Panasonic Street Cameras vs DSLR bodies - are the insides the same?

[Crotal Bell]

I realise that externally these cameras change a bit, more dials on the DSLRs, maybe a different screen etc.

But taking the GX9 and G90 as an example, are they the same cameras internally? It seems to be the case from the reviews I have seen?

While the bodies are styled differently, can they do the same job in each others targeted environment?

 

[stickytape]

Yes the internals are oftentimes the same. Lumix G9 is the same as the GX9 I believe.

 

[Sangoma]

Yes the internals are oftentimes the same. Lumix G9 is the same as the GX9 I believe.

When you say same, same in what way?
They don't use the same main board, and the electronics is different in ways.

They may have the same base, but not the same.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But taking the GX9 and G90 as an example, are they the same cameras internally?

I think you're getting your terms a bit mixed up.

"Street camera" is either a surveilance camera, typically mounted on a pole or the side of a building, or any camera of any type used for what is now called "street photography". A "dSLR", which stands for "Digital Single Lens Reflex" is the digital version of a camera which uses a mirror to direct the image to the viewfinder. When the shutter is released, the mirror moves out of the optical path allowing the image to pass to the sensor.

None of the current Panasonic cameras are dSLRS and only a technician could give you any definitive answer as to which bodies share what proportion of components

 

[woof woof]

I've always though of them as RF (rangefinder) style and SLR (single lens reflex) style.

ie. The RF style GX9 and the SLR style G9.

Of course the RF isn't an RF and maybe not all RF's had their EVF in the corner and the G9 isn't a SLR, but it works for me

 

[stickytape]

When you say same, same in what way?
They don't use the same main board, and the electronics is different in ways.

They may have the same base, but not the same.

Sensor I guess.. but I stand corrected by those more knowledgeable

 

[tijuana taxi]

Yes the internals are oftentimes the same. Lumix G9 is the same as the GX9 I believe.

The GX9 and G90 use the IMX269 sensor and the G9 and GH5 have the newer IMX272

 

[Sangoma]

Sensor I guess.. but I stand corrected by those more knowledgeable

Yes, they both use the same sensor.

The OPs question was are the internals the same.

The shutter is not, The card interface is not, Some of the processing hardware is not. The EVF is not. The LCD is not. The firmware is not, because the hardware is different.
And none of that you have to be a technician or expert to see from the specs or read about.

The GX9 was a lot cheaper, so it hardly makes sense it is the same inside

 

[tijuana taxi]

Yes, they both use the same sensor.

The OPs question was are the internals the same.

The shutter is not, The card interface is not, Some of the processing hardware is not. The EVF is not. The LCD is not. The firmware is not, because the hardware is different.
And none of that you have to be a technician or expert to see from the specs or read about.

The GX9 was a lot cheaper, so it hardly makes sense it is the same inside

No they don't use the same sensor, see my reply above.
The sensors have a different read out time most noticeable by the video crop

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

And none of that you have to be a technician or expert to see from the specs or read about.

Ah!

...but can you give a definitive list of the different components between each camera?

 

[Sangoma]

Ah!

...but can you give a definitive list of the different components between each camera?

No, of course not, and neither is there a need to do so answer the OPs question.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I think you're getting your terms a bit mixed up.

"Street camera" is either a surveilance camera, typically mounted on a pole or the side of a building, or any camera of any type used for what is now called "street photography". A "dSLR", which stands for "Digital Single Lens Reflex" is the digital version of a camera which uses a mirror to direct the image to the viewfinder. When the shutter is released, the mirror moves out of the optical path allowing the image to pass to the sensor.

None of the current Panasonic cameras are dSLRS and only a technician could give you any definitive answer as to which bodies share what proportion of components

Thanks Andrew but I think people completely understood what I meant so all good

 

[Crotal Bell]

Yes, they both use the same sensor.

The OPs question was are the internals the same.

The shutter is not, The card interface is not, Some of the processing hardware is not. The EVF is not. The LCD is not. The firmware is not, because the hardware is different.
And none of that you have to be a technician or expert to see from the specs or read about.

