tkpatric
Veteran Member
Almost not to believe how much better the RX100 VI is vs the Tz100/200! As a result I will not buy the Pana (iq) and not the Sony (price). Bugger.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Panasonic vs Sony
- Thread starter tkpatric
- Start date
snappyden
Veteran Member
tkpatric
Veteran Member
Jerry045
Veteran Member
One way to reduce the pain of Sony's pricing is to watch for open box units, and as time goes on, there will be refurbished and used units available.
There are a number of folks who rush to buy a new camera then decide it was not for them for whatever reason and then return it. A number of dealers will discount such units and still offer a warranty, so if it is not right you have recourse.
There are a number of folks who rush to buy a new camera then decide it was not for them for whatever reason and then return it. A number of dealers will discount such units and still offer a warranty, so if it is not right you have recourse.
I personally use greater than 100mm a lot when traveling. Here's an analysis of the last vacation we took to the Great Northwest. The camera used was my Panasonic FZ1000, but it is the camera that I would be leaving behind in favor of a travel camera.
This shows that if anything, I could use more max zoom rather than less, as fully 1/4 of my pictures were at the full zoom limit of 400mm. Approximately half were over 100mm per your example. I guess some people can only see what's right in front of them. ;-)
The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
Anyway, I bought a ZS200 and from the little I've played with it, it seems that it suits me just fine. FWIW, I got it used - like new - from B&H for $600. I certainly can't see paying double that for a Sony with half the max zoom range.
snappyden
Veteran Member
I personally use greater than 100mm a lot when traveling. Here's an analysis of the last vacation we took to the Great Northwest. The camera used was my Panasonic FZ1000, but it is the camera that I would be leaving behind in favor of a travel camera.
This shows that if anything, I could use more max zoom rather than less, as fully 1/4 of my pictures were at the full zoom limit of 400mm. Approximately half were over 100mm per your example. I guess some people can only see what's right in front of them. ;-)
The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
Anyway, I bought a ZS200 and from the little I've played with it, it seems that it suits me just fine. FWIW, I got it used - like new - from B&H for $600. I certainly can't see paying double that for a Sony with half the max zoom range.
Tom,
Based on your analysis, you certainly need a camera with decent zoom capabilities, and you have one, or two actually now. And that's just the kind of analysis that folks should do before they spend $1200 on a camera that does nothing much better, and some things (low light) actually worse than their older RX100 camera does.
That was my point.
Den
So how do you get pretty graphs like that?I personally use greater than 100mm a lot when traveling. Here's an analysis of the last vacation we took to the Great Northwest. The camera used was my Panasonic FZ1000, but it is the camera that I would be leaving behind in favor of a travel camera.
This shows that if anything, I could use more max zoom rather than less, as fully 1/4 of my pictures were at the full zoom limit of 400mm. Approximately half were over 100mm per your example. I guess some people can only see what's right in front of them. ;-)
The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
Anyway, I bought a ZS200 and from the little I've played with it, it seems that it suits me just fine. FWIW, I got it used - like new - from B&H for $600. I certainly can't see paying double that for a Sony with half the max zoom range.
The freeware program I used is called Exposure Plot.So how do you get pretty graphs like that?I personally use greater than 100mm a lot when traveling. Here's an analysis of the last vacation we took to the Great Northwest. The camera used was my Panasonic FZ1000, but it is the camera that I would be leaving behind in favor of a travel camera.
This shows that if anything, I could use more max zoom rather than less, as fully 1/4 of my pictures were at the full zoom limit of 400mm. Approximately half were over 100mm per your example. I guess some people can only see what's right in front of them. ;-)
The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
Anyway, I bought a ZS200 and from the little I've played with it, it seems that it suits me just fine. FWIW, I got it used - like new - from B&H for $600. I certainly can't see paying double that for a Sony with half the max zoom range.
https://www.vandel.nl/exposureplot.html
I'm sure there are any number of other programs that will plot EXIF data for you.
Last edited:
saudidave
Veteran Member
tkpatric
Veteran Member
Not to mention the vulnerability off those little cameras! The problems with dust! Our nagging wife!
telefunk
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,652
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,619
Yes, it is staggering. Maybe he QC is better at Sony? I would rather be using theTZ100 :-(
ChrisLumix
Veteran Member
You never ever shoot indoors then, I assume? I have many many times with the LX100, and hardly ever needed to use flash. 1/15 second, f1.7, 1600 ISO - more than acceptable results.The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
You never ever shoot indoors then, I assume? I have many many times with the LX100, and hardly ever needed to use flash. 1/15 second, f1.7, 1600 ISO - more than acceptable results.The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
ChrisLumix
Veteran Member
You never ever shoot indoors then, I assume? I have many many times with the LX100, and hardly ever needed to use flash. 1/15 second, f1.7, 1600 ISO - more than acceptable results.The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
telefunk
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,652
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,619
Not that this in any way relevant to your current discussion, but my LX5 only got sharp @ f4Not to disrespect the LX7 (a very capable camera, which I was about to buy just before the LX100 came out), but you'd be pushing it to get acceptable results at 1600 - the sensor is much smaller.And with the LX7, that would be f/1.4, 1/30 second, ISO 1600. Low light capacity is why I bought the LX5, and the LX7 after it.You never ever shoot indoors then, I assume? I have many many times with the LX100, and hardly ever needed to use flash. 1/15 second, f1.7, 1600 ISO - more than acceptable results.The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
--
Panas0n!c Lum!x LX100, TZ60
Also (and sorry if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs! I'm sure you know this already...) f1.4 is only half a stop faster than f1.7, not a full stop
Jon_T
Veteran Member
Mostly because you do not take indoor and/ or evening pics where flash is prohibited.... The startling stat is that 71% of my pictures were at ISO125. Can't understand why everyone is crying for low light capability. Maybe I can't see anything that's not bright as day?
I do quite a bit of indoor shooting at exhibits/ shows that flash and tripod/ monopod use are not allowed.
All the classic auto pics in my FZ1000_RRPL gallery were taken at FZ1000 WA max apertures, shutter speeds 1/15 - 1/40 with 1600 ISO.
Ditto with pic taken at a Titanic Exhibit taken with the ZS100.
A couple other indoor exhibits where I knew lighting conditions would be low so I took my DSLR's.
1/25, f/4, 6400 ISO
1/13, f/4, 6400 ISO: Car body made with 3-D Printer
Also take pics for various indoor church events/ productions that lighting is generally quite low.
1/80, f/4, 12800 ISO
Cheers,
Jon
Last edited:
Jon_T
Veteran Member
Overall I'm quite happy with the images I get with ZS100.
At normal viewing size/ distance (display or print) doubt there be a noticeable difference between ZS100 and RX100 VI images.
Cheers,
Jon
At normal viewing size/ distance (display or print) doubt there be a noticeable difference between ZS100 and RX100 VI images.
Cheers,
Jon
Last edited:
The only thing I can say about the LX7 is that it came out in 2012 -- six years ago. That the LX100 has a four-thirds sensor.
Yes, the f/1.7 of the LX100 is only a half stop from the f/1.4 or the LX7. Since I shoot in RAW, I always underexpose.
I have been tempted by the LX100, but the LX7 seems to be going strong and the LX100 costs a lot, now.
Yes, the f/1.7 of the LX100 is only a half stop from the f/1.4 or the LX7. Since I shoot in RAW, I always underexpose.
I have been tempted by the LX100, but the LX7 seems to be going strong and the LX100 costs a lot, now.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum