ZS7 (TZ10) sample images

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Ron Parr said:

Speaking as somebody who has some 3ft. wide holiday snaps on his wall, I'd still like to point out that only a few people still use digital cameras like film cameras (printing uncropped holiday snaps). Most shots are never printed.

Click to expand...

I would not disagree, that for digital most people print little, some hardly ever.

As a current film user, have to say your point is a bit off target here, with film you pretty much "had" to get prints with your developed negatives, and labs would make crops, though not selectively..you lost some of your edges.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing what you think is off target.

Regarding your second point, if you are saying that people should be more sophisticated about understanding what the marginal benefit is in getting those extra pixels, then it's hard to disagree. I'm always in favor of people thinking more clearly about the trade offs. I think we're basically in agreement here.

I do want to point out, however, that this is a far different position from the categorical, "few/no people need more than 8MP because few/no people print that large". That argument completely misses the point IMO because it is based upon two false premises, (1) that prints are the primary way the people view images and (2) that people don't crop or zoom.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

I think the images are very good, not sure why people are putting them down, it is afterall a compact camera, and yes I have the TZ7
--

'Every portrait that is painted with feeling, is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.' Oscar Wilde

Ron Parr wrote:

It was in reference to holiday snaps more than anything, I take my film shooting fairly seriously, as I do digital ;-)

Member said:

Regarding your second point, if you are saying that people should be more sophisticated about understanding what the marginal benefit is in getting those extra pixels, then it's hard to disagree. I'm always in favor of people thinking more clearly about the trade offs. I think we're basically in agreement here.

Click to expand...

I think the benefit of a few extra mp on this model is, less than marginal, more likely invisible.

Member said:

I do want to point out, however, that this is a far different position from the categorical, "few/no people need more than 8MP because few/no people print that large". That argument completely misses the point IMO because it is based upon two false premises, (1) that prints are the primary way the people view images and (2) that people don't crop or zoom.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest the no. of 3ft wide, big print folks who will buy this type of camera are relatively small. It would seem aimed more at the "holiday" shooters who want a compact, more versatile, easy to carry around camera.

And even if you want to print big, you'd get more benefit from this having raw, thus you can bypass the noise reduction, and achieve better results. That would count a lot more than a few extra megapixels.

Just shoving more pixels onto a sensor and ramping up the smudging isn't a great way to achieve quality bigger prints.

I recall a few years ago Sears marketing their vacuum cleaners that were plastered with big colorful stickers that read 3 HP "most powerful" vac's . And they might have been but one has to wonder why a vac needs as much as 3 HP to pick up dust. Regardless , they were big sellers. The problem was they drew so much amperage that they often blew a normally fused 15 amp ciruit and instead had to be plugged into a 20 amp kitchen outlet. It was simply overkill with a negative side effect.

Probably not the best analogy but it seems to work the same way. It's the printing on the on the sticker that catches the attention especially when pitted up against the competition and that's where the marketing is directed, right at the general public and not to Dpreview readers who might know better.

These cameras are side by side multiple other brands on that shelf space. and that 14 MP sticker has to match or exceed the one next to it.

Most buyers of even these higher end P&S models will not be viewing images at full pixel level anyway so it's irrelovent to them.

Yeah , at full pixel level the tree looksw nasty but viewing the sample image at full screen 22" monitor and it looked pretty good to me.

The new features and controls will keep this model above or equal to the competition and sell far better for Panny than one aimed at those who want less MP's for whatever reason. They got it all figured out.
--
LX3 does the job these days.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Member said:

Regarding your second point, if you are saying that people should be more sophisticated about understanding what the marginal benefit is in getting those extra pixels, then it's hard to disagree. I'm always in favor of people thinking more clearly about the trade offs. I think we're basically in agreement here.

Click to expand...

I think the benefit of a few extra mp on this model is, less than marginal, more likely invisible.

Click to expand...

250 more pixels in the horizontal dimension isn't a lot, but it's still 250 more pixels, about 6-7% more. There's no reason to assume, a priori, that it would be invisible. That's an empirical question. It might turn out this way because the lens isn't up to the task or because Panasonic reduced the pixel size before they made the necessarily improvements to be able to do so without increasing the noise.

