Any hope for a new real SUPERzoom compact (TZ/ZS series)

saudidave said:

I get the jocular angle and I agree, however from what I've seen so far in the way of comparison shots, the pocketability might be the only significant real world difference

Click to expand...

Indeed, that was sort of my point. I certainly haven't studied either in any great detail, but I've seen nice work from both and to my casual observation, my passing thought was that it would be the form factor that would be the deciding factor. I personally quite like the stability provided by the heft and shape of a larger camera (and a proper eyer cup to rest against your eye socket/brow), but pocketability on other occasions is more appropriate. In fact, they'd probably make a nice companion pair - with similar performance in a different package for different complementary purposes (like the TZ70 and FZ330 that I currently have).

My tittering did prompt my husband to ask what I was reading. I said that I had sensor envy and wanted a 1" sensor. He asked if that would prevent me saying so many daft things. "Sensor, not censor"

I'll get my coat. :-D

First, I'm not the camera expert so many others here are. I still love scene modes but I have begun shooting in A mode with the settings I believe SaudiDave provided on a post some time back. I have the ZS70 and the ZS100. They aren't as small as my old TZ5 and 19 but they are pocketable cameras. The ZS100 provides me with sharp, clear photos. They probably wouldn't blow up to a huge picture for a wall but they're fine for me. The 100 is better in low light than the 70 so I rarely take the 70 anywhere and rely on the 100 most of the time. I can crop quite well with the 100 to get the zoom I'd like. If I'm going somewhere that I really want zoom I have a Nikon B700 that has 60x and it's lighter and smaller than most of the mega zoom cameras but it's not a pocketable camera by any stretch. I love the touch screen of the zs100 I just wish it was environmentally sealed. I'm going to Israel and Egypt next year and am looking at purchasing a FZ300 just because it is sealed. But with that said, I hate carrying extra weight so I may just take my 100 and try my best to keep it in my little sandwich bag in a sealed case and hope for the best.

Who knows, maybe panasonic reads these boards and will see the 'want' for a pocket zoom camera.

Boo said:

saudidave said:

I get the jocular angle and I agree, however from what I've seen so far in the way of comparison shots, the pocketability might be the only significant real world difference

Click to expand...

Indeed, that was sort of my point. I certainly haven't studied either in any great detail, but I've seen nice work from both and to my casual observation, my passing thought was that it would be the form factor that would be the deciding factor. I personally quite like the stability provided by the heft and shape of a larger camera (and a proper eyer cup to rest against your eye socket/brow), but pocketability on other occasions is more appropriate. In fact, they'd probably make a nice companion pair - with similar performance in a different package for different complementary purposes (like the TZ70 and FZ330 that I currently have).

My tittering did prompt my husband to ask what I was reading. I said that I had sensor envy and wanted a 1" sensor. He asked if that would prevent me saying so many daft things. "Sensor, not censor"

I'll get my coat. :-D

Click to expand...

I have a plan to try and arrange a shoot out twixt TZ200 & FZ2500. We shall see.

My current combination is the TZ200 & G80/85 wi 12-60 kit & 14-140MkII so that covers most bases with decent quality. I could spend and could afford, shed loads on a FF KIt with a couple of lenses but the cost and the weight would, for me be a massively diminished return. I don't want the mass to haul around either.

In reality, for my purposes I don't think I'd miss either too much if I had one or the other and I upgraded my phone to the latest iphone XR with dual cameras, since the phone gets used more and more extensively as each generation progresses.

Before anyone slates me and claims I'm not really a photographer if I use a phone, the output from my iphone 8 looks great on my 12.9" ipad pro!

