Lens sharpness tests, TZ100 and others

People often ask here about the lens sharpness of the TZ100; the responses are usually mixed, from terrible, to excellent. Is this because of sample variation, or different expectations? So I thought some might be interested in some tests I did with my copy.

The tests are primarily against my RX100M6, perhaps the closest (though more expensive) competitor, but I also included my RX10M3 (which is known to have an excellent lens) and a couple of APS-C cameras and lenses. I also included my FZ1000 in one of the tests. The APS-C cameras are included as a sort of 'gold standard', particularly the very sharp 50mm prime lens.

The first test is at 75mm equiv and the second at 200mm equiv. For reasons that will be explained, I also included the TZ100 at 250mm.

These were the test conditions:

• A mode, with the 1" sensor cameras set at f/5, and the APS-C cameras at f/9 (for similar DoF). In both cases, this is just below the point where diffraction starts to affect IQ. Note that the TZ100 does not offer f/5 at longer focal lengths, so the camera used the widest aperture available.
• The lowest available ISO, so noise wasn't an issue
• Tripod mounted, stabilisation turned off, delayed shutter release
• Indirect natural light
• Centre-weighted auto exposure, Zero EV adjustment
• Centre autofocus, aiming at the same target with all cameras
• RAW, so in-camera JPEG settings irrelevant
• Processed using PhotoLab 2 with common settings for all cameras, including centre-weighted exposure, so all shots should have the same overall exposure levels
• A reference grey card was used for correcting WB in post-processing, so the cameras' AWB doesn't matter
• Shots were straightened, cropped to the same area and slightly downsized to the same dimensions for ease of comparison in post-processing

The differences only show up if you view the images full size.

First, the 75mm equiv images:




TZ100




RX100M6






RX10M3






A6500+50mm prime lens



And now the 200mm equiv shots:




TZ100, 200mm equiv (note that the camera does not offer f/5 at this focal length)






RX100M6






FZ1000






RX10M3






A6000+18-200 lens (the nearest equivalent to the TZ100 and FZ1000 lenses). I used what is supposed to be the best of the E-mount APS-C zooms that cover this focal length (there may be sharper full-frame lenses).



As you will see, the TX100 is very poor at 200mm, so I also included it at 250mm equiv, to see if that picked up as much detail as the other cameras did at 200mm equiv:




TZ100, 250mm equiv, cropped and resized in line with the others (f/5 not available).

__

I invite you to decide which cameras produced the most detailed images at each focal length. I warn you that it's not nearly as easy to pick a winner as I expected (it's much easier to pick a loser). Note that the contrast is higher with some shots, and I think this is down to lens quality, as all the images were processed from RAW with identical settings. So you will see more detail (such as wheel spokes), more clearly, in some images that are not necessarily much sharper.

In real life, TZ100 25-27mm , 70-80mm and 180-220mm ;-)

Digital Nigel said:

People often ask here about the lens sharpness of the TZ100; the responses are usually mixed, from terrible, to excellent. Is this because of sample variation, or different expectations? So I thought some might be interested in some tests I did with my copy.

The tests are primarily against my RX100M6, perhaps the closest (though more expensive) competitor, but I also included my RX10M3 (which is known to have an excellent lens) and a couple of APS-C cameras and lenses. I also included my FZ1000 in one of the tests. The APS-C cameras are included as a sort of 'gold standard', particularly the very sharp 50mm prime lens.

The first test is at 75mm equiv and the second at 200mm equiv. For reasons that will be explained, I also included the TZ100 at 250mm.

