1" vs. M43 Cameras

[Alan Klein]

I own a 1" pocketable camera.  I'm thinking of getting a m43 because it's got a larger sensor.  But I'm not interested in going larger than that.  What are the advantages and disadvantages between the two.   

[Alan Klein]

It would be very helpful to hear from those who have both 1" and M43.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I also have the RX100iv. Before that I had the ii I think it was. Would like to buy the vii. I have also been using the Sony APSC format cameras for about 3 years although I am now mostly out of that system. I owned an A6000, A6300 and A6500. I think that background gives me a few insights.

The APSC and M4/3 give all the usual benefits you would expect with a greater range of lenses than what you are stuck with using the pocket camera. While I really liked the convenience of the RX and still do it is sometimes just too small to hold really comfortably, perhaps I should just use it more and get over that. The RX100iv doesn’t have a viewfinder. I like a viewfinder. I was shooting commercially with the A6xxx system, can’t really see that happening with the RX

Shooting now on FF commercially I wouldn’t go back to A6xxx system for a walk about camera. I would simply upgrade to the RXvii. It has a viewfinder and the user reports I have come across, including some first hand experiences from friends, make me really lust after that camera.

In short it depends what you want to do. For a walking about camera 8 don’t think APSC or M4/3 would bring any advantages for me over the RX

[BJL]

Thanks Alan.

I'm coming at the same question from the opposite side; comparing walk-around options between MFT body with one lens vs a large sensor "compact". My usual lightweight one lens kit is an E-M5 with 12-50/3.5-6.3, and for others the lens could be the 14-42/3.5-5.6 or 12-100/4 or 14-150/4-5.6, or Panasonic's 12-60/3.5-5.6 or 12-60/2.8-4 or 14-140/3.5-5.6. I am tempted by more reach like getting one of the 12-60's or the 12-100.
Then I look at fixed lens ("compact") cameras with 1" and 4/3" sensors, and there are for example 1" format ones with lenses bright enough to offset the speed disadvantage of that smaller sensor.

I will describe everything in 4/3" equivalents rather than 35mm format equivalents, since the latter format is irrelevant to this thread! So, focal lengths and aperture ratios for 1" cameras multiplied by 4/3 and so on. [If you want "35mm film camera" equivalents, just double the numbers!]
 
- The only 4/3" format fixed lens option I know of is the Panasonic LX-100 II with 12-38/1.7-2.8 lens: shortish but brighter than any MFT system zoom lens.
- The Sony RX100 Mk VII in 1" format has a lens equivalent to 12-100/3.7-6 (true f-stop values f/2.8-4.5)
- The Canon G5 X Mk II in 1" format is equivalent to 12-60mm/2.4-3.7 (true f-stop values f/1.8-2.8), so a bit faster than either Panasonic 12-60.
- In APS-C format there is the Canon G1 X Mk III, with lens equivalent to 12-36/2.3-4.5 (16-38/2.8-5.6 true values?)

The main catch is financial; I would still need an ILC body to fulfill my more exotic lens desires: long telephotos and macros.

Any feed-back?

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for your input.  I guess I'm asking because I'm thinking there's a benefit with the larger sensor in the m43.  Although not pocketable, it is pretty small.  But would I notice anything due to the larger sensor? 

[Martin Kristiansen]

Yes I think there is. But at the extremes. Like very high ISO perhaps printing above certain sizes. Honestly there is little in it in my opinion.

A3 plus prints and social media I don’t think you will ever see it.

[John Hollenberg]

The RX100iv doesn’t have a viewfinder. I like a viewfinder.

The RX100 IV has a popup viewfinder.  I know, I own one.

[Martin Kristiansen]

The RX100 IV has a popup viewfinder.  I know, I own one.

I must have the iii then. Never did get all the versions of this camera straight. Thanks for the info

Correction. I have the ii. Talk about getting it wrong. Good grief!

[jeremyrh]

I must have the iii then. Never did get all the versions of this camera straight. Thanks for the info

Correction. I have the ii. Talk about getting it wrong. Good grief!

Yes - the iii has a pop-up finder. I know because I looked at both - I had intended to buy the iii but when I saw how much nicer the viewfinder on the iv was I changed my mind.

Background somewhat relevant to Alan's question:  I took my i on vacation as a backup to an Oly EM1.  At some point the Oly started misbehaving and I switched to the RX100. When I got home I realised that I couldn't really tell much difference between the shots taken with the 2 cameras (maybe that is a reflection of the subject matter and shooting conditions), but it had been a problem composing in sunlight using the rear screen, so I went straight down to the shop to buy a version with a viewfinder.

It's true that the RX100 is quite small to handle nicely, plus it has the usual Sony abomination of a UI, but an add on rubber grip thing makes it much more manageable.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.

[armand]

Things are not as clear cut. I don’t have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I don’t have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you don’t know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony can’t, I would wait.

[jeremyrh]

Things are not as clear cut. I don’t have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I don’t have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you don’t know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony can’t, I would wait.