The GX9 was a lot cheaper, so it hardly makes sense it is the same inside

Now that's interesting, as I did wonder if the price difference was more to do with more complex manufacturing of a DSLR type body with extra manual controls and generally needing more assembly of functional/manual parts. From a performance perspective I would have thought the internals would deliver the same end quality and they would have the same features?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No, of course not, and neither is there a need to do so answer the OPs question.

So you say...

 

[Sangoma]

Now that's interesting, as I did wonder if the price difference was more to do with more complex manufacturing of a DSLR type body with extra manual controls and generally needing more assembly of functional/manual parts. From a performance perspective I would have thought the internals would deliver the same end quality and they would have the same features?

No, they don't have the same features.
However, under conditions where they both have the needed features for those conditions, they will produce the same image

If you want a mechanical shutter speed of 1/8000, or 20fps, or an 80MB picture, or a fast card interface, and other features, they won't do the same.

 

[Sangoma]

So you say...

 

[Deleted member 95743]

While the bodies are styled differently, can they do the same job in each others targeted environment?

You can photograph any subject with any camera, however, some cameras are better suited to certain types of photography than others.

 

[Crotal Bell]

No, they don't have the same features.
However, under conditions where they both have the needed features for those conditions, they will produce the same image

If you want a mechanical shutter speed of 1/8000, or 20fps, or an 80MB picture, or a fast card interface, and other features, they won't do the same.

Thanks Steve, very interesting. While the G9 is clearly a more serious camera, I thought the GX9 and G90 were very comparable as two options of the same camera, but from your advice the G90 has a little bit more to it. I guess it's still horses for courses, as although the G90 may have a bit more inside, the GX9 is better suited to the coat pocket for street photography.

 

[woof woof]

Thanks Steve, very interesting. While the G9 is clearly a more serious camera, I thought the GX9 and G90 were very comparable as two options of the same camera, but from your advice the G90 has a little bit more to it. I guess it's still horses for courses, as although the G90 may have a bit more inside, the GX9 is better suited to the coat pocket for street photography.

One thing I do like about the GX9 is the tilting EVF, but some people don't like it at all

 

[Sangoma]

Thanks Steve, very interesting. While the G9 is clearly a more serious camera, I thought the GX9 and G90 were very comparable as two options of the same camera, but from your advice the G90 has a little bit more to it. I guess it's still horses for courses, as although the G90 may have a bit more inside, the GX9 is better suited to the coat pocket for street photography.

I agree fully, I have thought of getting a GX9 for similar reasons, but then I wonder if the TZ60 which I carry in my pocket would do just as well, or maybe better at the times I would like the GX9.
I didn't see them as two options of the same camera, in the same way as I do not see the G3 and GF3 as two options of the same camera, I see the number as showing their position in the respective series ie G, GF and GX, though I can understand how they can be seen in that way.
If the main focus of my activities were "better suited to the coat pocket for street photography" then yes, the GX9 would be more suitable, however I would compare it with other cameras suited to the same use, not to the G9, if choosing to buy.

I have a couple of older GF series, ans although they can use all the same lenses as the G series, I find them quite awkward to use with the larger lenses, feel like nothing to hold on to.

I like RF style cameras, but If I went that route, I would prefer one with RF style dials and controls, so so far I haven't got one

 

[tijuana taxi]

I have a GX9 and a G9, the former gets used a lot when i'm wandering around towns and cities with a small bag.
Just take a couple of lenses 12-45 and 9mm, spare battery plus the built in flash comes in handy at times too, .
It also charges in camera from a usb plug so that's very handy too when out and about for a top up.
One thing I find essential is the extended eyecup, makes the evf so much easier and nicer to use.
On that subject I also like the tilting evf, used it more than I thought I would

Hardly used the G9 for a while now, but its nice when I do a bit of high res on a tripod.
Sometimes take it when I go to a specific place and carry a bigger bag with larger lenses such as the 12-100.
Its a fine camera, but my photography these days means the lighter camera suits me far better.

