I fully agree with you on "It would be REALLY useful to see the high ISO performance/noise that is to shoot in the "blue hour"."

I can adjust sharpness and noise reduction on my ZS10, which is not good at all in low light but otherwise a wonderful little camera. Have these adjustments been removed from later models in the ZS line?

I should have added however that you can enable/disable Panasonic's "Intelligent Resolution" feature which tries to enhance detail while suppressing noise. It is disabled by default and doesn't really help people who would prefer a more conservative approach.

@cainn24;

ISO445 is not higher enough to see the benefits of HTC ONE's 4MP sensor, but loosing details. Also do not expect HTC ONE with "Ultrapixels" will out-perform Pana in low ISO, such as ISO445.

"Ultrapixels" is just up-sampling which is as same as Panasonic's iZOOM, kind of.

As I said before, these Ping-hole size smartphone camera has much fast Lens, F2 for example. decent OIS. In the case of HTC ONE much much larger pixel pitch.

Pana did right thing to bring the MP down, but I do not think it will out perform HTC ONE in lowlight based on the above.

BTW: Some Smartphone can has less shark than P&S b/c the shoot leg, you touch it -> stable the phone (shoot leg) -> then camera takes the shoot.

For Nokia Windows phone, if you use shutter button to take picture, the OIS can not help you too much. I just touch to shoot in low shutter speed 1/4s for example...

@cainn24;

Regarding to your "ill-fiounded. "Ultrapixels" are as much about marketing as anything else.".

It is same goes to Panasonic's iZOOM, I have LX7, the digital zoom shows batter IQ than iZOOM as iZOOM is just ill-fiounded. ...are as much about marketing as anything else."

Pana can do better in iZOOM if the camera has enough progressing power as high-end Phone has, I guess.

@Mike FL

You appear to be a little confused.

"Ultrapixel" is a term that HTC coined to describe the large pixels on their 4MP sensor. It has nothing to do with any digital/intelligent zoom function. The HTC One couldn't zoom to save its own life anyway because it just doesn't have enough resolution to try to work any fancy detail-accentuating magic with.

Further, if you think that ISO400 is not enough of an extreme situation to demonstrate the superior low-light capabilities of the HTC One then feel free to downsample a ZS50/TZ70 ISO1600 shot and compare THAT to the HTC One ISO 445 shot. It still looks better in my opinion. In fact I invite everyone to do it and make up their own minds.

To be clear I am not saying that larger pixels on the same sized sensor within the same technology generation have no advantages in low light. They absolutely do. But people are prone to exaggerating this benefit beyond all reason, and even across different tech generations, which is silly.

@cainn24;

Regarding to your "You appear to be a little confused.". as long as you are clear which is good enough.

From what I can see, you are confused with Pana's optical performance with Smartphone's ping-hole size lens when we are talking about sensor's High ISO noise, and how FAST of the lens.

One of the benefits for up-sampling to 8MP is not to created "Details", but not easy to see the "Pixel separation".

Again, ISO400 is not being coincided as High ISO as today, but I world say "yes" if your posted the same contents 10 years ago.

As far as your "But people are prone to exaggerating this benefit beyond all reason, and even across different tech generations, which is silly" goes, most of the people should not worry too much b/c most of people do not shoot night scene by using pocket super zoom.

BTW: Do not confused by "across different tech generations", they are NOT if you see the real world LOW LIGHT sample of HTC ONE.

You have to be a connoisseur of the pastel like effect to appreciate this camera's high ISO prowess...

Canon's SX700 / 710 are definitely a cut above this somewhat outdated offering from the stable of Panasonic...

What raw extraction software are y'all using?

@lensberg
Cameralabs says otherwise.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX710_HS/outdoor_resolution.shtml

+1 for "At the long end...Looks like a bad 5MP camera phone snap"

Plus, If this ZS50 uses 5MP sensor the IQ will be better b/c DIFFRACTION in slow long-end, also it will gain one stop in high ISO b/c larger pixel pitch.

