Beginner APS-C f3.5 sensor vs 1 inch f1.8 lens would there be a difference in quality?

topcat07

topcat07

Suspended / Banned
Messages
431
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

So i am looking at two cameras.

The Sony rx100 M3 which has a f stop of 1.8 at 24 mm

and

Canon M3 which has a f stop of 3.5 at 15mm kit lens.

So if i used the sony at f 1.8 and the Canon at f3.5 does the advantage of the bigger sensor in the canon disappear because the Sony can go lower on the aperture? So do they in theory level out in image quality terms?

Any help appreciated please

Thank you
 
Having a smaller f/ stop number (= bigger aperture) does not equate to better image quality. Most lenses produce their best image quality at f/5.6 or thereabouts.

Image quality will more depend on the design of the lens rather than max aperture or sensor size.
 
What kind of pictures do you want and what will you do with the images? If you seldom print and only display on the web up to about 1024px on the longest side it's unlikely you'll see much difference. The advantage of a larger sensor is generally in reduced noise/wider dynamic range at higher ISO levels and an ability to make more use of shallow depth of field from a large aperture.

The Sony has a reputation for giving super-sharp images, but the canon is good too and if you don't enlarge the images much then there will be little to choose between them.
 
john.margetts said:
Most lenses produce their best image quality at f/5.6 or thereabouts.
.
Click to expand...


This is misleading at best. Optimum aperture depends a lot on sensor size as with smaller sensors (and pixels, if you're looking at 100% of a very high resolution sensor) you are into diffraction limitations by f/5.6. Most of my m43 lenses are best around the f/4 range although some of the peak around f/2.8. F/5.6 is a general truism for full frame lenses but is by no means universal.

To the OP, there is a lot more in this question than meets the eye as the two sensors are different technology (Sony is BSI) but broadly speaking yes the factors will equalise out. Broadly speaking. A lot will also depend on what type of shooting you want to do and how much light you will be shooting in.
 
ancient_mariner said:
What kind of pictures do you want and what will you do with the images? If you seldom print and only display on the web up to about 1024px on the longest side it's unlikely you'll see much difference. The advantage of a larger sensor is generally in reduced noise/wider dynamic range at higher ISO levels and an ability to make more use of shallow depth of field from a large aperture.

The Sony has a reputation for giving super-sharp images, but the canon is good too and if you don't enlarge the images much then there will be little to choose between them.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your advice.

It will be used for:

Landscapes
Night Photography
Cityscapes
Street photography
Travel
Portraits
Occasionally pets

If i really like a photo i would like to be able to make it into a large canvas..

Thanks!
 
In which case neither of your options are ideal, the canon with a faster lens would be better.
 
Nawty said:
This is misleading at best. Optimum aperture depends a lot on sensor size as with smaller sensors (and pixels, if you're looking at 100% of a very high resolution sensor) you are into diffraction limitations by f/5.6. Most of my m43 lenses are best around the f/4 range although some of the peak around f/2.8. F/5.6 is a general truism for full frame lenses but is by no means universal.
Click to expand...
not really misleading. I was wanting the OP to understand that a low f/ number did not equate to high quality. Your f/4 optimum is not a million miles from my suggested f/5.6 optimum (I said f/5.6 or thereabouts, not f/5.6 exactly). I did not say it was a universal value and I also (more importantly) did not want to confuse someone with too much technical detail when they clearly did not yet have a grasp of the basics.
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
In which case neither of your options are ideal, the canon with a faster lens would be better.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice.

Do you mean the sony At F1.8 is the faster lens? Or am i missing something?

Why would neither be Ideal so I can go research something more suitable. .

What would be ideal? if I got rid of kit on canon and swapped it for a

CANON EF-M 22 mm f/2 STM Pancake Lens

Would that be better?

Thank you!

Sorry about formating phone is making it very difficult
 
Yes f/1.8 is a faster lens and by faster I mean it has a wider maximum aperture so you can use faster shutter speeds for any given light level. However, as the sensor on the Sony is smaller this has other complications such as different depth of field.

The things you list you want to photograph are quite diverse and would normally require more than one lens. I think the best place to start is the exposure triangle, if you understand this properly then you should be able to guide yourself on lenses:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

And then if your brain doesn't hurt it will be helpful to learn a bit about equivalence:

https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field
 
I'd say that for travel and street photography the Sony would be ideal, while the Canon combination would be better for the night, city & landscape photography.

Lets ask a different way: what's more important to you - small size & all-in-one capability or adaptability and interchangeable lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top