10? or 100?

[Alan Klein]

Yes - the iii has a pop-up finder. I know because I looked at both - I had intended to buy the iii but when I saw how much nicer the viewfinder on the iv was I changed my mind.

Background somewhat relevant to Alan's question:  I took my i on vacation as a backup to an Oly EM1.  At some point the Oly started misbehaving and I switched to the RX100. When I got home I realised that I couldn't really tell much difference between the shots taken with the 2 cameras (maybe that is a reflection of the subject matter and shooting conditions), but it had been a problem composing in sunlight using the rear screen, so I went straight down to the shop to buy a version with a viewfinder.

It's true that the RX100 is quite small to handle nicely, plus it has the usual Sony abomination of a UI, but an add on rubber grip thing makes it much more manageable.

Jeremy,  When I travel on vacation, I use a leatherette case with neck strap for my RX100iv.  So the thing is on my neck all the time.  Being so light, you don't notice it.  It was very convenient and protected.  If we went into restaurants, then I could pop out the camera and stick in my pocket. 

So that why I was thinking of going to the m43.  If I keep in in a similar case with neck strap, that seems like it would work too. Of course it's not pocketable.  Yet I'd have the possible greater advantage of better IQ with the m43.  I rarely  print anymore.  I make slide shows with 4K video clips that I show on a 75" UHDTV that only need 8mb (4K) (3840x2160).  So resolution isn't a large factor at all although the 20mb gives me a lot of room to crop.  SInce we moved, my wife has pretty much put the kibosh on littering the walls with 16x20"s like I had in our last place. 

The eye level viewfinder is a pain in the neck on the model iv.  It keeps popping in when my glasses hits the front.  The later ones have a single action and should be better.  The menus are atrocious but I think I've finally got them down. 

[Alan Klein]

I forgot to mention, I have an Olympus E-PL1, the original m43.  I stopped using it years ago when I upgraded because it only has 720 video.  I wanted HD at the time. 

[Alan Klein]

I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.

I agree., Martin.  It's amazing what it can do.  But miniaturization had always been Sony's trademark. Here are my pictures take in the Southwest. and movie slide show of stills at a local antique muscle car show.  These were all jpegs although I always shoot RAW +  jpeg.  Such sharpness from such a small lens. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421  Southwest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MogdCeRNqBM Car show

[Alan Klein]

Things are not as clear cut. I don’t have time right now to go in full details but the short version is you should probably stick to the Sony for now.

Advantages of m43 consist obviously in multiple lenses for different looks. You can get more shallow DOF, particularly with a bright prime and also significantly better low light performance with bright primes. You can also get a more compact m43 kit for travel and superior weather sealing. Few other traits are nice, such as focus stacking or occasionally the high resolution image. I don’t have much experience with the Panasonic cameras though.

Now, on pixel level the Sony is as good or better so in the end the actual quality difference is a little smaller than expected for the difference in sensor size. With the Sony I sometimes get really nice high ISO shots (above 800) and sometimes they are crap, still figuring out what determines the difference.

Sony focus is quite good but after the initial acquisition, it takes a while to zoom in and out and many times the scene already moved. The Sony RX10 iv is quite bulky, not necessarily light either. There are better ways to get a small kit.

Now the zoom is addictive and makes your life more fun, this is the main draw of the camera. Convenience with mostly good image quality and not a huge gain in weight.
If you don’t know which m43 and what lenses you are going to get, and what specific advantages you will get that your current Sony can’t, I would wait.

Armand:  I'm not into nature photography or sport, so a huge zoom isn't needed. Mainly, landscapes, people, travel, etc.  My RX100ix only goes from 24-70mm equivalent.  It would be nice to have the 200mm range of the later models.  But the cost isn't worth the upgrade.  Plus the later models does not have the built-in ND filter needed for video at times.  Also, you lose stops due to a darker lens. Trade Offs. trade offs. 

[armand]

10? or 100?

10, I thought the initial question was about it.
The 100 series are much less bulky, obviously. I have the original RX100.
I had some travel with just the RX100 and a compact Sony superzoom and it worked ok but there were plenty of shots where I wished I had miss flexibility.

[Peter McLennan]

Just get a good phone and be done with all this gear angst sillyness.

https://petapixel.com/2019/10/18/using-an-iphone-11-pro-to-capture-the-northern-lights/

[armand]

Funny but close to reality for many people.

Somebody asked me about a "better" camera and I thought of the new Fuji A7 (decent zoom, very good jpegs) but now I think I would recommend them to just upgrade to the newest iPhone Pro. For their use is likely good enough and definitely easier.

[John Hollenberg]

I am fully up to speed with Sony UI. Love it in fact. The RX100s are fantastic little cameras.

I fully agree.  One thing I didn't like about the camera was the difficulty in zooming with the little lever on the top front of the camera.  The control was way too coarse.  I recently discovered that there is a menu setting to make  the control ring on the front of the camera function to set the zoom.  Much finer control and shows a circular dial with the focal length selected.  I am very happy with this setting.