"In a nutshell my 18MP TZ60 is resolving slightly more detail than my 12MP TZ70, and this is not an isolated finding either"
really? unless you are processing RAW, the NR in jpeg would destroy all extra detail even in base ISO
I have 16MP Sony HX9V with backlit sensor, at even base ISO has lots of NR noise smearing, actually less detail than 12/10MP
and high ISO is of course useless
A 12MP 1/2.3 sensor with RAW is probably useable at least up to ISO800

You'll typically get more detail when shooting JPEGs too because the noise difference at low ISOs is next to negligable therefore more aggressive noise reduction is not even necessary.

Notions to the contrary mostly stem from failing to normalize the print/display resolution before performing comparisons involving sensors with different pixel counts. That's why DxO normalize to 8MP when rating sensor performance, and why the DPR studio tool has a "Print" button that does the same thing.

cainn24 "but at lower ISOs more pixels will *always* resolve more detail assuming that everything else is equal"
what you said is only true with RAW, in jpeg because extra pixel will create more noise, heavier NR is needed which destroy detail
actually it may not even be true for RAW if MP become too extreme like 20MP for 1/2.3 sensor, in that case there are so much noise which destroy detail that even RAW processing is useless and there would be less real detail than 10/12MP

@Jefftan

"really? unless you are processing RAW, the NR in jpeg would destroy all extra detail even in base ISO"

Nope. Look at the comparison shots I linked to earlier.

"I have 16MP Sony HX9V with backlit sensor, at even base ISO has lots of NR noise smearing, actually less detail than 12/10MP and high ISO is of course useless"

You can't determine anything by comparing different cameras with different lenses because there are too many variables that obfuscate the contribution that sensor performance makes to the IQ equation. What you need is two cameras that are exactly the same in every respect except for pixel count, and that's what we have with the TZ60/TZ70. And when you have that you can show up the "high pixel counts are destroying IQ" notion for the nonsense that it is.

I recommend that everyone read this for a really good primer on the subject, backed up by a wealth of evidence: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=706255

"You'll typically get more detail when shooting JPEGs too because the noise difference at low ISOs is next to negligable therefore more aggressive noise reduction is not even necessary"
With respect I don't agree with you that noise at low ISO is negligable especially for small 1/2.3 sensor and crazy high MP like 18/20. At 20MP there would be so much noise that even RAW can't restore lost detail
but even if what you said is true, is that little extra detail that is probably hard to be seen (maybe useful for cropping) worth destroying high ISO IQ?
low light IQ is very important to most people, at even ISO 400 ,high MP small sensor can't compare with 10/12 MP

@Jefftan

I didn't say that noise is negligible on small sensors. I said that the noise _difference_ between different pixel densities at low ISOs is next to negligible. And generally speaking, that's a fact. And even if it wasn't generally true (which it is) I have provided proof that it is true in the case of the 18MP ZS40 vs the 12MP ZS50 at the link I posted earlier. Here it is again: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55438424

"I have provided proof that it is true in the case of the 18MP ZS40 vs the 12MP ZS50 at the link I posted earlier. Here it is again: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55438424"
Thanks for that detail post. I just check and that is my personal opinion. At ISO 100 there is very little extra detail in ZS40 that is not worth the deteriorating high ISO IQ.
Also the high ISO sample is shot in good lighting, the difference in low light high ISO is likely much worse that your samples shown

cainn24
may I ask what version of DXO optics you are using? Do you use the latest version with PRIME NR

@Jefftan

"Very little" is a subjective assessment. And as someone who uses the TZ60 as a bit of a pocket wildlife camera I think the difference is significant (which is of course my own subjective assessment). And at low ISOs you're not really giving up anything to gain that small advantage which is partly my point.

Like I've said from the beginning the pros and cons run both ways. For someone who wants to shoot at high ISOs on a small format travelzoom I agree that the TZ70 is a better choice. But for those of us who only tend to use such cameras in conditions that allow us to stay under ISO400 because of IQ concerns then the TZ60 is potentially the better choice. In any case it certainly doesn't make much sense to go around recruiting people to join you on some crusade against high pixel counts because it is not quite the evil you are making it out to be.