Dave

Texas hobbyist said:

First, I'm not the camera expert so many others here are. I still love scene modes but I have begun shooting in A mode with the settings I believe SaudiDave provided on a post some time back. I have the ZS70 and the ZS100. They aren't as small as my old TZ5 and 19 but they are pocketable cameras. The ZS100 provides me with sharp, clear photos. They probably wouldn't blow up to a huge picture for a wall but they're fine for me. The 100 is better in low light than the 70 so I rarely take the 70 anywhere and rely on the 100 most of the time. I can crop quite well with the 100 to get the zoom I'd like. If I'm going somewhere that I really want zoom I have a Nikon B700 that has 60x and it's lighter and smaller than most of the mega zoom cameras but it's not a pocketable camera by any stretch. I love the touch screen of the zs100 I just wish it was environmentally sealed. I'm going to Israel and Egypt next year and am looking at purchasing a FZ300 just because it is sealed. But with that said, I hate carrying extra weight so I may just take my 100 and try my best to keep it in my little sandwich bag in a sealed case and hope for the best.

Who knows, maybe panasonic reads these boards and will see the 'want' for a pocket zoom camera.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I doubt if Panasonic will produce a follow up to the ZS70 as the focus now is on 1" sensors.

That said the ZS70 has an evf, a 180 degree flippable touchscreen LCD, 4k and 30x zoom. For the audience it's aimed at perhaps there isn't much, if anything, missing from its repertoire?

Dave

I'm prepared to bet that if you crop a TZ200 picture down to a third of its size (to equal zooming in), you'd still have better IQ than the TZ90 at full zoom. Especially considering that Panasonic optics are worst at full zoom anyway.

ChrisLumix said:

I'm prepared to bet that if you crop a TZ200 picture down to a third of its size (to equal zooming in), you'd still have better IQ than the TZ90 at full zoom. Especially considering that Panasonic optics are worst at full zoom anyway.

Click to expand...

Would there also potentially be an aperture/shutter speed advantage - I'm not familiar enough with the models to know without looking it up/working it out?

I have found that whilst my FZ330 at 600mm is shorter than my TZ70 at 720mm, the advantage of the FZs constant f2.8 aperture is truly significant. I'm happy to swap the 120mm of reach for the 2+ stops of shutter speed I gain instead.

Panasonic came from virtually no place in 2001 to become a major maker of compact cameras by 2007. Panasonic virtually invented the Superzoom and Travel Zoom category, and pioneered in offering wider zoom lenses on fixed lens cameras.

They were right up there with Canon and Sony during the era when compact fixed lens cameras enjoyed their largest market share.

Unfortunately, that entire market has collapsed for everyone, not just for Panasonic. Most people blame the smartphone for that, but I have never seen a smartphone with a 30X optical zoom, so there must be something else involved too.

Today, the only P&S cameras being made are rugged, superzoom or ones with large sensors. And even the first two are down quite a bit from their peak.

Marty4650 said:

Panasonic came from virtually no place in 2001 to become a major maker of compact cameras by 2007. Panasonic virtually invented the Superzoom and Travel Zoom category, and pioneered in offering wider zoom lenses on fixed lens cameras.

They were right up there with Canon and Sony during the era when compact fixed lens cameras enjoyed their largest market share.

Unfortunately, that entire market has collapsed for everyone, not just for Panasonic. Most people blame the smartphone for that, but I have never seen a smartphone with a 30X optical zoom, so there must be something else involved too.

Today, the only P&S cameras being made are rugged, superzoom or ones with large sensors. And even the first two are down quite a bit from their peak.

Click to expand...

Marty

I suspect the collapse of the compact camera market was market saturation as well as the smartphone. The average Joe isn't really bothered about a 30x zoom for starters and phones are pretty damn good now as well. In addition lots of folks get their phone on a 2 or 3 year contract and so they are always up to date.

Finally if you look around you in a tourist place and observe the average Joe's not using a smartphone camera, the ones with a real camera have one several years old. They don't need a touch screen or 4K and when their 8 year old digital camera fails they either don't bother replacing it and use their phone or just buy £/$50's worth of cheap junk that will record an image.

It's only us enthusiasts who waste a lot of money regularly upgrading for features we never use

Dave

There you go - aperture is important. So are the multiple other controls which actual cameras have, but only the $1200 apple smart phones have. RAW is also important, despite claims that experienced photographers don't need RAW (never heard that one before).

But computational photography - that is going to be a great game changer, for all cameras makers. Those who don't, or can't get on the computational band wagon will wither away.

bill hansen said:

There you go - aperture is important. So are the multiple other controls which actual cameras have, but only the $1200 apple smart phones have. RAW is also important, despite claims that experienced photographers don't need RAW (never heard that one before).

