What they said about the TZ200 camera
Whichever is better
Tz100 or tz200???
Comments from experienced people
First class review, as always. I also bought the ZS100 shortly after that review was produced and have been very happy with the camera, to the extent that my Sony Nex6 has gathered a lot of dust. The compact size makes the ZS100 just too convenient and the differences in capabilities are insignificant for most of my uses
Just buy ZS200 replace my G9X two weeks ago. The first impression is weight... It almost 2x heavy hen G9X. However ZS200 is good travel camera, 15X zoom is useful. Low light performance is not so good, but not that bad like RX0.
Never thought I'd say this, but I think the weak video features are killing this camera for me. The sensor crop is bad, even in 1080, bit rate options are kind of meh, and 120fps video doesn't cut it for my slomo needs. If only Sony would try their hand at a compact, superzoom. Maybe the zs300 will do it all. Oh well.
The crux of the question is coverage: What all can you shoot? You get a really nice 800 ISO, and a very long zoom in a compact form factor. The trade-off is loss of decent aperture, so you end up with an outdoor camera, which befits the Travel Zoom category. No such thing as a be-all end-all right? You end up with the same need: two cameras, the other one trades the zoom out in order to get nice apertures. It always costs a good chunk of change. As a "B" camera I need the apertures for indoor light and otherwise I am very happy with the next strap. So, "No". This camera only works as an "A"-ish camera in the significant upgrade away from the phone segment. Though it really is a be-all pretender, not bad at all, the ZS200 does not help me achieve coverage.
I have the ZS 100 and love it. I have used it for travel and family events. I don't believe I would upgrade to the ZS 200 for the extended zoom. I also love it for selfies it takes a bit of practice and trial and error for centering but once learned I have some very nice results. I really appreciate the smaller high quality formats for travel.
I've wanted a Panasonic compact for some time - for when I'm out with my family or travelling and don't want to take my mirrorless kit. These cameras really pack in a lot of features - almost all the clever 4K video, 4K photo, features from the expensive M43 cameras are in there (see this Canon? That's how you don't artificially segment your products) but in a smaller package. So I bought a TZ100. I'm not a pixel peeper - but the IQ was so obviously utter garbage on the rear LCD - even without looking on my PC screen. Anywhere but the dead centre of the image was a smeary mess. The quality of these lenses - or what they are being asked to do - is not in keeping with the rest of the camera. Seriously, it wasn't just low resolution towards the corners, it was a smeared ugly mess. My Canon Powershot S120 - which I was hoping to replace - was more detailed across the frame. Jump forward to recently when I was looking at the TZ90. Now this isn't a 1" sensor. But I thought that maybe it would use more of the centre of the lens. It offered all the features of the TZ100 so I gave it a go. Same again. Such a terrible lens and again the images weren't more details than my S120. They were smeary and blurred once one got a third of the way to the image edges. I suspect the TZ200 is exactly the same. Why does Panasonic do this? I really wish the company offered this body with a shorter range higher quality lens. It seems mad to pack in all these features, a great sensor, then put the worst lens I have ever used in front of it. Like I said. I'd love to own one of these cameras, but the poor IQ has to be seen to be believed. That my aging S120 has them beat shows Panasonic really is not doing a great job with these lenses.
|Post (hide subjects)||Posted by||When|
|4 months ago||2|
|4 months ago||4|
|4 months ago|
|4 months ago|
|4 months ago||5|
|4 months ago||1|