"may I ask what version of DXO optics you are using? Do you use the latest version with PRIME NR"

Yes. To process the TZ70 images I just changed the model name in the RAW file to "DMC-TZ60" using exiftool.

cainn24:

The higher ISOs were implicit in the original comment.

Also more resolution for the same sensor size has problems at lower ISOs, more pixels often means problems with color and less dynamic range.

The infamous example would be the Nikon D800, which really only had good color at base ISO.

@HowaboutRAW

I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's totally incorrect. If you compare the 36MP D800 to the 16MP D4s over at DxO you will see that the D800 sensor has superior SNR, DR, tonal range and colour sensitivity up to 400 ISO and a little beyond. In fact for every measurement aside from dynamic range it stays very close to the D4s throughout its entire ISO range. Dynamic range is the only area in which it really suffers (and even then not really until about ISO1000) because the additional read noise eventually becomes prominent.

See: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D4s-versus-Nikon-D800___945_792

Make sure that you click though to the individual measurements tab and peruse all the relevant information for yourself.

As for small sensors, while you're there see the 12MP FZ200 vs the 16MP FZ70 for an example of a newer higher resolution sensor being superior to a lower resolution sensor in just about every respect.

cainn24:

DXO sensors are nearly useless. This is generally well known.

The reason: much of the score is based on theoretical light sources and calculations based on those made up sources. It's not what normal people would call extensive hardware testing.

The sensor scores also don't account for the lens.

As for the D800 and D4S, I have my own raws. And the D800 is a problem above base ISO. But hey, the D810 fixed that big weakness.

Right. So when the available evidence contradicts your assertion your strategy is to start talking nonsense about how that evidence isn't really evidence at all. And all to protect the integrity of a myth! It's all so absurd.

You want visual evidence instead? Here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d800&attr13_1=nikon_d4s&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&attr16_2=400&attr16_3=400&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.04847354928921015&y=-0.808049734560741

And here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d800&attr13_1=nikon_d4s&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.04847354928921015&y=-0.808049734560741

My guess is that you're doing one of two things, and probably both:

1) trying to examine comparative sensor performance by examining JPEGs. But JPEGs are as much about the cameras JPEG engine and how it is configured by default as they are about sensor performance.

2) trying to examine comparative sensor performance involving sensors with different pixel counts at 100% magnification instead of at the same print/display size.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that you just tried to bring lens performance into it. If you want to properly examine comparative sensor performance as it might relate to detail resolution then you absolutely must use the same lens on both cameras. And at the same fnumber, focal length and with the same framing as well. That's generally what DPR do when they shoot their studio test scene.

And the results are in line with DxO's own findings which are an excellent resource (although misunderstood by many).

cainn24:

1: Why would you assume I'm looking at jpegs, when I've clearly said I have my own raws?

2: Why would you assume I don't know how to change displayed resolution? Or how to print a photo well?

3: Yes, it is best to use the same lens, but that's not going to happen, and lenses influence sensor performance, but DXO doesn't take that into account. Optically very good lenses additionally help with higher ISOs, something else DXO ignores.

4: I've achieved significantly different results than DPR's studio scene, with the recent Nikon 1 V3. Also DPR's studio scene, though not useless, has little in the way of deep shadows and isn't particularly good for guesses about color and DR.

5: No, DXO's sensor findings are not an excellent resource--for example the Leica M9 below ISO 1000 is much better than DXO would have you believe.

6: Available evidence? I have plenty that fully supports my claims.

7: Again, jpegs. Are you joking?

cainn24:

You don't seem familiar with the differences between the D800 and D810.

The D810 is a good bit better high ISO camera, and it doesn't have the washed out colour at base ISO that the D800 has.

Why again are you bringing up jpegs? I'm not commenting on jpeg engines in either camera. Why is this not clear to you? And the raws I have support my conclusions about the better qualities of the D810 versus the D800.