 

[Adamcski]

I have the GX9 and my PL 12-60 lives on there now. I use this when I just want to take out something in a small bag, throw a spare battery in and done. I don't have any wider lenses for M43 currently. My G9 has my 12-35 f2.8 on it mostly or my 45-175 which is the longest ranged lens I have. Neither fits in my pocket lol

 

[Stephen L]

One thing I do like about the GX9 is the tilting EVF, but some people don't like it at all

I don't like it. It tilts when I don't want it to, so I tape it down.

 

[Snapsh0t]

One thing I do like about the GX9 is the tilting EVF, but some people don't like it at all

I like it as I'm left eyed so tilting the EVF slightly stops my snout being squashed against the screen.

 

[woof woof]

The tilting EVF is maybe useful for person to person contact as you can use the camera with the EVF tilted and look up for eye contact without the camera obscuring your face. OK you could lower the camera and get eye contact that way but I've always felt that the EVF is useful when used like that as the camera is no longer a barrier between you and a subject.

On long lenses I use my 100-400mm on the GX9 and no handling issues and TBH it always baffles me a bit when people experience these issues as a bigger heavier lens and camera combination isn't going to used one handed. One hand holds the camera and the other goes under the lens both supporting it and ready to operate the lens controls. Used like this just about any lens could well be perfectly balanced or at least I've never ever had an issue with a larger lens and a smaller body combination.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I agree fully, I have thought of getting a GX9 for similar reasons, but then I wonder if the TZ60 which I carry in my pocket would do just as well, or maybe better at the times I would like the GX9.
I didn't see them as two options of the same camera, in the same way as I do not see the G3 and GF3 as two options of the same camera, I see the number as showing their position in the respective series ie G, GF and GX, though I can understand how they can be seen in that way.
If the main focus of my activities were "better suited to the coat pocket for street photography" then yes, the GX9 would be more suitable, however I would compare it with other cameras suited to the same use, not to the G9, if choosing to buy.

I have a couple of older GF series, ans although they can use all the same lenses as the G series, I find them quite awkward to use with the larger lenses, feel like nothing to hold on to.

I like RF style cameras, but If I went that route, I would prefer one with RF style dials and controls, so so far I haven't got one

You know, that opens up a whole new perspective on internals, and worth discussing. The compact range are packed with features and seem to take great sharp images, even 1" sensors available in a TZ100 with a nice zoom range for walking and shooting, and of course more zoom in the TZ60 and closer macro. As you suggest, how much are you losing with an interchangeable lens camera if you just want nice pictures when you're out talking strolls in the park or around the town?

Taking it a step further, carrying my side bag and G80 + 12-60mm, when you look at the similar tech packed into the compacts, would you really notice a difference in your end results from something that can fit in your pocket?

 

[woof woof]

You know, that opens up a whole new perspective on internals, and worth discussing. The compact range are packed with features and seem to take great sharp images, even 1" sensors available in a TZ100 with a nice zoom range for walking and shooting, and of course more zoom in the TZ60 and closer macro. As you suggest, how much are you losing with an interchangeable lens camera if you just want nice pictures when you're out talking strolls in the park or around the town?

Taking it a step further, carrying my side bag and G80 + 12-60mm, when you look at the similar tech packed into the compacts, would you really notice a difference in your end results from something that can fit in your pocket?

I have a TZ100 and the files are nowhere near the quality of MFT. The likes of the TZ60 are even further away.

I suppose this comes down to what you want from photography and as I keep reminding myself, start with the final product and work back to decide the kit and the settings. If "all" we want is a relatively small whole picture taken in non challenging conditions and if we are going to then look at the whole picture normally (not very closely) then maybe a 1" or teeny tiny sensor camera will be good enough but if we want more from our photography and want to look closely and see nice results, crop or take pictures in more challenging conditions requiring better performance at higher ISO's or more dynamic range then other kit may be needed.

I tend to take my TZ100 out when I don't want something as big as even a small MFT camera like my GX80 or as an additional camera together with a better but bigger camera with a prime on it. I'd then use the TZ100 for the wider or longer shots or for when the better but bigger camera is too intrusive or attention grabbing.

