Suggestions for new camera zs200??

Sufi_sailor said:

I would prefer a camera good for portraits, landscapes, moderate zoom if possible, low light photography, Time lapse.

Click to expand...

Have you looked at the Canon G1 X III, the Panasonic LX100, and the Leica D-Lux Typ 109? They seem to meet those requirements.

Sufi_sailor said:

My budget is flexible 1000usd. I've shortlisted to zs 200, but I guess its not very for portraits and low light photography. Any other alternates ?? I would really appreciate your help.

Click to expand...

Well, a ZS200 (with a 1" sensor) is not going to be as good at low-light as what you were used to. Someone did some tests of compacts to see if they were capable of taking pictures of the Milky Way, and a 1" sensor was good enough for that. (He didn't test the ZS200, because the test was done several years before it was released.)

Portraiture is a more complicated question, because it involves more than just a large sensor.

But if you're going for a 1" sensor or above, I believe the ZS200 has the most zoom.

Sufi_sailor said:

Hi guys ... please suggests camera. I travel a lot therefore require light and easy to carry around camera. I like Panasonic zs200.

I would prefer a camera good for portraits, landscapes, moderate zoom if possible, low light photography, Time lapse. I have used sony a6000 in past with a fixed 50mm lens , telephoto lens. But I do not like the idea of changing lens all times specially in cold weather. So I'm looking for a camera which can give me better quality then my phone camera (currently using s7 edge).

My budget is flexible 1000usd. I've shortlisted to zs 200, but I guess its not very for portraits and low light photography. Any other alternates ?? I would really appreciate your help.

Click to expand...

ALL cameras are compromises. There are better individual cameras for each of your listed purposes, but the ZS200 seems like the "perfect-compromise".

It is reasonably compact, (for travel).

Portraits are best done between 85-135mm-EFL and it indeed covers that range. It will not have the (narrow/shallow) DOF of a (much larger/heavier) FF camera, but if your serious you could use Alien-Skin ExposureX3/BOKEH to simulate it.

F/3.3 (@ WA) is sufficient for reasonably low-light. (but not so sure about Milky-Way).

Since a small (travel) camera, the "tele" f/stop is best in day-light.

(a faster lens would be much larger)

It has a "Leica" lens so little doubt it will be "sharp" and the 1"-type sensor is sufficient for 24"x36" enlargements on your wall.

It has a "EVF", and probably "zebras" to (ETTR) optimize you exposure for best IQ and lower-noise. And 4K-video.

And its DFD-AF is the FASTEST in its class, (faster than dSLR's in many situations).

So a "perfect" compromise -- for travel.

I own a zs100 and it is a very capable camera. For travel without carryng a heavy one is OK, People talk obout Sony counterpart that is a litlle better but the Price is higher.

EVF is not very usefull because is very small.

For me is a good option.




Juan II de Castilla, Cartuja de Miraflores, Burgos, Spain

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

tedolf said:

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

Click to expand...

Again ... ALL cameras (and sensors/lenses) are COMPROMISES.

The LX-100 does indeed have a "faster" (f/1.7) lens, (so better for some selected specific situations -- like "indoor" parties), but I consider a tele max of only 75mm-EFL is very limiting for "vacation" images.

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

Click to expand...

Again ... ALL cameras (and sensors/lenses) are COMPROMISES.

The LX-100 does indeed have a "faster" (f/1.7) lens, (so better for some selected specific situations -- like "indoor" parties), but I consider a tele max of only 75mm-EFL is very limiting for "vacation" images.

Click to expand...

You don't need more than 75mm EFL for vacation photo's. The standard focal length for travel cameras in the film era was 35mm EFL. You need a fast wide lens to be able to take photo's inside churches and cathedrals with available light.

tedollpo[gh

Thank you for your suggestions. I will check them out.

tedolf said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

Click to expand...

Again ... ALL cameras (and sensors/lenses) are COMPROMISES.

The LX-100 does indeed have a "faster" (f/1.7) lens, (so better for some selected specific situations -- like "indoor" parties), but I consider a tele max of only 75mm-EFL is very limiting for "vacation" images.

