How can a 1” sensor look that good?

anselesn · 03-11-2019, 08:18 PM

I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great.

So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it.

I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera.

Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please!

IgorZ · 03-11-2019, 08:33 PM

Are you sure it's not just a combination of skill and good processing? I can humbly inform you that I get far better photos from my k-5 than my dad gets out of his full frame Nikon, but it's downtown to how he takes photos and the fact that he doesn't process them. In theory his output should be far superior to mine

Mothballs · 03-11-2019, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by anselesn

I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great.

So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it.

I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera.

Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please!

The biggest boon to that Sony camera is that other then the Sensor, it's built off the A9, so a lot of it's the image engine and processor. Many of the high end Fixed Lens Cameras are actually very, very good - An old, slightly battered Panasonic I gave a friend was an incredible performer as well, for example.

The K-70 is a mid-level DSLR, with a much older sensor design and image engine. That Sony is rocking a Stacked BSI-CMOS sensor, which is basically a cut down A9 Sensor - that design cuts noise down heavily and gives you almost a full stop more light gathering to the photo cells to play with.

Can you get the same quality? Probably. The 55-300 isn't exactly a fast lens, so you're already behind the Sony in low-light. You're looking at f2.8, quality glass as your option here in zooms. I've done rock show shoots with a 50mm 1.7 Pentax-F and a 28mm 1.8 Sigma prime. You can probably get results with what you have if you spend enough time on the Raw DNG images in post. Try shooting underexposed and bumping the file up from a lower ISO, for example.

Don't give up. Experiment.

rawr · 03-11-2019, 09:12 PM

This thread reminds me how much I liked using my RX-100, until it inexplicably died on me.

The Sony 1 inch 20MP Exmor sensor performs great, particularly when built-into a camera with good stabilization and a sharp lens. But high ISO performance in particular is pretty poor across all cameras that use that sensor - eg the predecessor to the RX10 IV:
https://www.dxomark.com/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10-iii-sensor-review-family-perks/
and
Sony RX100 V sensor review: High-end compact with impressive speed - DxOMark
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2000 sensor review: Filmmaker?s choice - DxOMark

About 500 ISO is the maximum you can shoot and expect great results from the Sony 1 inch 20MP chip. Even the K-x, shooting with a fast and sharp lens, will likely give anyone much better results in poor theatre lighting than the Sony RX 10 IV. K-70 even more so.

Last edited by rawr; 03-11-2019 at 09:20 PM.

Fogel70 · 03-11-2019, 09:23 PM

An 1" sensor is quite large and the lens on RX100 have about the same speed advantage over 55-300 PLM as the the APS-C sensor has over 1" sensor.

So I would expect comparable images captured by K70 with 55-300 PLM as with RX10. But RX10 probably apply more processing on the jpgs than K70. It may be possible to adjust jpg settings in K70 to give a closer result to RX10.

The lens on RX10 may be of higher optical quality than 55-300, so any difference you may see is probably mostly down to difference in optical performance more than size of the sensor.

biz-engineer · 03-11-2019, 10:00 PM

The smaller the sensor, the more boost to saturation and contrast are applied by camera makers to make the image look good at first sight. Medium format raw files without gamma correction and contrast don't look good. Also shot settings are important, ISO100 (base ISO) looks the best regardless of the sensor size, so that a bit of counter-intuitive when we know that lower f numbers are more frequently used with smaller sensors.

swanlefitte · 03-11-2019, 10:12 PM - **1 Like**

Edit
Didn't realize it wasn't using Full Frame equivalence. That makes it like a 600mm f12 by the same math process below

A 1" sensor is 2.7 crop. That means the actual lens is about 3.25mm-74mm roughly. I don't know how far the f2.4 goes but 74mm f4 means an aperture size of 74mm÷4=18.5. Now an actual 200mm lens with an 18.5mm aperture so 200÷18.5=10.8. That means it's acting like a ff 200mm f10.8. Say the lens goes up to 24mm at f2.4. Then it would be really like a ff 64mm f6.5.

Last edited by swanlefitte; 03-11-2019 at 10:32 PM.

**mikesbike** · 03-11-2019, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by anselesn

I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great.

So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it.

I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera.

Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please!

There's no doubt you could get top-notch results from your K-70. But even with the cutting-edge capability of the K-70 for higher ISO/low light performance, the DA 55-300mm PLM lens is not designed to address such conditions. But you might need to get closer or crop your photo.