Member said:

Member said:

I do want to point out, however, that this is a far different position from the categorical, "few/no people need more than 8MP because few/no people print that large". That argument completely misses the point IMO because it is based upon two false premises, (1) that prints are the primary way the people view images and (2) that people don't crop or zoom.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest the no. of 3ft wide, big print folks who will buy this type of camera are relatively small. It would seem aimed more at the "holiday" shooters who want a compact, more versatile, easy to carry around camera.

Click to expand...

I agree, but my point is that such people have just as much reason to want more details in their shots as the people who print.

Member said:

And even if you want to print big, you'd get more benefit from this having raw, thus you can bypass the noise reduction, and achieve better results. That would count a lot more than a few extra megapixels.

Click to expand...

Agreed. raw is a win.

Member said:

Just shoving more pixels onto a sensor and ramping up the smudging isn't a great way to achieve quality bigger prints.

Click to expand...

Yeah - the heavy NR is, I think, primarily for the folks who view at very high PPI. In the past few years, manufacturers have gotten quite good at doing NR in way that might look ghastly at low PPI, but that works well at very high PPI. I think it's a combination of filtering out high frequency chroma noise and trying to preserve edges when doing luminance noise reduction. This is how ISO 400 images from tiny sensors can still produce decent looking 4x6 prints or facebook snaps.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

John Tracy said:

These cameras are side by side multiple other brands on that shelf space. and that 14 MP sticker has to match or exceed the one next to it.

Click to expand...

The Lx-3 says that assumption is wrong..(and S90 and G11) all are good strong sellers.

And they are all 10mp

The days of pixel stuffing are not over, but as time has gone on, it's become clear..it's smoke and mirrors marketing, there is a lot more to IQ than just resolution alone.

True, but the LX3, S90, and G11 are models generally sought out by a more discriminating user and not usually found in a Wal Mart display.
These ZS1/3/5/7/10 models are very good but still in a P&S class .

Barry Fitzgerald said:

John Tracy said:

These cameras are side by side multiple other brands on that shelf space. and that 14 MP sticker has to match or exceed the one next to it.

Click to expand...

The Lx-3 says that assumption is wrong..(and S90 and G11) all are good strong sellers.

And they are all 10mp

The days of pixel stuffing are not over, but as time has gone on, it's become clear..it's smoke and mirrors marketing, there is a lot more to IQ than just resolution alone.

Click to expand...

--
LX3 does the job these days.

i dont think its so bad, later this week i will make some prints.

i think in prints all will be fine.









--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

I doubt that the intention of putting in a 14MP sensor was to make decent prints.
The images look bad compared to its predecessor and the competition.
Maybe they were from a beta model?

GeorgeZ said:

I doubt that the intention of putting in a 14MP sensor was to make decent prints.
The images look bad compared to its predecessor and the competition.
Maybe they were from a beta model?

Click to expand...

printing will say more... then LCD Screens

can you name competition plus provide some examples from these camera's ?

--
All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marti58/

Other samples:
http://panasonic.jp/dc/gallery/tz10.html

Bellefield said:

I think the images are very good, not sure why people are putting them down, it is afterall a compact camera, and yes I have the TZ7
--

'Every portrait that is painted with feeling, is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.' Oscar Wilde

Click to expand...

I'm glad that at least one other person has a more positive impression of these images. They are, as you say, from a small digicam, and an ultrazoom at that. These are also huge images at 100%, and apparently without any tweaking in PP. I used to have a TZ5 (which I sold to a friend, who loves it), and these images seem to me to be as good or better. The camera also has some useful features (ability to adjust sharpening and NR being potentially the most important) that make it desirable. I might buy one as a take-everywhere camera. (I have a GF1 and a Canon 5D). The Sony HX5 will be its main competitor, but the TZ series has an enviable track record.

Bob

There is something wrong with TZ10 samples from panasonic website.

Comparing a similar shot from panasonic TS2 (folded optics, same sensor) this one results much better...
Both 80 iso, same enlargment, TZ10 on the left, TS2 on the right.



Panny should give us more TZ10 samples ! ...or sony h5x pre-orders will rise up

Almost any newer, smaller-sensored digital camera should make decent to quite good pics in bright-light conditions at base ISO. It's what they do in low light and higher ISOs, i.e. 400 and above, that makes the difference.