 

[Sangoma]

You know, that opens up a whole new perspective on internals, and worth discussing. The compact range are packed with features and seem to take great sharp images, even 1" sensors available in a TZ100 with a nice zoom range for walking and shooting, and of course more zoom in the TZ60 and closer macro. As you suggest, how much are you losing with an interchangeable lens camera if you just want nice pictures when you're out talking strolls in the park or around the town?

Taking it a step further, carrying my side bag and G80 + 12-60mm, when you look at the similar tech packed into the compacts, would you really notice a difference in your end results from something that can fit in your pocket?

At the times you just want something like a compact, no I don't think you will notice much difference.
Obviously if you look for it, you will find it. But if you are going to look that close, you would have not taken a compact!
At the same time, there is every possibility that the shot with the compact may turn out better, because the circumstances at the time may mean that you could use it more effectively.
Bumping crowds or rocking ferries etc. are not the easiest places to use a large camera. Also, if you are more likely to take out and use the compact, you are more likely to get some good shots.

For a travel camera ! also think that a good zoom range is essential, as is the stabilisation. Being able to zoom in can give better results then having less zoom and cropping, as I think you mentioned before with your 82.

I have used the TZ series for travel since the TZ1, and have got fantastic results from them, in part because you can fill the frame with what you want and not crop. Often when travelling or just out and about, you can't zoom with your feet.

In good light, two uncropped photos, one taken with the TZ60 and one with the G9 of "average" scenes would not appear much different to each other printed 10X8, and possibly not even bigger. As I said, you will of course find a difference if you look for it.

I have a photo taken with a TZ10 and printed 150cm wide (it covers the wall behind the projector screen) and you have to get about 2' from it before you see any loss of quality, but there is not much fine detail in it.

Use the camera you feel will be easiest and most convenient to use when out and about, then at least it will get used

 

[woof woof]

In good light, two uncropped photos, one taken with the TZ60 and one with the G9 of "average" scenes would not appear much different to each other printed 10X8, and possibly not even bigger. As I said, you will of course find a difference if you look for it.

These are the key things, whole pictures, good light and not looking too closely, and I'd add to that a scene not too demanding of dynamic range as a good light picture may well end up with blown skies or dark shadows.

Sorry to appear overly critical about smaller sensor camera but I think it's important to be clear here no matter how much we love our compact cameras just in case anyone reading this buys a compact camera like the TZ60 and expects G9 image quality all the time.

I posted some TZ100 v Sony A7 pictures in the TZ100 thread.

Panasonic TZ100

Recently purchased from the forums - surprised not a bit more chatter about this fine little compact in the Equipment sub-forum. I'll kick off some photographs with a test of the zoom capability: TZ100 zoomed out by Jeff, on Flickr TZ100 zoomed in by Jeff, on Flickr These were after the...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[Crotal Bell]

At the times you just want something like a compact, no I don't think you will notice much difference.
Obviously if you look for it, you will find it. But if you are going to look that close, you would have not taken a compact!
At the same time, there is every possibility that the shot with the compact may turn out better, because the circumstances at the time may mean that you could use it more effectively.
Bumping crowds or rocking ferries etc. are not the easiest places to use a large camera. Also, if you are more likely to take out and use the compact, you are more likely to get some good shots.

For a travel camera ! also think that a good zoom range is essential, as is the stabilisation. Being able to zoom in can give better results then having less zoom and cropping, as I think you mentioned before with your 82.

I have used the TZ series for travel since the TZ1, and have got fantastic results from them, in part because you can fill the frame with what you want and not crop. Often when travelling or just out and about, you can't zoom with your feet.

In good light, two uncropped photos, one taken with the TZ60 and one with the G9 of "average" scenes would not appear much different to each other printed 10X8, and possibly not even bigger. As I said, you will of course find a difference if you look for it.

I have a photo taken with a TZ10 and printed 150cm wide (it covers the wall behind the projector screen) and you have to get about 2' from it before you see any loss of quality, but there is not much fine detail in it.

Use the camera you feel will be easiest and most convenient to use when out and about, then at least it will get used

I'm beginning to learn that all photos can look great as long as you don't start comparing and getting too critical, and at the end of the day surely photography should be enjoyed rather than everything you do going under the microscope. I just watched a You Tube video by Graham Houghton of a trip to Edinburgh taken on the TZ70. I have to say that taken on their own the pictures look excellent, and I was shocked to learn after that Panasonic dropped to a 12MP sensor for that camera !

