When I use a 1/3" chip camera, I am turned off by having so much in focus. But I still see them a limited? It is like an assumption that the good technology is saved for the larger chip cameras in the line. I think that has changed as the new 1/3" cameras get amazing imagery. Pros used larger chips which were supposed to get better images.
Panasonic p2 370 pro#
When the 1/3" chip cameras first made a splash, they were considered less than pro because they were (viewed as) limited compared to the pro cameras. And unlike a lot of folks on the forums who tend to want to defend their own kit, that's not my intention here, all the gear I use is 2/3". I've never been able to quite understand the prejudice against 1/3" cams. Long lenses? Get a 2/3" or Nikon adapter. You only really need 1 lens for most things, a standard zoom or a wide zoom, and they're are several of each for 1/3". But even 1/3" chips are pretty sensitive, so unless you're doing a lot of night work you're more likely to worry about not having enough NDs rather than enough sensitivity. Light gathering is better on the bigger chips, true. Besides, open up to f2 and you've got pretty slim dof even on 1/3". You might talk about shallow depth of field, good for drama, but if you're using long lenses or doing run and gun doc/news you need some dof to help get things in focus.
There are plenty of other factors of course, but many of them are only relevant to certain types of work.
So the size of the pixel and therefore the size of the chip has no effect on quality.
I posted a question regarding the pixels in 1/3" vs 2/3" chips, as it occured to me that unlike film a pixel is not enlarged when it is shown on a 50" screen, a pixel is a pixel, and its information is just transposed onto the screen. Why not Tim? What do you see as the problem with 1/3" chips? But I just can't get too excited about a 1/3" camera.