Click to expand...

You don't need more than 75mm EFL for vacation photo's. The standard focal length for travel cameras in the film era was 35mm EFL. You need a fast wide lens to be able to take photo's inside churches and cathedrals with available light.

tedollpo[gh

Click to expand...

Well I personally dont agree that 75 is long enough. Note that I did think "200mm" was long enough until I used a 800mm and found how incredibly useful it was, and was used for ALL the photos I enlarged from that trip.

He also stipulated "portraits" and I suggest 75mm may only be best for "waist-up" and 100-150mm-EFL can be better for "head"-shot portraits.

I think the ZS-200 also has a newer (better) EVF.

Sufi_sailor said:

Hi guys ... please suggests camera. I travel a lot therefore require light and easy to carry around camera. I like Panasonic zs200.

I would prefer a camera good for portraits, landscapes, moderate zoom if possible, low light photography, Time lapse. I have used sony a6000 in past with a fixed 50mm lens , telephoto lens. But I do not like the idea of changing lens all times specially in cold weather. So I'm looking for a camera which can give me better quality then my phone camera (currently using s7 edge).

My budget is flexible 1000usd. I've shortlisted to zs 200, but I guess its not very for portraits and low light photography. Any other alternates ?? I would really appreciate your help.

Click to expand...

There's a good chance that your S7 edge phone will take equal or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

• The ZS200 has a 1" sensor at 20 MP but the lens max aperture is F/3.3.
• The S7 has a 1/2.5" sensor at 12 MP with a lens max aperture of F/1.7.

The F/1.7 aperture is 1-2/3 stops brighter than the F/3.3 aperture. That means a F/1.7 aperture lets in about 3.6 times more light than a F/3.3 aperture. That coupled with the lower MP of the S7's sensor (12MP compared to 20MP), I'm suspecting that your S7 will take as good or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

As you know, the real advantage of the ZS200 over your S7 Edge is the ZS200's 15x optical zoom. So you could use the ZS200 for general travel pictures during the day (optical zoom very handy). The ZS200's smaller max apertures during the day will not matter and its electronic viewfinder will be helpful in sunlight. During the evening, leave the ZS200 in your room and use your S7 Edge for taking pictures in restaurants and evening walk-abouts.

You could also consider buying a smaller sensor, long optical zoom compact camera for day use. Would be cheaper and the image quality difference during daylight will not be noticeable.

If you buy a ZS200, suggest buying it from a local dealer where it will be easy to return it if you don't think the benefits are worth the extra cost you will be spending. Your S7 Edge has a very good camera in it. If you test the ZS200's low-light images compared to your S7 Edge, please post your evaluation here.

$.02,
Sky

Sufi_sailor said:

Thank you for your suggestions. I will check them out.

Click to expand...

I think only the Panasonic, (and Leica which is actually a Panasonic anyway), has the (faster) DFD-AF.

skyglider said:

Sufi_sailor said:

Hi guys ... please suggests camera. I travel a lot therefore require light and easy to carry around camera. I like Panasonic zs200.

I would prefer a camera good for portraits, landscapes, moderate zoom if possible, low light photography, Time lapse. I have used sony a6000 in past with a fixed 50mm lens , telephoto lens. But I do not like the idea of changing lens all times specially in cold weather. So I'm looking for a camera which can give me better quality then my phone camera (currently using s7 edge).

My budget is flexible 1000usd. I've shortlisted to zs 200, but I guess its not very for portraits and low light photography. Any other alternates ?? I would really appreciate your help.

Click to expand...

There's a good chance that your S7 edge phone will take equal or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

• The ZS200 has a 1" sensor at 20 MP but the lens max aperture is F/3.3.
• The S7 has a 1/2.5" sensor at 12 MP with a lens max aperture of F/1.7.