But computational photography - that is going to be a great game changer, for all cameras makers. Those who don't, or can't get on the computational band wagon will wither away.

Click to expand...

Bill

As ANYV has stated in this very thread, raw is optional, not essential. You can choose to have it but you don't need it to produce a fantastic image, if you know what you are doing with a camera.

Dave

saudidave said:

Marty

I suspect the collapse of the compact camera market was market saturation as well as the smartphone. The average Joe isn't really bothered about a 30x zoom for starters and phones are pretty damn good now as well. In addition lots of folks get their phone on a 2 or 3 year contract and so they are always up to date.

Finally if you look around you in a tourist place and observe the average Joe's not using a smartphone camera, the ones with a real camera have one several years old. They don't need a touch screen or 4K and when their 8 year old digital camera fails they either don't bother replacing it and use their phone or just buy £/$50's worth of cheap junk that will record an image.

It's only us enthusiasts who waste a lot of money regularly upgrading for features we never use

Click to expand...

Dave, you make a lot of sense.

Market saturation is a huge factor. So is product maturity. By 2012, the average shooter was getting everything he wanted from his camera in terms of image quality for their needs.

What came after 2012 was "more features" (things like touch screens, 4K video, WIFI, tilt screens, etc) that were nice to have.... but not really necessary. So the ordinary users stayed with their older cameras, while the gearheads kept upgrading.

We gearheads might be important here on this website, but we really aren't a big part of the overall camera market. Being "a little bit better than last year's model" just isn't enough to motivate the mass market. Even if it is enough to motivate the committed gearhead.

Incidentally, the SAME thing is happening to smartphones. I read an article recently that said global smartphone shipments are down for the last four consecutive quarters over the same periods last year. And the smartphone makers are doing exactly what the camera makers have done. They are trying to offset lower volumes with higher prices.

I agree that in some situations, RAW is not necessary. But I disagree if someone says that with experience, JPEG is all one needs.

As an amateur photographer, I'll bet I have as much experience as most of the people here, and more experience than many. Like many others, I started off using film, in my case more than 50 years ago (a lot more than 50 years, actually). I developed and printed my own film images. I've been using digital photography almost since the first digital cameras were available, and for all of that time, I've been printing my own digital images. I've shown in juried photo exhibits (no, never won any prizes there).

I can't ignore the fact that JPEG throws away about 75% of the original image data. When the chips are down - poor lighting, need for max zoom, higher ISOs, need for larger print sizes - RAW allows a lot more flexibility, and is capable of yielding better results when files are properly processed.

RAW also avoids the really intrusive JPEG artifacts, which are often seen on this and other DPR forums mislabeled as "noise".

So - I agree with people when they say that excellent images can start out as JPEGs. I've seen many such images on this forum. But I have to disagree with anyone who claims that there's no advantage to shooting RAW. Can we agree to disagree?

--
Bill Hansen
Ithaca NY, USA

bill hansen said:

I agree that in some situations, RAW is not necessary. But I disagree if someone says that with experience, JPEG is all one needs.

As an amateur photographer, I'll bet I have as much experience as most of the people here, and more experience than many. Like many others, I started off using film, in my case more than 50 years ago (a lot more than 50 years, actually). I developed and printed my own film images. I've been using digital photography almost since the first digital cameras were available, and for all of that time, I've been printing my own digital images. I've shown in juried photo exhibits (no, never won any prizes there).

I can't ignore the fact that JPEG throws away about 75% of the original image data. When the chips are down - poor lighting, need for max zoom, higher ISOs, need for larger print sizes - RAW allows a lot more flexibility, and is capable of yielding better results when files are properly processed.

RAW also avoids the really intrusive JPEG artifacts, which are often seen on this and other DPR forums mislabeled as "noise".

So - I agree with people when they say that excellent images can start out as JPEGs. I've seen many such images on this forum. But I have to disagree with anyone who claims that there's no advantage to shooting RAW. Can we agree to disagree?

Click to expand...

Bill

You misunderstand me - I agree with you!

