Sony ZV-1 vs Canon G1X III | 1 inch Sensor vs APS-C Compact Camera

Yet another blog post about compact cameras! II get more questions about compact cameras than anything else. After all, photography is a national pastime and the convenience of a small portable camera can’t be underestimated. Whilst a great many people take pictures with their smart phones, there’s a divide between the images from a phone and the images from a well specified camera. And I say that as someone who owns the venerable Sony Xperia Pro-I smartphone.

I never get tired of discussing compact cameras, despite having a bag full of Sony’s finest professional offerings. Compact cameras represent fun and recreation. And for me, they’ve been instrumental in helping me gather images for competitions and distinctions. Despite the vast choices we have, finding the right compact camera for our needs can be an ongoing quest. Invariably some compromises will need to be made.

The best compact camera for one person may not be particularly suitable for the next person. Evaluating and prioritizing our needs is always the first step. For example I want my compact camera to be small enough to fit in a jacket pocket or small handbag, without visibly weighing me down. I also want excellent autofocus which copes well in low light and which will track a moving target with reasonable accuracy. I also want a zoom lens with good edge-to-edge sharpness. A hot shoe is vital to me since I’ll probably be mounting a wireless mic or even a small flashgun. A leaf shutter is something I benefit from, given my strobist tendencies. If possible I’d like a viewfinder and a built-in flash. 4K video and the ability to shoot slow motion is also nice to have.

That’s my wish list, but your wish list may look very different. Note that I don’t make a big deal out of sensor size. There’s little point having a fabulous sensor if the camera doesn’t have the features and performance you need or want.

In this post I talked about my favourite compact cameras and how these have evolved over the last decade. One camera I didn’t discuss in that article is the Canon G1X III. Given my requirements, this would be an obvious contender. The reason it hasn’t made its way into my pocket until now is largely down to its price. It’s one expensive little camera. That changed recently when I had the opportunity to get my hands on a preowned unit at a hard to miss price.

The Canon G1X III is quite something. It features a large APS-C sensor yet manages to be quite tiny. That’s a heck of a feat, especially when combined with a zoom lens covering the standard 24 to 70 focal range.

Where does that leave my current pocket camera, the Sony ZV-1? I love this little thing, and it isn’t going anywhere. Which just goes to show that sometimes there will never be one camera which ticks every box. Sometimes you’ll need more than one, depending on the usage case.

The ZV-1 features a 1 inch sensor and a fast f1.8 to f2.8 24 to 70 mm equivalent zoom lens. The Canon G1X III has an f2.8 to f5.6 24 to 70 equivalent zoom lens. The ZV-1 has a crop factor of x2.7 and the little Canon x1.6. If you multiply the crop factor with the aperture value you’ll arrive at the ‘equivalent’ aperture in full frame (35mm) terms. In other words the ZV-1’s lens is equivalent to an f4.86 to f7.56 lens on a full frame camera, and the G1X III’s lens is equivalent to f4.48 to f8.96. You can immediately see that the depth of field (and ISO) advantage of the GIX’s larger sensor is broadly negated by the ZV-1’s bright lens. This means that at any given aperture value, your depth of field and image noise will be very similar on both cameras.

In that case, why am I even bothering to talk about the Canon G1X III? Why don’t I just save my money and stick with the ZV-1? Because there is more to having the right camera than simple equivalence.

If we stick with image quality for a moment, one really important advantage of a larger sensor is greater dynamic range. This means that in very bright scenes and high contrast scenes, the images from the larger sensor will retain more detail. This also means there’ll be more latitude during postproduction. Skin tones will also be more pleasing. If we zoom in to images taken across a range of sensor sizes, the differences are quite apparent. As a rule, a larger sensor will simply produce a smoother and richer result with all else being equal.

It’s important to say however that your sensor is only as good as the lens in front of it. A terrific sensor can be let down by a lens with poor resolving power - or a lens which is soft in the corners and edges (that was a major bugbear of mine on the otherwise excellent Panasonic LX100ii). It’s also true to say that the smaller the lens the lower the resolving power will be. This means that the larger lens of the G1X III should outperform the lens on the Sony ZV-1.

It's quite common to see a measure of copy variance on cameras with fixed zoom lenses. I saw this across the various RX100 cameras I’ve owned and three samples of the ZV-1. For me, fairly good corner and edge sharpness is critical because an opportunity to gain an interesting photograph may yield a competition image. A great image with soft edges and corners is unlikely to make the grade.