Okay, yes there are P&S cameras that share lenses, but clearly I was commenting on DSLRs. Why distract here? Well...

Indeed sometimes the DPR studio scenes are invalid, I provided an example, and even when "valid" aren't the strongest examples of what the camera in question can do.

I don't share raws for reasons I've explained in detail elsewhere.

Making silly claims like the D800 and D810 have the same performance really undid your claims about digital. That's pretty much any claim. In fact I don't think I've ever looked at an out of camera jpeg from either.

cainn24:

The fact that DXO clearly says it uses "theoretical light sources" to generate its scores makes my case for me.

I suggest you actually read the DXO website, instead of simply citing a final score.

"experts" make a lot of claims, sometimes they're right, oft wrong. (Again Leica M9 sensor, and DXO's fail.) DPR has been known to embarrass itself.

Also I said DXO sensor scores are nearly useless, not that they're "completely misleading"; example, they will tell you, accurately, that the D4S is a better high ISO camera than the D800.

I however spend a considerable amount of time examining real evidence; that means raws from the cameras I comment upon, and actually reading whatever DXO has made up. And oft I am examining raws that I've shot.

Sorry, you look to be doing a lot of quoting and jpeg examination. Neither would qualify as "evidence" regarding a raw shooting camera.

"Making silly claims like the D800 and D810 have the same performance really undid your claims about digital. That's pretty much any claim. In fact I don't think I've ever looked at an out of camera jpeg from either."

Once again I invite you to start a thread over in the PST forum about why the results that you can peruse here: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D4s-versus-Nikon-D800___963_945_792

Are so completely invalid as to render any conclusions based upon them invalid, particularly when those conclusions gel with other available evidence.

Until you do this your own claims are merely anecdotal and carry no weight whatsoever.

@HowaboutRAW

"I suggest you actually read the DXO website, instead of simply citing a final score. "

I pay little attention to the DxO Overall scores. I look at the SNR, DR, tonal range and colour sensitivity measurements individually because in my opinion they are more meaningful.

By the way, it just occurred to me that your objection regarding "theoretical light sources" might indicate that you've somehow reached the conclusion that DxO never actually point a camera at a test chart, have light shine on the sensor, and then analyze the resulting output. If this is what you really believe I can't imagine where you got that impression. Perhaps you could point me to the section on the DxO website that details this lack of actual physical testing.

What I encounter instead is lots of talk about about "test targets, lighting systems, light-boxes, light-meters, telemeters, spectrometers etc".

cainn24,

And if you pay attention to the DXO website most of those numbers are heavily based on theoretical light sources.

No, I understand that DXO tests a bit of hardware.

As for my claims about the D800 versus the D810, lots of others have reported exactly what I claim.

"And if you pay attention to the DXO website most of those numbers are heavily based on theoretical light sources. "

Show me the section of the DxO website that demonstrates that measurements for things like signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range are based on nothing but "theoretical light sources". Seriously. If you've read it somewhere on their site surely you can find it again.

"As for my claims about the D800 versus the D810, lots of others have reported exactly what I claim."

Most people make the same tired old mistakes when comparing sensors with significantly different resolutions. That's why there are so many myths floating around about camera performance. Meanwhile all the properly controlled tests demonstrate that your claim that the D800 has inferior sensor performance at low ISOs is entirely false. In fact the opposite is true.

Again, I invite you to broach this topic in the PST forum. I promise that you'll learn something, even if you don't want to at first ;)

cainn24:

The the "theoretical light sources" information is in pop-ups with the charts throughout much of the DXO website.

True at very low ISOs, like 200, the D800 is an excellent camera. As is the D810 and D610 and D750 and Df and D4S. That I don't dispute for a second. But almost no one buys a camera with the restriction that it will be used at nearly base ISO always. There are some studio only CCD cameras that get used this way, but even that has changed in the last 12 months.