There is an advantage in shooting RAW, which is why I save Raw+jpeg, just in case I ever get the time in my busy schedule to PP, or I get that killer shot that may justify better treament. I have Affinity photo for that very reason.

What I am saying is that in skilled hands, jpegs can produce fabulous images and that RAW is optional, not necessary.

This subject came about in this thread as a result of an earlier post in it from a disgusting bigot who was mocking me (Laughing on line) because he incorrectly claimed I didn't shoot RAW and due to that I knew nothing about photography, which is utterly ridiculous and quite frankly downright stupid and insulting to boot. I too have been a photographer for well over 50 years, have done numerous courses, been a member of numerous photo clubs and I shot exclusively RAW for almost a decade when I used DSLR's.

The individual concerned can be identified quite clearly by his constant "shouting" in posts via his repeated use of upper case and bold text which is both very bad etiquette and a dead giveaway to the nature of his personality. I doubt if he would have the nerve to start gobbing it off in a downtown bar or pub, so why do it here?

Dave

saudidave said:

Papa48 said:

saudidave said:

bill hansen said:

I think it's just barely possible that there will be an equivalent to the FZ1000/2500, bringing the zoom out to 600mm - but we'd have to be very careful about the quality of the new lens. It's pretty hard to beat the FZ1000 for IQ, and it seems that lots of people have been disappointed with the sharpness of their 2500s.

The FZ 300 already goes out to 360mm, which is pretty nice, and people who have a good copy are getting excellent images. The constant f2.8 lens is a big help there.

I doubt very much that there will be anything like a longer zoom in an TZ200, which goes out to 250mm. It seems that there are people who are getting excellent results with the TZ200, but the DPR review is discouraging, and some users report less than ideal results. Maybe Panasonic is having some quality control problems which they need to work on before introducing a new and innovative camera.

Of course, if you want superzoom, you'll have to consider the Nikon P900 or P1000.

Click to expand...

Bill

The OP was looking for a TZ/ZS, not an FZ, but yes 360mm out of a 1" sensor is at it's limits for now, until computational photography ups its game in cameras and that won't be too long I suspect.

The TZ200 goes from 24mm x15 = 360mm, not 250mm. It's predecessor, the TZ100 went 25-250mm.

The DPR review of the TZ200 is, quite frankly B.S., nothing less.

It's a great camera as my many posts of images from it will verify. Apparently it has a "soft" lens but there isn't a lot wrong with mine or many of the other Panasonics I've had in recent years. I did have a duff TZ70 (ish), off the refurb shop in the UK a couple if years back, but it was refunded instantly when I returned it, so fair do's Panasonic UK.

Marketing is more cunning than most naive and gullible, pixel peeping individuals lurking on this forum realise and it is a finely tuned art. There is a lot more mileage and marketing bang for the buck generated by a relatively small sum of money placed in greasy palms to enable a bad review of an enthusiast camera on an enthusiast website, than a zillion prime time TV adverts at a cost of millions of pounds. Anyone who doesn't realise that is as thick as a brick.

Dave

Click to expand...

It's pretty universally known that the ZS/TZ100 and 200 have soft lenses. Mine did. My ZS100 was also a dust vacuum. Had a dirty sensor in a few months. Black spots on brightly lit landscapes (small apertures) are no party, for almost a $600 camera with a few thousand files on the counter. A shame. I really liked its 4k features. I took really good care of it, keeping in a zipped case and wiped clean. No more of these for me. Over and out.

Click to expand...

It appears to be universally alleged that the ZS/TZ100 & 200 have soft lenses but Isn't it odd that I keep getting good, sharp copies?

Click to expand...

I am finding the term soft lens has become virtually meaningless on these forums as it a measure stated constantly without any controls or boundaries or measurable precision or comparison to value or equipment size.

saudidave said:

I've posted many examples from them. The soft lens issue is totally exaggerated out of all proportion to the reality. If you keep getting soft images then you are more likely to be at fault than the equipment.

Please refer to my post where I commented on downloading the comparison shots from the alleged soft TZ200 & the alleged sharp RX100Mk6. There was virtually no difference. The sony was a smidgin sharper but then that is to be expected; The TZ200 is 2/3rds the price and has twice the optical zoom range. Not rocket science is it?