Let’s compare the two compact cameras under discussion (RAW findings). Incidentally both cameras have a leaf shutter, articulating LCD screens, hot shoes, and a built-in neutral density filter. The G1X III doesn’t have a mic jack. I’ve also included some comparisons with one of my favourite Micro 4/3 cameras - the Panasonic GX8. Its sensor lies between APS-C and 1 inch, with a crop factor of x2. This gives us a view of the three most popular sensor sizes for travel photography (APS-C and Micro 4/3 is a popular choice for professionals as well).

Canon G1X III vs Sony ZV-1 Lens

The lenses cover the same focal range and whether there’s an aperture advantage or disadvantage depends on which part of the focal range we’re using. The ZV-1 has an aperture of f1.8 at 24mm, which closes down to f2.8 at approximately 33mm. The G1X III has an aperture of f2.8 at 24mm and therefore has a small depth of field and ISO advantage at the wide end of the focal range. The G1X III lens is at f4 at 33mm, which offers a more significant advantage over the ZV-1.

However at the long extremity of the lens the G1X III is slightly disadvantaged since the lens’s fastest value is f5.6 from 57mm onwards (equating to almost f9 in 35mm terms).

Sony ZV-1 Advantages

The ZV-1 shoots 4K video (unlike the G1X III, which shoots only 1080p). The ZV-1 can shoot high speed video clips for extreme slow motion effects (the G1X III video tops out at 60fps). The benefit of filming in 4K is versatility if you have to crop or pan.

The ZV-1’s onboard microphone is so good it all but eliminates the need for an external mic, at least when vlogging. Another advantage of the ZV-1 is the ability to focus very close to an object (around 5cm) - this is one of the inherent advantages of small sensors. The G1X III on the other hand won’t focus any nearer than 10cm at the widest end of zoom range.

The ZV-1 has Sony’s all singing autofocus system and is also slightly smaller and slightly lighter than the G1X III.

Canon G1X III Advantages

The G1X III has some features which may just tip the balance for you. The key difference is the viewfinder (and it’s a nice one at that). There’s a built-in flash which is great for adding fill to backlit scenes. If you go hiking and enjoy landscape photography then the weather sealing and rugged build quality of the G1X III will be great to have, plus the fact you can attach filters to its lens.

Then there is dynamic range - if you enjoy printing at a decent size there’s no getting away from the fact that in good light the images from the G1X III will trounce even the best 1 inch sensor camera. The autofocus is no slouch either, having Canon’s dual pixel focus system which is very reliable. Plus the lens is noticeably sharper than that on the ZV-1 at all but the widest focal length.

Pricewise things are rather different though, with the G1X III costing almost twice as much as the little ZV-1! In the last five years, the price doesn’t appear to have come down much.

But what about image quality? For those of you who are primarily stills photographers, this may be the most important consideration. In my experience discussions about image quality are closely tied to ISO performance. However it’s vitally important to remember that ISO capability is but one element of image quality (and in some cases it’s the least important).

ISO and Depth of Field

If we consider only noise levels for a moment, I was surprised by my findings. We already know that in low light conditions there is no ISO advantage to the larger APS-C sensor because the G1X III’s lens is between one and two stops slower (depending on where you are in the zoom range). Therefore that alone cancels out the lowlight advantages of the G1X III.

But what if we compared the two cameras at identical ISO values - we would naturally assume that the larger APS-C sensor would visibly outperform the much smaller 1 inch sensor.

Well, I was surprised to see barely any difference in noise between the Sony 1 inch sensor and the APS-C sensor in the Canon G1X III at the same ISO setting! This means a G1X III image at ISO 800 is markedly noisier than a ZV-1 image at ISO 400 – when we’d expect them to be about the same. I can’t really explain this. Is Sony applying some noise reduction to the RAW files on the ZV-1? Or is the sensor on my G1X III unusually poor in the noise department?

Out of curiosity I did the same ISO tests with my Panasonic GX8. This is a Micro 4/3 camera and it’s a few years old, but has always been known for its excellent image quality. The GX8 images came out the cleanest of them all.

When I compared my ZV-1 with another Canon APS-C camera (my SL2/200D) the result was along the lines of what we would expect of the larger sensor – about ¾ of a stop of improvement in noise. I can’t explain why the 200D is visibly cleaner than the G1X III output, when both cameras apparently share the same sensor (which I believe is the sensor from the 80D) and Digic VII processor. Chances are there are some tweaks in the G1X III sensor setup which explains the difference. The images below are 100% crops of a series of images from the test cameras.

The virtually identical ISO result between the ZV-1 and the G1X III could leave you a little worse off at the long end of the G1X III lens in low light, although you may be able to offset that somewhat if your subject is static. This is because the stabilisation on the G1X III makes handholding at slow shutter speeds more successful when compared to the ZV-1 in my experience.