That Sony outfit has advantages and disadvantages. It has a very wide-range zoom capability, oriented for telephoto but with good wide angle also. It would present an image size in the frame similar to 24-600mm on a K-1 FF body, and it has a relatively fast aperture of f/2-4. The lenses made by Zeiss, so quality should be good. A very convenient range, but it is a fixed lens camera. If you should have need for ultra-wide photography you are out of luck. You can always crop a wider FL to get a tele equivalent image, but you cannot expand a 24mm equivalent image to become like an 18mm equivalent image. Whatever is not already in your frame is not there to begin with. There are also downsides to small size sensors, being somewhat limited in DOF control, etc. For more critical photography for resolution and fine detail, capturing scenes more discriminating and revealing than shooting indoor events in low lighting, a small sensor simply cannot match the resolution of your exceptionally fine 24mm APS-C sensor.

The Sony ensemble also costs around $1,700 USD. For the kind of thing you describe, a theater production taken from a balcony, that Sony model is in its most favorable element. I seriously doubt, however, that with its small 1" sensor it could match the low noise capability of your APS-C K-70 with its outstandingly low noise even for APS-C.

To get close to that range and capability for wide to tele with your K-70, you'd need 2 lenses at least. A start would be a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for the wide to short tele- (about 26-77mm equivalent. ) However, if your goal is to shoot theater activity from a balcony, all you really need is the tele range. You'd need something like 60-400mm f/4 (90-600mm equivalent). I don't know of such a lens. Best you could do is the very fine DA* 60-250mm (90-380mm equivalent) and then crop some to get an image equivalent to that FF equivalent of 600mm if you need to go beyond that 380mm equivalent image. With your sensor's superior resolution, you could get fine results even with the crop.

pinholecam · 03-11-2019, 11:24 PM - **4 Likes**

IMO, it boils down to :

1. Looking for the light (not snapping anyhow when the Phantom of the Opera turn off the lights to make a 'disappearance' for example, but wait for it when the spotlight is on him

)
2. Waiting for the height of the motion, or no motion
3. Keep a reasonable shutter speed
4. Watch the ISO (to be within what the camera is good with)
5. Noise reduction
6.Expose for the subject and not everything

These, I took in Tokyo in a club/cabaret/performance with a Q7 (even smaller sensor than 1")

Xenocarcinus · 03-11-2019, 11:29 PM

Having no examples to go by I think it comes down to post processing. Also, when you say theatre unless there are lights that are pointed toward the audience (I doubt this) the lighting should be very good actually (even though lighting where the photo was taken from is bad, the subject will be perfectly lit)

swanlefitte · 03-11-2019, 11:48 PM

The k70 with a 16-400mm f4-f8 would get the same light. That lens is a great lens but for a super zoom it can't be that great. With a lens like the da300mm even cropped should get you even better results done right.

**Papa_Joe** · 03-12-2019, 02:03 AM

It is not possible to give you advice without knowing the real conditions of your shooting.

Is it a real theater?
How is the lighting?
Where will you be positioned?
Can you move around?
Can you use a tripod?
Can you attend a rehearsal?

If you are in a distance to the stage, the 55 - 300 together with the ISO capabilties of the K 70 will probably do the job, as lighting is usually good in theater productions.
A tripod and a place to do your work without disturbing other visitors is necessecary though.
If the event is more likely to the one of pinholecam you need an other lens.

beholder3 · 03-12-2019, 02:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by anselesn

I cannot believe how good they are

Funny thing is, the pictures of the same event I took with my mobile phone are even better. Much better. Much less noise. All the details.

Show the full res image or it did not happen.

dofmaster · 03-12-2019, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

Funny thing is, the pictures of the same event I took with my mobile phone are even better. Much better. Much less noise. All the details.

Show the full res image or it did not happen.

I don't want to pass comment on the OP, but I've noticed a general trend on these forums where people seem to think that the decisive factor in how a photo or a set of photos turns out is the camera.

It's not. It's the photographer.

**Rondec** · 03-12-2019, 03:10 AM

Who knows? As others have said, you need to show similar images so that we can see. Assuming a similar lens with regard to focal length and good technique, the K70 will give excellent results. If you are comparing different focal lengths and the K70 images are needing a fair amount of cropping, then of course, that will put it at a disadvantage. Finally there are post processing skills. Comparing straight out of camera jpegs is difficult and in tough lighting situations, I use RAW.

03-11-2019, 08:18 PM	#1
anselesn Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: new york Posts: 60	How can a 1” sensor look that good? I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great. So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it. I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera. Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please!

03-11-2019, 09:23 PM	#5
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	An 1" sensor is quite large and the lens on RX100 have about the same speed advantage over 55-300 PLM as the the APS-C sensor has over 1" sensor. So I would expect comparable images captured by K70 with 55-300 PLM as with RX10. But RX10 probably apply more processing on the jpgs than K70. It may be possible to adjust jpg settings in K70 to give a closer result to RX10. The lens on RX10 may be of higher optical quality than 55-300, so any difference you may see is probably mostly down to difference in optical performance more than size of the sensor. Last edited by Fogel70; 03-12-2019 at 05:54 AM.