Dave

Click to expand...

Marty4650 said:

Panasonic came from virtually no place in 2001 to become a major maker of compact cameras by 2007. Panasonic virtually invented the Superzoom and Travel Zoom category, and pioneered in offering wider zoom lenses on fixed lens cameras.

They were right up there with Canon and Sony during the era when compact fixed lens cameras enjoyed their largest market share.

Unfortunately, that entire market has collapsed for everyone, not just for Panasonic. Most people blame the smartphone for that, but I have never seen a smartphone with a 30X optical zoom, so there must be something else involved too.

Today, the only P&S cameras being made are rugged, superzoom or ones with large sensors. And even the first two are down quite a bit from their peak.

Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question! I believe that smartphones HAVE killed the compact market, which is why the only segments that survive are those which the smartphone can't (yet) do; i.e. superzoom and large sensor cameras.

But this is nothing new. Most people just want to take snaps, while it's a minority who are serious amateurs. Smartphones have tiny sensors, while snappers of the 1970s & 1980s were served with tiny film, i.e. the 110 size found in Instamatics. In the early days of digital, there were no smartphones so the compact camera market grew and grew. Now it's died, and market saturation is not the main cause (if it was, then that would apply to serious amateurs too, and there would be no 6th series of the Sony RX100).

ChrisLumix said:

Marty4650 said:

Panasonic came from virtually no place in 2001 to become a major maker of compact cameras by 2007. Panasonic virtually invented the Superzoom and Travel Zoom category, and pioneered in offering wider zoom lenses on fixed lens cameras.

They were right up there with Canon and Sony during the era when compact fixed lens cameras enjoyed their largest market share.

Unfortunately, that entire market has collapsed for everyone, not just for Panasonic. Most people blame the smartphone for that, but I have never seen a smartphone with a 30X optical zoom, so there must be something else involved too.

Today, the only P&S cameras being made are rugged, superzoom or ones with large sensors. And even the first two are down quite a bit from their peak.

Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question! I believe that smartphones HAVE killed the compact market, which is why the only segments that survive are those which the smartphone can't (yet) do; i.e. superzoom and large sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

If smartphones have killed the markets no segments would survive.

The market cannot be dead and alive at the same time.

It is running pretty much level at the moment ILC and compact and these dramatic entire market gone statements whilst there is obviously is still a market and everything is dead while things are still alive seem rather premature and confused.

It all depends if multiple lens cameras rule the roost in the future and are affordable with full aperture control and if purely screen control of photographic parameters is good for everybody and I have difficulty seeing that.

Cameras seem in good supply at the moment with a good choice and talking about smartphones is a very dull business and if they offer full automated excellence there is not much to discuss really. Humans will just have been automated out of yet another field of interest by the machine. This is a broad issue anyhow not really specific to any single brand camera forum.

ChrisLumix said:

But this is nothing new. Most people just want to take snaps, while it's a minority who are serious amateurs. Smartphones have tiny sensors, while snappers of the 1970s & 1980s were served with tiny film, i.e. the 110 size found in Instamatics. In the early days of digital, there were no smartphones so the compact camera market grew and grew. Now it's died, and market saturation is not the main cause (if it was, then that would apply to serious amateurs too, and there would be no 6th series of the Sony RX100).

Click to expand...

ChrisLumix said:

I'm prepared to bet that if you crop a TZ200 picture down to a third of its size (to equal zooming in), you'd still have better IQ than the TZ90 at full zoom. Especially considering that Panasonic optics are worst at full zoom anyway.

Click to expand...

Not sure about that.

The lens on ZS60/70 is quite sharp at full telephoto...possibly more that the ZS100/200.



Dpreview comparison studio chart seems to show this.







Full telephoto , low shutter speed ( 1/40th), handheld and ISO 400 on the smaller sensor.

Lens is sharp at 720mm. Shot shouldn't be this sharp, just being handheld at 720mm and ISO 400, IMHO. Detail is already missing from using ISO 400!



Plenty more images, showing plumage detail in feathers...at 720mm.