"The the "theoretical light sources" information is in pop-ups with the charts throughout much of the DXO website."

Can you quote a passage containing that phrase in context for me? Or can you tell me _precisely_ where to find an example of it being used?

"But almost no one buys a camera with the restriction that it will be used at nearly base ISO always."

Leaving aside for a moment that you seem to have abandoned your assertion that the D800 sucks at base ISO, its sensor performance actually remains quite competitive with a camera like the D4s right up to ~ISO1600 even in poor light. So there's no requirement to remain at base ISO at all times in order to get decent performance. But the real reason most people want a camera like the D800 instead of a D4s is because it can resolve significantly more detail.

Again, as I have said from the very beginning, the pros and cons run both ways.

cainn24:

I looked at the DXOMark website again, hadn't in 6 months, and the popup charts with the notes about theoretical light sources use are gone.

Not good for DXOMark without an very clear explanation of any change to hardware testing and scoring results.

There used to be many more color charts and it was quite clear that the results were partly based in models not hardware tests.

cainn24:

I absolutely never said that the D800 has problems at base ISO. You've read something into a comment that's not there. At base ISO the D800 is a great camera, and put a good Zeiss lens on it and it's extraordinary.

The problems for the D800 start not much above base ISO, and it has washed out colours above approximately ISO 200 and it's pretty horrid at ISO 1600, while for noise reasons it stops being useful at about ISO 6400+ maybe half a stop.

Except for landscapes or big posters: Resolution is vastly over rated. 10MP can resolve plenty. Anyhow one would buy the D750 or D810 for more resolution than the Df, neither has the higher ISO washed out colour of the D800. And both are better high ISO cameras than the D800 for noise control.

@HowaboutRAW

"I looked at the DXOMark website again, hadn't in 6 months, and the popup charts with the notes about theoretical light sources use are gone."

In any case I think it's safe to say that signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range measurements are based on an evaluation of actual sensor output and are therefore good indicators of actual sensor performance, particularly since they are in fact consistent with other methods that involve a visual evaluation of real camera output produced under carefully controlled conditions, such as the studio scenes produced by DPR and outfits like Imaging Resource.

@HowaboutRAW

"I absolutely never said that the D800 has problems at base ISO. You've read something into a comment that's not there. At base ISO the D800 is a great camera, and put a good Zeiss lens on it and it's extraordinary."

You said that the D800 has problems at "lower ISOs". But it doesn't. It's actually better than the D4s right up to 400 ISO, and beyond. I have demonstrated that with links to DxO measurements and DPR studio comparisons. And beyond 400 ISO it remains competitive with the D4s in every respect except dynamic range. And even though the difference doesn't become problematic until about ISO1600.

"The problems for the D800 start not much above base ISO, and it has washed out colours above approximately ISO 200 and it's pretty horrid at ISO 1600,"

This is complete nonsense, as I've evidenced already. The Imaging Resource samples are another resource that demonstrates this.

I think it's about time that you produced some evidence of your own, don't you think?

cainn24:

Most of these charts at DXOMark used to say "based on theoretical light sources", here's the D800E example, the information was in pop-ups:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E---Measurements

DXO has changed these charts sans explantion. This is not good for DXO.

DXO rating the sensor in the D800E higher, as a single score number, than the sensor in the Df is kind of a joke, and I've used both.

"D810 for more resolution than the Df, neither has the higher ISO washed out colour of the D800. And both are better high ISO cameras than the D800 for noise control."

My God, man, do you even realize what this debate is about? By holding up the D810 as a shining example of sensor performance you're making my case for me! You want me to forget about the D800? Fine. Gone. I'll pretend that it sucks. So let's just compare the the D810 to the D4s. And what do we learn? We learn that at low ISOs higher pixel counts don't result in worse performance, they often result in better performance!

Case closed. Thanks for agreeing with me. Finally.

@HowaboutRAW

"DXO rating the sensor in the D800E higher, as a single score number, than the sensor in the Df is kind of a joke, and I've used both."