I agree with you that a zoom range is important, my recent B&W set of the WWII cemetery were taken on an iphone, but I had lots of room to move and compose, but you can't always move you feet or get closer/further.

The technology inside the cameras is mind blowing really, something you can drop in a jeans pocket and whip out to capture such lovely images and video. Just don't stick it on a comparison chart and start ripping it to bits eh !

 

[Crotal Bell]

These are the key things, whole pictures, good light and not looking too closely, and I'd add to that a scene not too demanding of dynamic range as a good light picture may well end up with blown skies or dark shadows.

Sorry to appear overly critical about smaller sensor camera but I think it's important to be clear here no matter how much we love our compact cameras just in case anyone reading this buys a compact camera like the TZ60 and expects G9 image quality all the time.

I posted some TZ100 v Sony A7 pictures in the TZ100 thread.

Panasonic TZ100

Recently purchased from the forums - surprised not a bit more chatter about this fine little compact in the Equipment sub-forum. I'll kick off some photographs with a test of the zoom capability: TZ100 zoomed out by Jeff, on Flickr TZ100 zoomed in by Jeff, on Flickr These were after the...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Interesting comparison. As in my previous post, nothing wrong with the compact shots as long as they're not compared to a superior camera and critically picked at.
TZ60 v TZ100 - maybe swings and roundabouts there as the TZ60 could have taken the close up and would not have needed the crop?

 

[woof woof]

Interesting comparison. As in my previous post, nothing wrong with the compact shots as long as they're not compared to a superior camera and critically picked at.
TZ60 v TZ100 - maybe swings and roundabouts there as the TZ60 could have taken the close up and would not have needed the crop?

The TZ100 can focus quite close. I think the best close up results are at 90mm. As you will know with some subject which are likely to get spooked and fly or run away it's better to stand back and use a long zoom and try and get the critter as big as you can in the frame.

 

[Crotal Bell]

The TZ100 can focus quite close. I think the best close up results are at 90mm. As you will know with some subject which are likely to get spooked and fly or run away it's better to stand back and use a long zoom and try and get the critter as big as you can in the frame.

The 1" sensor seems to be the premium in the compact cameras, although from a few comparisons I've seen the compact sensors hold their own pretty well in good light.
My compact sensor FZ82 can take some really nice shots in good light, but with last nights 8pm ladybird close ups it was way too noisy and the MT was required.

 

[woof woof]

The 1" sensor seems to be the premium in the compact cameras, although from a few comparisons I've seen the compact sensors hold their own pretty well in good light.
My compact sensor FZ82 can take some really nice shots in good light, but with last nights 8pm ladybird close ups it was way too noisy and the MT was required.

I think again it comes down to how close you look. I've had a TZxx. I can't remember which one it was but AFAIK they all have the same sized small sensor. Anyway, the IQ wasn't anywhere near 1" if you looked closely.

I'm not as bad as some on this site for pixel peeping and having the very latest kit (My A7 is over 7 years old now) but I will admit to looking closely and liking a nice quality file. For people who can resist the urge to look closely maybe these TZxx cameras are better options than they are for me but even so you could face more obvious issues such as blown highlights and blocked shadows due to their lower dynamic range.

Few people will post their worst pictures but looking at what isn't possible with kit might be as informative as looking at what is possible.

I think I've decided that 1" sensor cameras are the minimum I'd like to use and enjoy but having said that I'd probably rather use a TZxx than a camera phone

 

[Crotal Bell]

I think again it comes down to how close you look. I've had a TZxx. I can't remember which one it was but AFAIK they all have the same sized small sensor. Anyway, the IQ wasn't anywhere near 1" if you looked closely.

I'm not as bad as some on this site for pixel peeping and having the very latest kit (My A7 is over 7 years old now) but I will admit to looking closely and liking a nice quality file. For people who can resist the urge to look closely maybe these TZxx cameras are better options than they are for me but even so you could face more obvious issues such as blown highlights and blocked shadows due to their lower dynamic range.