These lenses are quite sharp at full telephoto.....or am I just getting really good copies of these cameras, lol.

FZ1000 lens surely is better than ZS100/200. and cropping from that camera, would give better results, closer to what you mentioned.



ANAYV

KeepCalm said:

ChrisLumix said:

Marty4650 said:

Unfortunately, that entire market has collapsed for everyone, not just for Panasonic. Most people blame the smartphone for that, but I have never seen a smartphone with a 30X optical zoom, so there must be something else involved too.

Today, the only P&S cameras being made are rugged, superzoom or ones with large sensors. And even the first two are down quite a bit from their peak.

Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question! I believe that smartphones HAVE killed the compact market, which is why the only segments that survive are those which the smartphone can't (yet) do; i.e. superzoom and large sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

If smartphones have killed the markets no segments would survive.

The market cannot be dead and alive at the same time.

It is running pretty much level at the moment ILC and compact and these dramatic entire market gone statements whilst there is obviously is still a market and everything is dead while things are still alive seem rather premature and confused.

It all depends if multiple lens cameras rule the roost in the future and are affordable with full aperture control and if purely screen control of photographic parameters is good for everybody and I have difficulty seeing that.

Cameras seem in good supply at the moment with a good choice and talking about smartphones is a very dull business and if they offer full automated excellence there is not much to discuss really. Humans will just have been automated out of yet another field of interest by the machine. This is a broad issue anyhow not really specific to any single brand camera forum.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your logic? Smartphones have killed the market for compacts which largely do the same thing - i.e. very little zoom, basic automatic exposure with little or no manual control or override, more or less snapshot devices. That was the biggest segment of the compact market pre-smartphone, and that's what has gone. THAT market is about dead.

The market that lives on is for superzoom, enthusiast and ILC cameras which the smartphone doesn't even come close to matching despite the increased quality of their pictures (often due to software advances).

In summary, if you see that there are two compact markets - the basic snapshot and the enthusiast - the former is dead and the latter lives on.

I agree with your point about "automated excellence" and mere snapshotters (which have always comprised by far the largest segment of the camera market) have never been so well served as they are by smartphones. In fact, so good is the modern smartphone that many serious toggers will carry and use one for general purposes.

Yes, there is no substitute for the ILC at present. Will that always be the case? Will smartphone cameras evolve to the point where enthusiast cameras become redundant? Who can say.

Nice full zoom photos indeed.

And yes, prolly TZ1000 and tons of other cameras can give better results in huge zoom + crop + etc... but the main point in this thread is the (ultra)compact body providing those results... FZ1000 being 831g and dimensions 137 x 99 x 131 mm, is totally out of range for the pocketable products searched here. ZS70 with its 322g and 112x67x41 mm is just in the maximum limits, as it is the heaviest of those four different brands I posted in the start of this thread - Sony being 242g, Nikon 289g and Canon 299g.

Diizei said:

Nice full zoom photos indeed.

Click to expand...

Thanks

Diizei said:

And yes, prolly TZ1000 and tons of other cameras can give better results in huge zoom + crop + etc... but the main point in this thread is the (ultra)compact body providing those results... FZ1000 being 831g and dimensions 137 x 99 x 131 mm, is totally out of range for the pocketable products searched here. ZS70 with its 322g and 112x67x41 mm is just in the maximum limits, as it is the heaviest of those four different brands I posted in the start of this thread - Sony being 242g, Nikon 289g and Canon 299g.

Click to expand...

I only mention the FZ1000 to Chris Lumix , because he stated that one could crop from the TZ100/200 (forgot which one) and get similar results from the longer zoom reach of the 1/2.3" sensor ZS/TZ's.

I was fully aware of your question..hint: it's in the title

Mentioning of the FZ1000 was just to point out that , maybe with that good lens, the 1" type sensor could give similar results to the ZS60/70.

But again, I was not referenced to you, but to Chris.

That's why i posted my images. Chris also mentioned the long end of the lens was not sharp.

I disagreed, and showed samples to show why I think it's sharp.

i also think we will see a newer ZS70 with smaller sensor within next few months.

time will tell

ANAYV