It's far from a joke when you understand how DxO arrive at the overall sensor score. It's essentially heavily weighted in favour of the best-case scenario. Or to put it another way: it's heavily weighted in favour of the sensor that can put up the absolute best SNR/DR numbers. And that honour goes to the D800E over the Df. Why? Because at low ISOs read noise is not significant enough to win out over the benefits that additional sampling (more megapixels) brings to the SNR/DR equation. So DxO is telling you which camera provides the best performance at low ISOs, and therefore the best performance possible in ideal conditions.

If you're more interested in low-light performance, then you should ignore the overall score and look at the SNR/DR results at higher ISOs. In other words, you need to use the DxO site intelligently.

cainn24:

What are you talking about? All I ever said is that the D810 fixes the problems of the D800/E. And I like the D810.

It's not a camera I'd buy, I want one with a better sensor, like the Df.

As for the D810 competing for colour and dynamic range with the D4S at lower ISOs, I'm sure that with the same lens that's the case.

Again, not really a point I've ever argued, but the fact remains that the D800 does have the problems I've mentioned and others have noted again and again.

In fact I would recommend, as most people who are familiar with DxO do, that you ignore the overall scores entirely. What you should do instead is decide in advance which performance parameters are most relevant to you and then peruse the different sections under the measurements tab. That's where the uneditorialized data is, and it's very useful.

cainn24:

"If you're more interested in low-light performance, then you should ignore the overall score and look at the SNR/DR results at higher ISOs. In other words, you need to use the DxO site intelligently."

Then the point is the DXO scores are nearly useless, which was my orignal point.

If you know in advance that you'll only ever shoot really low ISOs, then of course you can go for higher pixel density. No one disputes that for a second.

One problem with DXO sensor scores is, as you said, it's a best case scenario thing, and those don't exist outside of studio work.

No one engineers a structural beam in building to only work under the best contions. Things like beams and tools and cameras have to be thought of as working in conditions way beyond the perfect ideal--that means stressed, or over weighted, or used for hours and hours without stopping.

You've provided a different explanation for why DXO Mark sensor scores are next to useless. Ironical.

@HowaboutRAW

"What are you talking about? All I ever said is that the D810 fixes the problems of the D800/E."

So you agree then that for the same sensor size that higher pixel counts are, at the very least, not detrimental to image quality at low ISOs?

If so, why did you disagree with the following statement of mine:

" In a nutshell my 18MP TZ60 is resolving slightly more detail than my 12MP TZ70, and this is not an isolated finding either. The TZ70 has the edge at high ISOs but anything above 400 is beyond my tolerance threshold in both cases anyway. In other words, the real myth these days is that higher pixel densities are destroying IQ. But they're really not."

@HowaboutRAW

"You've provided a different explanation for why DXO Mark sensor scores are next to useless. Ironical."

Nonsense. I have instead shown you in what ways the information can be useful once you understand what the information actually represents, and where to get the information that is most relevant to you.

Once again I challenge you to broach this topic in the PST forum. Prove me wrong.

cainn24:

"If so, why did you disagree with the following statement of mine"

For two reasons:

1--I've used neither of the cameras referenced extensively, but do have raws from the 12MP example.

2--Resolution is far from only determining factor in image quality, and you know that.

1&2--I resist commenting on cameras I don't have raws from, ideally I'd have used them too.

You've provided reasons that the DXO "information" is not useful. Or is only useful with the introduction of external information.

If I am set to buy a new power tool, say a table saw and blades, I really don't care how it works under the best conditions while cutting clean, dry unwarped wood. I care about how the power saw and blades handle difficult situations.

Cars aren't used only on tracks.

Real row boats are used in the sea and near shore, much more difficult than simply rowing across a half mile wide lake.

DSLRs aren't likely to spend the entirety of their useful life indoors, say like a VCR.

Jeff please confirm that you can't adjust sharpness/contrast/saturation on the Jpegs please ;). I hope this is also mentioned in the review, considering this is a $400.00 camera you'd think they'd include those settings- at the very least.