The F/1.7 aperture is 1-2/3 stops brighter than the F/3.3 aperture. That means a F/1.7 aperture lets in about 3.6 times more light than a F/3.3 aperture. That coupled with the lower MP of the S7's sensor (12MP compared to 20MP), I'm suspecting that your S7 will take as good or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

As you know, the real advantage of the ZS200 over your S7 Edge is the ZS200's 15x optical zoom. So you could use the ZS200 for general travel pictures during the day (optical zoom very handy). The ZS200's smaller max apertures during the day will not matter and its electronic viewfinder will be helpful in sunlight. During the evening, leave the ZS200 in your room and use your S7 Edge for taking pictures in restaurants and evening walk-abouts.

You could also consider buying a smaller sensor, long optical zoom compact camera for day use. Would be cheaper and the image quality difference during daylight will not be noticeable.

If you buy a ZS200, suggest buying it from a local dealer where it will be easy to return it if you don't think the benefits are worth the extra cost you will be spending. Your S7 Edge has a very good camera in it. If you test the ZS200's low-light images compared to your S7 Edge, please post your evaluation here.

$.02,
Sky

Click to expand...

An interesting analysis I cant totally disagree with since cell-phones also have more advanced "processing".

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

Click to expand...

Again ... ALL cameras (and sensors/lenses) are COMPROMISES.

The LX-100 does indeed have a "faster" (f/1.7) lens, (so better for some selected specific situations -- like "indoor" parties), but I consider a tele max of only 75mm-EFL is very limiting for "vacation" images.

Click to expand...

You don't need more than 75mm EFL for vacation photo's. The standard focal length for travel cameras in the film era was 35mm EFL. You need a fast wide lens to be able to take photo's inside churches and cathedrals with available light.

tedollpo[gh

Click to expand...

Well I personally dont agree that 75 is long enough. Note that I did think "200mm" was long enough until I used a 800mm and found how incredibly useful it was, and was used for ALL the photos I enlarged from that trip.

Click to expand...

All of your interior travel photo's were shot at 200mm EFL?

You know, when you say things like this first of all no one believes you and you lose all credibility for anything else you say.

PhotoTeach2 said:

He also stipulated "portraits" and I suggest 75mm may only be best for "waist-up" and 100-150mm-EFL can be better for "head"-shot portraits.

I think the ZS-200 also has a newer (better) EVF.

Click to expand...

Tedolph

skyglider said:

There's a good chance that your S7 edge phone will take equal or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

• The ZS200 has a 1" sensor at 20 MP but the lens max aperture is F/3.3.
• The S7 has a 1/2.5" sensor at 12 MP with a lens max aperture of F/1.7.

The F/1.7 aperture is 1-2/3 stops brighter than the F/3.3 aperture. That means a F/1.7 aperture lets in about 3.6 times more light than a F/3.3 aperture. That coupled with the lower MP of the S7's sensor (12MP compared to 20MP), I'm suspecting that your S7 will take as good or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

Click to expand...

You're mistaken (somewhat), because you're overlooking the difference in ISO/noise between the two sensors. The 1" sensor can set the ISO about 5.8 times higher and still generate the same amount of noise.

Therefore, the 1" sensor could be set at 4 times the ISO (bringing in about 11% more light (4.0/3.6 - 1 = 11%)) while still retaining a large advantage in how much noise is in the photo.

tedolf said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

tedolf said:

Panasonic LX-100.

tEdolph

Click to expand...

Again ... ALL cameras (and sensors/lenses) are COMPROMISES.

The LX-100 does indeed have a "faster" (f/1.7) lens, (so better for some selected specific situations -- like "indoor" parties), but I consider a tele max of only 75mm-EFL is very limiting for "vacation" images.

Click to expand...

You don't need more than 75mm EFL for vacation photo's. The standard focal length for travel cameras in the film era was 35mm EFL. You need a fast wide lens to be able to take photo's inside churches and cathedrals with available light.

tedollpo[gh

Click to expand...

Well I personally dont agree that 75 is long enough. Note that I did think "200mm" was long enough until I used a 800mm and found how incredibly useful it was, and was used for ALL the photos I enlarged from that trip.

Click to expand...

All of your interior travel photo's were shot at 200mm EFL?

You know, when you say things like this first of all no one believes you and you lose all credibility for anything else you say.

Click to expand...

I never said I shot "interior" photos @ 200mm. Since (1959) the longest lens I ever had was 200mm; so I was accustom to "accepting" that (200mm) was "long-enough".