03-11-2019, 10:15 PM	#8
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by anselesn I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great. So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it. I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera. Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please! There's no doubt you could get top-notch results from your K-70. But even with the cutting-edge capability of the K-70 for higher ISO/low light performance, the DA 55-300mm PLM lens is not designed to address such conditions. But you might need to get closer or crop your photo. That Sony outfit has advantages and disadvantages. It has a very wide-range zoom capability, oriented for telephoto but with good wide angle also. It would present an image size in the frame similar to 24-600mm on a K-1 FF body, and it has a relatively fast aperture of f/2-4. The lenses made by Zeiss, so quality should be good. A very convenient range, but it is a fixed lens camera. If you should have need for ultra-wide photography you are out of luck. You can always crop a wider FL to get a tele equivalent image, but you cannot expand a 24mm equivalent image to become like an 18mm equivalent image. Whatever is not already in your frame is not there to begin with. There are also downsides to small size sensors, being somewhat limited in DOF control, etc. For more critical photography for resolution and fine detail, capturing scenes more discriminating and revealing than shooting indoor events in low lighting, a small sensor simply cannot match the resolution of your exceptionally fine 24mm APS-C sensor. The Sony ensemble also costs around $1,700 USD. For the kind of thing you describe, a theater production taken from a balcony, that Sony model is in its most favorable element. I seriously doubt, however, that with its small 1" sensor it could match the low noise capability of your APS-C K-70 with its outstandingly low noise even for APS-C. To get close to that range and capability for wide to tele with your K-70, you'd need 2 lenses at least. A start would be a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for the wide to short tele- (about 26-77mm equivalent. ) However, if your goal is to shoot theater activity from a balcony, all you really need is the tele range. You'd need something like 60-400mm f/4 (90-600mm equivalent). I don't know of such a lens. Best you could do is the very fine DA* 60-250mm (90-380mm equivalent) and then crop some to get an image equivalent to that FF equivalent of 600mm if you need to go beyond that 380mm equivalent image. With your sensor's superior resolution, you could get fine results even with the crop. Last edited by mikesbike; 03-12-2019 at 12:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
645D Getting images that look correct but look darker on my computer	rollsman4	Pentax Medium Format	13	11-04-2018 06:31 PM
Good morning, good afternoon, and good night	TomTom	Welcomes and Introductions	6	04-13-2014 05:13 AM
Macro You can look but can't come in.	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	6	09-23-2011 01:41 PM
Got a K5 for $950! Can't believe it! Can I get the sensor stain fixed?	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	32	05-13-2011 05:04 PM
The K-5 Can Make the DA 18-250 look good	Fl_Gulfer	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	20	11-15-2010 03:04 PM

03-11-2019, 08:33 PM	#2
IgorZ Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Ottawa Posts: 1,735	Are you sure it's not just a combination of skill and good processing? I can humbly inform you that I get far better photos from my k-5 than my dad gets out of his full frame Nikon, but it's downtown to how he takes photos and the fact that he doesn't process them. In theory his output should be far superior to mine

03-11-2019, 08:49 PM	#3
Mothballs Senior Member Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 275	Originally posted by anselesn I just looked at a whole set of pictures taken with a Sony RX 10 IV, and I cannot believe how good they are. They are all photos of a theatre production, so lighting was tricky. And they were taken from the balcony! But the Sony has an 8.8 - 200 mm lens, f 2.4 - 4, so it lets in plenty of light. And despite that small sensor, the pictures look great. So now I’m trying to figure out if there is a lens that I could put on my K-70, with its much larger sensor, that would allow me to get shots of a similar quality, in a similar situation. I have the 55-300 PLM, but I don’t think that would do it. I know the Sony costs significantly more than my K-70, but I still didn’t expect to see such quality from a fixed lens camera. Someone help me stop feeling like I suddenly want to sell my Pentax and all its lenses, please! The biggest boon to that Sony camera is that other then the Sensor, it's built off the A9, so a lot of it's the image engine and processor. Many of the high end Fixed Lens Cameras are actually very, very good - An old, slightly battered Panasonic I gave a friend was an incredible performer as well, for example. The K-70 is a mid-level DSLR, with a much older sensor design and image engine. That Sony is rocking a Stacked BSI-CMOS sensor, which is basically a cut down A9 Sensor - that design cuts noise down heavily and gives you almost a full stop more light gathering to the photo cells to play with. Can you get the same quality? Probably. The 55-300 isn't exactly a fast lens, so you're already behind the Sony in low-light. You're looking at f2.8, quality glass as your option here in zooms. I've done rock show shoots with a 50mm 1.7 Pentax-F and a 28mm 1.8 Sigma prime. You can probably get results with what you have if you spend enough time on the Raw DNG images in post. Try shooting underexposed and bumping the file up from a lower ISO, for example. Don't give up. Experiment.