(edited a couple typos after post, bad Carl)

I second the request for some RAWs to download. The correct RAW processing does wonders for IQ. As an example, I noted several images that appeared to be duplicates, but their designation had an ACR suffix which implied to me that they were processed using Adobe Camera Raw. I believe these were comparison shots to show the difference between out of camera jpegs and jpegs from RAW. In most cases, the improvement in those from RAW was obvious (at least to me).

JimW-203:

Except that as of today, Mar 11, 2015, ACR doesn't extract these files yet.

Jus so you're clear that you'd be stuck with using Rawtherapee, which does indeed extract the files.

DPP probably has a pre-beta of ACR 8.8.

..and shutter speed and aperture

Which build of Therapee with support for ZS50 is most stable?
a further question to whomever processed the pictures in the ZS50 gallery: what did you use for these pix?

JimW,

I've been using 4.2.1 on a Windows 7 64bit computer. No stability problems.

I've not tried the raws from DPR yet.

PhotographBlog has other raws, though they used the wrong alternate name; they used the previous model's US name:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_tz60_review/sample_images/

The TZ60 is the ZS40. Those are the images you linked to. The photographyblog RAW samples for the ZS50 (aka TZ70) are here: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_tz70_review/sample_images/

The ZS50 is also in the DPR studio tool, and has been for a little while now, so you can get RAW samples from there as well.

c:

You are correct about the TZ70.

Indeed I was mistaken in my summary of PhotoBlog's post. Anyhow I've had the PB raws you linked for a while and indeed those raws open stably in RT.

I downloaded RT 4.2.1 and they opened the DPR samples with no problems. However, it clearly would be a steep learning curve for me to use it well. Additionally, it is seems to apply no lens corrections of any type.

@JimW-203

The learning curve probably seems steeper than it is because RawTherapee doesn't properly support the ZS50 yet so basic colour corrections aren't done by default like they are for supported cameras. There are two ways around this:

1) you can put the following entry into RawTherapee's camconst.json file:

{ // Quality A
"make_model": [ "Panasonic DMC-TZ70", "Panasonic DMC-TZ71", "Panasonic DMC-ZS50", "Panasonic DMC-ZS51" ],
"dcraw_matrix": [ 8607,-2822,-808,-3755,12500,2049,-820,2060,5224 ],
"ranges": { "black": 15, "white": 4050 }
},

2) you can use exiftool (or exiftoolGUI or whatever) to change the model name in the exif data in the RAW file to something like "DMC-ZS40" so RawTherapee treats it like a ZS40 RAW file and applies some colour corrections based on that scenario. It's not perfect but it's a much better starting point to start editing from. This method will also allow you to process the file in most other RAW software as well.

Jim:

The correction tools are on the right under various expanding boxes. Lens correction is in there too.

I don't think the NR too is great, but it's okay if you check the correct boxes before processing.

RT 4 is certainly software you'll have to spend a couple of hours playing with to get good results. And I don't think it matches the results of C1 or ACR. Though surprisingly RT 4 is good with many Fuji XTrans RAF files.

It's a start, and it's generally better than the freeware UFRaw in my estimation.

My principal interest in this is as a means of evaluating the ZS50 as an added camera. I currently use DxO OpticPro 10 as my default RAW processor. It supports all my current and past cameras for which I have RAW files and offers some very intuitive options that I find very appealing. I currently have a ZS19 (an older predecessor to the ZS50) that I don't use often but like for its range of capabilities. I see the ZS50 as a way of regaining those capabilities while adding a significant improvement in IQ. That said, if I need to complicate things in order to process the files, it's just not worth the hassle. DxO OpticsPro 10 process ZS40 files just fine; what I don't know is will they add support for the ZS50 going forward. Only time and the sales volume of the camera will tell. From what I have seen, with judicious PP, IQ is definitely an improvement over the ZS40 and any of its predecessors - I think it is well worth the price as very capable travel camera and will serve nicely.