Few people will post their worst pictures but looking at what isn't possible with kit might be as informative as looking at what is possible.

I think I've decided that 1" sensor cameras are the minimum I'd like to use and enjoy but having said that I'd probably rather use a TZxx than a camera phone

I think a lot depends on what you like to photograph coupled with budget.
For instance, this picture of a Crow that walked from the shadows into the sunlight, while the FZ82 has limits, there isn't a bigger sensor + zoom combo that I could ever afford that could have got me close enough to get the picture. Just being able to capturing the moment makes up for the imperfections IMO.

 

[Sangoma]

but looking at what isn't possible with kit might be as informative as looking at what is possible.

That is one of the major reasons I use a compact, and it is not down to camera performance.
Size, convenience and quite importantly, as I walk around by myself, not looking like a rich tourist from you know where. Where I go is probably one of the safest regions for tourists in SE Asia, and after living in Africa for over 40 years, I can feel the atmosphere, however it is silly not to use common sense.

No doubt better dynamic range may occasionally give better shots, but going is not a photographic expedition, just the same as when I carry one casually in my pocket here.
Never been unhappy with the results, though of course I can see sometimes there are imperfections

 

[woof woof]

That is one of the major reasons I use a compact, and it is not down to camera performance.
Size, convenience and quite importantly, as I walk around by myself, not looking like a rich tourist from you know where. Where I go is probably one of the safest regions for tourists in SE Asia, and after living in Africa for over 40 years, I can feel the atmosphere, however it is silly not to use common sense.

No doubt better dynamic range may occasionally give better shots, but going is not a photographic expedition, just the same as when I carry one casually in my pocket here.
Never been unhappy with the results, though of course I can see sometimes there are imperfections

It all depends on the light and the kit needed to capture the subject or scene in front of the photographer.

DR is a big issue for me and perhaps the biggest issue. Because of responsibilities at home I can't get out much to do photography so one thing I like to do is take pictures as I walk to the shops as walking to the shops is the most likely reason I'll be out and the best chance for me to take pictures outside of the house and garden. I often walk along a bush and tree lined path often with the low northern sun causing a lot of glare above the tree/bush line and this location therefore often needs a lot of DR. In this place MFT blows the sky more often than not and the difference between MFT and FF DR is very obvious. 1" cameras suffer even more let alone a small sensor compact. In locations and lighting such as that the kit and its abilities are the limiting factor. Other kit abilities such as lightening fast AF and cutting edge tracking matter much less to me. In other situations when the scene and lighting don't present such kit challenging issues MFT is ok and even a 1" sensor camera or even a compact can be more than enough if the subject or scene fall within the cameras capabilities to capture.

So the answer is that what kit is needed and what settings we use depends on the subject and conditions at the time. Unless we just don't care about the abilities of the kit but if that's the case in some situations we're going to get blown skies, blocked shadows, silhouettes instead of people with detail, noisy pictures, motion blur or any combination of the above. All that might not matter some of the time but I think anyone reading this forum would care about some of those final image affecting things at least some of the time.

It's up to each of us to decide what we need or want. I think I've decided that 1" is the smallest system I'm happy to use but even then there are caveats and I know that in some circumstances my TZ100 wont cope. Ditto MFT. Ditto my FF Sony A7.

 

[Stephen L]

One compact which uses a slightly cut-down variant of the m4/3 sensor is the Panasonic LX100. True, it's not a super-zoom, but it's much overlooked for its capabilities and I owned one with some excellent results. In fact, I wish I had it now. In fact, I may well sell my GX9 in favour of one again.

 

[Sangoma]

It all depends on the light and the kit needed to capture the subject or scene in front of the photographer.

DR is a big issue for me and perhaps the biggest issue. Because of responsibilities at home I can't get out much to do photography so one thing I like to do is take pictures as I walk to the shops as walking to the shops is the most likely reason I'll be out and the best chance for me to take pictures outside of the house and garden. I often walk along a bush and tree lined path often with the low northern sun causing a lot of glare above the tree/bush line and this location therefore often needs a lot of DR. In this place MFT blows the sky more often than not and the difference between MFT and FF DR is very obvious. 1" cameras suffer even more let alone a small sensor compact. In locations and lighting such as that the kit and its abilities are the limiting factor. Other kit abilities such as lightening fast AF and cutting edge tracking matter much less to me. In other situations when the scene and lighting don't present such kit challenging issues MFT is ok and even a 1" sensor camera or even a compact can be more than enough if the subject or scene fall within the cameras capabilities to capture.

