that can outperform the RX models.

Of course, I realize that my assessment is by no means universally valid either. But I'm not making that claim. I am simply reporting my own subjective experiences in an honest way. We could add the experience of many others and get a host of different interpretations. But it is absolutely clear that the above comment does not stand up to scrutiny.

So it's all in the eye of the beholder...