A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
It won’t, but don’t let it dissuade you. Little 1” compacts are quite powerful & a nice alternative to carrying a bigger camera. I enjoy using them.
You can get decent night shots, BTW. May require a mini tripod, or just placing camera on a table… My G9XII has a star trail mode which is nice.
That’s actually the answer I was looking for lol. I don’t need the exact image quality that I get from APS-C cameras, but at the same time I don’t want a compact that takes same kind of photos that I could take with my phone. I don’t know if Canon G7X Mark ii is up to the task, but I have seen good pics taken with it.
I’ve only used 1”, an FZ1000. I wanted a pocket camera, so I got the G9X, then a ZS100 came my way. Thats like my mini FZ.
Anyways, I’ve pulled great snaps from all of these, and have even printed some 20x16 canvases.
No, you’re not going to get full frame performance, but with care, some lovely photos.
If you don’t need the aperture, check out the ZS200. Similar to my 100, but more zoom & killer viewfinder. I appreciate the features, and def prefer viewfinder over tilt screen. Plus 25-250mm. Also, if I’m taking pocket camera candid shots at night, I’m using the phone, anyways.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t3/7
has a little gadget where you can view sample images and compare.
Try examining the brushes portion.
XT-3 looks consistently sharper.
Sensor quality isn't defined by apeture so no. The 1" sensor has less surface area "measuring light" than the APS-C. So it will generally perform less, but there are also so many other variables so it's complex.
That being said, getting lots of light to it with the large apeture is great and helps it do better in low light. Although apeture equivalency is talking about depth of field not brightness of the light coming through to expose the sensor. But the larger apeture will allow you to use a smaller ISO which might help that low light IQ gap with the APS-C.
Wait, disregarding light transmission losses, if depth of field is the same, that means the same cone of light is focused on the same % area of the sensor, therefore the same total amount of light is gathered. BUT in terms of sensor area sensitive to light, a bigger sensor will generally have less relative space taken up by supporting circuitry and therfore make a better use of that available light(assuming same resolution)
First. The LUMIX uses quite a lot bigger sensor than 1”. It’s close to APSC.
The IBIS in the GX7ii is so insanely good that there is no real comparison to be honest. I switched from Lumix to Fuji, thinking that I really missed something. But soon went back to Lumix and FF as a combo because the Fujis just weren’t on par with build quality and user interface. And yes, I’ve used a lot of different Fujis. The sensor size difference betweeen MFT and APSC isn’t that big.
The greatest lens for lumix, to keep your Fuji experience a bit, is the Leica 15mm f1.7. It equivalents 30mm, so it’s a 20mm APSC field of view.
I myself use a GX7 mark i and the 14mm f2.5, 45mm f1.8 and 45-150mm R cheap telephoto
This is basically what total equivalence tries to estimate. More on that here:
Sensor can also differ in ways other than size, so it's best to test that theory when comparing specific cameras.
At the wide end of the zoom range (ignoring the difference in field of view for a moment), the aperture on the Canon (f/1.8) is bigger by 1.3 stops than on the Fujifilm (f/2.8). Now take a look at this comparison of test shots to examine noise in low light: long link. To my eyes, the ISO 3200 shot from the Canon looks noisier than the ISO 12800 shot from the Fujifilm, but cleaner than the ISO 25600 shot from the Fujifilm. So the sensor in the Fujifilm is more than two-stops better in low light, but less than three stops. Let's say it's 2.3.
So the Fujifilm kit is better in low light by (2.3 - 1.3 = ) 1 stop.
So no, they are not equal, despite being equivalent.
There is no such thing as "full frame equivalent aperture". The only thing that changes when using a lens in a smaller than full frame sensor is crop. It's the same light, its the same aperture, just cropped.
People talk about "aperture equivalence" because to get the same perspective on a cropped sensor, you'll need a wider focal length, and longer focal lenghts will have a shallower depth of field when compared to wider focal lenghts at the same distance. It's convoluted and dumb.
For any given focal length, the aperture is the same on all cameras, the same light goes in, the depth of field at a given distance is the same. A 50 f1.8 is always a 50 f1.8.
And none of that has any bearing on ISO or the sensor's performance.
There is no such thing as "full frame equivalent aperture"
A 50mm f1.8 lens will be a 50mm 1.8 lens regardless if you stick it on a 1" compact sensor, an APSC, a full frame or a large format Pentacon 6 that shoots on film. The lens is 50mm 1.8, and does not care about the sensor or film it has behind it.
(f number is a divident meaning a 50mm lens stopped down to f2 has an actual open aperture diameter of 50mm/2=25mm)
Of course, crop is different, but if you shoot the same focal length, aperture, shutter speed and iso, with same subject distance, on a full frame and a crop sensor, and you crop the FF image in post to ⅔ of the original, you will technically get the exact same photo. Same exposure, same depth of field.
The only difference you get is sensor quality, namely pixel count and density. Of course, this will mostly affect high ISO noise, you will be able to shoot at the same shutter speeds on same focal length and aperture you would be on your Fuji, but you will probably have more noise. But denoise in post processing is so good now that with a high end compact camera you will probably get very acceptable final results.
One more thing, which can affect your image quality is the quality of optical elements. It is possible that compact cameras' glass is not as good quality as your detachable lenses on your milc, especially if you use pro grade glass.
Sidenote: the only meaning of "full frame equivalent aperture" is depth of field. It goes like
If you want the same field of view and depth of field ("bokeh") as what you would get on a FF camera with a 100mm f2.8 lens, but on a micro four thirds body (2x crop factor), you will need a 50mm f1.4 lens. (Half the focal length, half the aperture)
You can say now that your 50mm has a "FF equivalent aperture of f2.8 on M43", but that's a horrendously incorrect and misleading wording of the actual settings