So the answer is that what kit is needed and what settings we use depends on the subject and conditions at the time. Unless we just don't care about the abilities of the kit but if that's the case in some situations we're going to get blown skies, blocked shadows, silhouettes instead of people with detail, noisy pictures, motion blur or any combination of the above. All that might not matter some of the time but I think anyone reading this forum would care about some of those final image affecting things at least some of the time.

It's up to each of us to decide what we need or want. I think I've decided that 1" is the smallest system I'm happy to use but even then there are caveats and I know that in some circumstances my TZ100 wont cope. Ditto MFT. Ditto my FF Sony A7.

Most of that has already been stated or agreed with

 

[Crotal Bell]

That is one of the major reasons I use a compact, and it is not down to camera performance.
Size, convenience and quite importantly, as I walk around by myself, not looking like a rich tourist from you know where. Where I go is probably one of the safest regions for tourists in SE Asia, and after living in Africa for over 40 years, I can feel the atmosphere, however it is silly not to use common sense.

No doubt better dynamic range may occasionally give better shots, but going is not a photographic expedition, just the same as when I carry one casually in my pocket here.
Never been unhappy with the results, though of course I can see sometimes there are imperfections

It all depends on the light and the kit needed to capture the subject or scene in front of the photographer.

DR is a big issue for me and perhaps the biggest issue. Because of responsibilities at home I can't get out much to do photography so one thing I like to do is take pictures as I walk to the shops as walking to the shops is the most likely reason I'll be out and the best chance for me to take pictures outside of the house and garden. I often walk along a bush and tree lined path often with the low northern sun causing a lot of glare above the tree/bush line and this location therefore often needs a lot of DR. In this place MFT blows the sky more often than not and the difference between MFT and FF DR is very obvious. 1" cameras suffer even more let alone a small sensor compact. In locations and lighting such as that the kit and its abilities are the limiting factor. Other kit abilities such as lightening fast AF and cutting edge tracking matter much less to me. In other situations when the scene and lighting don't present such kit challenging issues MFT is ok and even a 1" sensor camera or even a compact can be more than enough if the subject or scene fall within the cameras capabilities to capture.

So the answer is that what kit is needed and what settings we use depends on the subject and conditions at the time. Unless we just don't care about the abilities of the kit but if that's the case in some situations we're going to get blown skies, blocked shadows, silhouettes instead of people with detail, noisy pictures, motion blur or any combination of the above. All that might not matter some of the time but I think anyone reading this forum would care about some of those final image affecting things at least some of the time.

It's up to each of us to decide what we need or want. I think I've decided that 1" is the smallest system I'm happy to use but even then there are caveats and I know that in some circumstances my TZ100 wont cope. Ditto MFT. Ditto my FF Sony A7.

One compact which uses a slightly cut-down variant of the m4/3 sensor is the Panasonic LX100. True, it's not a super-zoom, but it's much overlooked for its capabilities and I owned one with some excellent results. In fact, I wish I had it now. In fact, I may well sell my GX9 in favour of one again.

All good food for thought, and it's nice to see compacts getting some praise because they deserve to be part of this discussion, they clearly have a lot of tech inside, far more than I realised when we started this topic. I know that photo quality is important on many occasions, however, it's clear that it's also about choosing something that will suit the end user and get the job done, even if that means sacrificing a bit of quality, and lets face it, a lot of photos are only bad if you compare them to others or start to look for the imperfections.

Take this video for example, I know Blackpool very well, and if I had been making this video and produced this end result I would have been extremely happy. Just a pocket sized compact with a small sensor, but I daresay exactly what he needed to make the video, and still enjoy a full day out at the seaside without a shoulder bag of kit.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoelEPtJ6qQ