03-11-2019, 09:12 PM	#4
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	This thread reminds me how much I liked using my RX-100, until it inexplicably died on me. The Sony 1 inch 20MP Exmor sensor performs great, particularly when built-into a camera with good stabilization and a sharp lens. But high ISO performance in particular is pretty poor across all cameras that use that sensor - eg the predecessor to the RX10 IV: https://www.dxomark.com/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10-iii-sensor-review-family-perks/ and Sony RX100 V sensor review: High-end compact with impressive speed - DxOMark Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2000 sensor review: Filmmaker?s choice - DxOMark About 500 ISO is the maximum you can shoot and expect great results from the Sony 1 inch 20MP chip. Even the K-x, shooting with a fast and sharp lens, will likely give anyone much better results in poor theatre lighting than the Sony RX 10 IV. K-70 even more so. Last edited by rawr; 03-11-2019 at 09:20 PM.

03-11-2019, 10:00 PM	#6
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	The smaller the sensor, the more boost to saturation and contrast are applied by camera makers to make the image look good at first sight. Medium format raw files without gamma correction and contrast don't look good. Also shot settings are important, ISO100 (base ISO) looks the best regardless of the sensor size, so that a bit of counter-intuitive when we know that lower f numbers are more frequently used with smaller sensors.

03-11-2019, 10:12 PM - 1 Like	#7
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	Edit Didn't realize it wasn't using Full Frame equivalence. That makes it like a 600mm f12 by the same math process below A 1" sensor is 2.7 crop. That means the actual lens is about 3.25mm-74mm roughly. I don't know how far the f2.4 goes but 74mm f4 means an aperture size of 74mm÷4=18.5. Now an actual 200mm lens with an 18.5mm aperture so 200÷18.5=10.8. That means it's acting like a ff 200mm f10.8. Say the lens goes up to 24mm at f2.4. Then it would be really like a ff 64mm f6.5. Last edited by swanlefitte; 03-11-2019 at 10:32 PM.

03-11-2019, 11:24 PM - 4 Likes	#9
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	IMO, it boils down to : 1. Looking for the light (not snapping anyhow when the Phantom of the Opera turn off the lights to make a 'disappearance' for example, but wait for it when the spotlight is on him ) 2. Waiting for the height of the motion, or no motion 3. Keep a reasonable shutter speed 4. Watch the ISO (to be within what the camera is good with) 5. Noise reduction 6.Expose for the subject and not everything These, I took in Tokyo in a club/cabaret/performance with a Q7 (even smaller sensor than 1")

03-11-2019, 11:29 PM	#10
Xenocarcinus New Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: Mumbai Posts: 19	Having no examples to go by I think it comes down to post processing. Also, when you say theatre unless there are lights that are pointed toward the audience (I doubt this) the lighting should be very good actually (even though lighting where the photo was taken from is bad, the subject will be perfectly lit)

03-11-2019, 11:48 PM	#11
swanlefitte Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,068	The k70 with a 16-400mm f4-f8 would get the same light. That lens is a great lens but for a super zoom it can't be that great. With a lens like the da300mm even cropped should get you even better results done right.

03-12-2019, 02:03 AM	#12
Papa_Joe Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: SW Bavaria Posts: 562	It is not possible to give you advice without knowing the real conditions of your shooting. Is it a real theater? How is the lighting? Where will you be positioned? Can you move around? Can you use a tripod? Can you attend a rehearsal? If you are in a distance to the stage, the 55 - 300 together with the ISO capabilties of the K 70 will probably do the job, as lighting is usually good in theater productions. A tripod and a place to do your work without disturbing other visitors is necessecary though. If the event is more likely to the one of pinholecam you need an other lens.

03-12-2019, 02:05 AM - 1 Like	#13
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by anselesn I cannot believe how good they are Funny thing is, the pictures of the same event I took with my mobile phone are even better. Much better. Much less noise. All the details. Show the full res image or it did not happen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2019, 03:01 AM	#14
dofmaster Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 53	Originally posted by beholder3 Funny thing is, the pictures of the same event I took with my mobile phone are even better. Much better. Much less noise. All the details. Show the full res image or it did not happen. I don't want to pass comment on the OP, but I've noticed a general trend on these forums where people seem to think that the decisive factor in how a photo or a set of photos turns out is the camera. It's not. It's the photographer.

03-12-2019, 03:10 AM	#15
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Who knows? As others have said, you need to show similar images so that we can see. Assuming a similar lens with regard to focal length and good technique, the K70 will give excellent results. If you are comparing different focal lengths and the K70 images are needing a fair amount of cropping, then of course, that will put it at a disadvantage. Finally there are post processing skills. Comparing straight out of camera jpegs is difficult and in tough lighting situations, I use RAW.