But when (traveling) on an Alaskan cruise I felt that 200mm was NOT going to be long-enough for shooting from the ship. So I got a 1/2.3" super-zoom (Sony HX100 w/ 800mm-EFL), and indeed used the (full) 800mm-EFL very extensively.

I have a wall-mounted 20"x30" of a distant (30 miles) snow-capped mountain with a SAILBOAT in the (blue) water in front of it.

Also shots of a rail-road trestle on the White-Pass railroad taken from about 3 miles away, (and 1000' higher).

Also many of waterfalls taken from a boat about 1-mile away in the "Misty Fjord".

And some Eagles.

NONE of those would have possible w/out the 800mm-EFL.

So NO ... I would never suggest only a 75mm for "travel".

I did get the FZ-200(300) for its 600mm-EFL (@ f/2.8), and have used it for "indoor" sports.

But both of those did have only a 1/2.3', and you know I then switched to the FZ-1000 for its 4X larger sensor. (albeit w/ only 400mm-EFL but it has iZoom to 800mm-EFL -- and even to 3200mm-EFL).

So unless (small) "size" was my ONLY priority, I would never accept a shorter lens.

BUT ... NOTE to OP ... you might want to look at the new Sony RX100-"VI". It only zooms to 200mm-EFL, BUT ... it has a new remarkable "hybrid" sensor with PD-AF and can shoot at an incredible 24fps, (w/ CONTINUAL AF). I don't think would need/use that fast very often, but it is a new paradigm in photography and I suggest it could allow shots not possible before.

It is now the "smallest" camera w/ 1"-type sensor & 200mm-EFL, (and "C"-AF @ 24fps).

tedolf said:

tedolf said:

He also stipulated "portraits" and I suggest 75mm may only be best for "waist-up" and 100-150mm-EFL can be better for "head"-shot portraits.

I think the ZS-200 also has a newer (better) EVF.

Click to expand...

Tedolph

Click to expand...

CheapCameraFan said:

skyglider said:

There's a good chance that your S7 edge phone will take equal or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

• The ZS200 has a 1" sensor at 20 MP but the lens max aperture is F/3.3.
• The S7 has a 1/2.5" sensor at 12 MP with a lens max aperture of F/1.7.

The F/1.7 aperture is 1-2/3 stops brighter than the F/3.3 aperture. That means a F/1.7 aperture lets in about 3.6 times more light than a F/3.3 aperture. That coupled with the lower MP of the S7's sensor (12MP compared to 20MP), I'm suspecting that your S7 will take as good or possibly better low-light pictures than the ZS200.

Click to expand...

You're mistaken (somewhat), because you're overlooking the difference in ISO/noise between the two sensors. The 1" sensor can set the ISO about 5.8 times higher and still generate the same amount of noise.

Therefore, the 1" sensor could be set at 4 times the ISO (bringing in about 11% more light (4.0/3.6 - 1 = 11%)) while still retaining a large advantage in how much noise is in the photo.

Click to expand...

I hope someone with a Samsung S7 or later phone and a Panasonic camera with a 1" sensor can do a low-light comparison test.

I've seen several posts where folks asked why their cell phone took better indoor pictures than their large sensor camera. As Phototeach2 mentioned, may be partially due to advanced processing built into (modern) cell phones.

Sky

skyglider said:

I've seen several posts where folks asked why their cell phone took better indoor pictures than their large sensor camera. As Phototeach2 mentioned, may be partially due to advanced processing built into (modern) cell phones.

Click to expand...

The advanced processing in smartphone cameras is extremely good. The processing is good enough that a person has to develop a certain amount of competence for their P/A/S/M mode photos to equal their smartphone photos (regardless of the lighting conditions), much less be better than them.

For features that require in-camera processing (in-camera HDR, in-camera panoramas), I'll pull out the smartphone. In repeated side-by-side tests, it's performed better on those tasks.

Old days are not a refernece. In those times we used what we have, not very much options.

For me too 70 mm. is short. To shoot indoor details I need a larger zoom.





This is shoot about 150 mm. equivalent