With respect to depth of field, at the widest point in the zoom range there is around a stop and a third of aperture difference between the two cameras. At 33 mm there is one stop of aperture difference. At the longest extremity of the zoom range the G1X III’s lens is two stops slower. In other words the ZV-1’s bright lens balances up the difference in depth of field - and even edges ahead a little at the long end of the zoom range.

Before you discount the G1X III on ‘ISO and DOF equivalence’ alone, remember that the benefit from a larger sensor is all about pulling maximum detail from bright or contrasty scenes where the additional dynamic range will be significant. The G1X III also has an additional 4mp of resolution, so you can crop a little more. Then there is lens performance. These are areas where the G1X III pulls ahead of its smaller sensor rivals.

G1X III vs ZV-1 Dynamic Range and Detail

The lens on the G1X III is very sharp indeed at all focal lengths and remains acceptably sharp edge to edge. The edges and corners show higher levels of purple fringing than the lens on the ZV-1, but that’s easy to sort out in postproduction. The ZV-1 lens is good, but it’s softer by comparison and the edges aren’t as good either. It’s best at the wide end of the zoom range and at short range.

I found the autofocus on the G1X III to be perfectly accurate in my tests (but I’m yet to test its tracking capability). The ZV-1 on the other hand wasn’t quite as reliable (which surprised me a little) and I fell into the habit of taking two pictures of each scene in order to choose the sharpest.

Despite the largely imperceptible image noise difference, the pictures from the G1X III are superior to those from the Sony 1 inch sensor. The overall sharpness, detail and dynamic range is better than any smaller sensor will offer. This can be seen as smoother tones throughout the image and higher levels of detail in the brightest and darkest parts of the scene. Small sensors tend to have a slightly ‘gritty’ look to them for this reason. But – if all you’ll ever do is post your images online, then these differences won’t be apparent to your audience.

Lens characteristics are hugely important on any fixed lens camera. The lenses on the 1 inch cameras I’ve owned are less sharp than their larger counterparts and also tend to show a slight fuzziness in high contrast scenes or when focusing close-up at wide aperture values. There’s also more purple fringing throughout the frame. Overall, smaller lenses tend to resolve less detail.

I noticed that the G1X III meters a little differently to the ZV-1 if the scene is high in contrast. The G1X III’s RAW engine appears to protect highlights more than the ZV-1 (which tends to return brighter more punchy RAW files). By default I leave a little bit of exposure compensation set on the Canon.

G1X III vs ZV-1 Video

If your usage case involves a lot of video, then the ZV-1 comes into its own. 4K video and high frame rate video for those gorgeous cinematic slow motion clips - it really is a little gem if you enjoy filmmaking. If that’s your thing, then I would recommend the ZV-1 without reservation. The video on the G1X III is OK (and the stabilisation is excellent) but it doesn’t have the features of the smaller camera.

WHICH CAMERA SHOULD I CHOOSE?

Herein lie the frustrations when it comes to choosing a compact camera. One hand gives generously while another hand taketh away. All we can do is list our priorities and accept some compromises. I would struggle to give up either of these excellent cameras.

G1X III Advantages

Larger sensor, better dynamic range
Weather sealing
On-board flash
Sharp lens
Viewfinder
Good stabilization
Good backup for pro photojournalism/landscape

ZV-1 Advantages

Faster lens, slightly shallower depth of field
4k video good enough for pro b-roll
Good on-board microphone
Noise levels on par with G1X III
Slow motion video options
Close focus ability
Mic jack

I didn’t expect to see virtually identical levels of noise between the two compact cameras at the same ISO value. I’m still trying to get my head around that. I recall my Sony RX100 days (Mk II and III) and I was always wary of going above ISO 800. Not so with the ZV-1, it’s great at high ISO values. Nor did I expect my old GX8 to edge out the G1X III in that department.

Overall though, for sheer quality no other compact camera (with a zoom lens) is a match for the Canon G1X III with its large sensor, excellent lens, and weatherproofed body. But you’ll pay for the privilege of owning it. On the other hand the Sony ZV-1 is the ultimate all-rounder – it offers better value for money, top flight video features, sophisticated autofocus functions, great onboard sound, very good image quality and it’s more pocketable.

If I had to choose between the two cameras it would be a very difficult choice indeed. If I was photographing very bright environments such as seascapes then the G1X III would be the best choice. If I needed ultimate detail and sharpness then the same would apply. But for everything else the smaller size and lighter weight of the eminently likeable ZV-1 makes it a great choice.