These were the test conditions:

• A mode, with the 1" sensor cameras set at f/5, and the APS-C cameras at f/9 (for similar DoF). In both cases, this is just below the point where diffraction starts to affect IQ. Note that the TZ100 does not offer f/5 at longer focal lengths, so the camera used the widest aperture available.
• The lowest available ISO, so noise wasn't an issue
• Tripod mounted, stabilisation turned off, delayed shutter release
• Indirect natural light
• Centre-weighted auto exposure, Zero EV adjustment
• Centre autofocus, aiming at the same target with all cameras
• RAW, so in-camera JPEG settings irrelevant
• Processed using PhotoLab 2 with common settings for all cameras, including centre-weighted exposure, so all shots should have the same overall exposure levels
• A reference grey card was used for correcting WB in post-processing, so the cameras' AWB doesn't matter
• Shots were straightened, cropped to the same area and slightly downsized to the same dimensions for ease of comparison in post-processing

The differences only show up if you view the images full size.

First, the 75mm equiv images:

And now the 200mm equiv shots:

As you will see, the TX100 is very poor at 200mm, so I also included it at 250mm equiv, to see if that picked up as much detail as the other cameras did at 200mm equiv:

__

I invite you to decide which cameras produced the most detailed images at each focal length. I warn you that it's not nearly as easy to pick a winner as I expected (it's much easier to pick a loser). Note that the contrast is higher with some shots, and I think this is down to lens quality, as all the images were processed from RAW with identical settings. So you will see more detail (such as wheel spokes), more clearly, in some images that are not necessarily much sharper.

Click to expand...

Thanks Digital, i really wish more people (and review sites) would take the trouble to do this. When I have done it, people with big sensor cameras usually went mad....

Of course you will always get flack for not doing what folks wish. In my case I'm much more interested in 25mm wise angle and jpeg results.

Trully, thanks again, really instructive!

telefunk said:

Digital Nigel said:

People often ask here about the lens sharpness of the TZ100; the responses are usually mixed, from terrible, to excellent. Is this because of sample variation, or different expectations? So I thought some might be interested in some tests I did with my copy.

The tests are primarily against my RX100M6, perhaps the closest (though more expensive) competitor, but I also included my RX10M3 (which is known to have an excellent lens) and a couple of APS-C cameras and lenses. I also included my FZ1000 in one of the tests. The APS-C cameras are included as a sort of 'gold standard', particularly the very sharp 50mm prime lens.

The first test is at 75mm equiv and the second at 200mm equiv. For reasons that will be explained, I also included the TZ100 at 250mm.

These were the test conditions:

• A mode, with the 1" sensor cameras set at f/5, and the APS-C cameras at f/9 (for similar DoF). In both cases, this is just below the point where diffraction starts to affect IQ. Note that the TZ100 does not offer f/5 at longer focal lengths, so the camera used the widest aperture available.
• The lowest available ISO, so noise wasn't an issue
• Tripod mounted, stabilisation turned off, delayed shutter release
• Indirect natural light
• Centre-weighted auto exposure, Zero EV adjustment
• Centre autofocus, aiming at the same target with all cameras
• RAW, so in-camera JPEG settings irrelevant
• Processed using PhotoLab 2 with common settings for all cameras, including centre-weighted exposure, so all shots should have the same overall exposure levels
• A reference grey card was used for correcting WB in post-processing, so the cameras' AWB doesn't matter
• Shots were straightened, cropped to the same area and slightly downsized to the same dimensions for ease of comparison in post-processing

The differences only show up if you view the images full size.

First, the 75mm equiv images:

And now the 200mm equiv shots:

As you will see, the TX100 is very poor at 200mm, so I also included it at 250mm equiv, to see if that picked up as much detail as the other cameras did at 200mm equiv:

__

I invite you to decide which cameras produced the most detailed images at each focal length. I warn you that it's not nearly as easy to pick a winner as I expected (it's much easier to pick a loser). Note that the contrast is higher with some shots, and I think this is down to lens quality, as all the images were processed from RAW with identical settings. So you will see more detail (such as wheel spokes), more clearly, in some images that are not necessarily much sharper.

Click to expand...

Thanks Digital, i really wish more people (and review sites) would take the trouble to do this. When I have done it, people with big sensor cameras usually went mad....

Of course you will always get flack for not doing what folks wish. In my case I'm much more interested in 25mm wise angle and jpeg results.

Trully, thanks again, really instructive!

Click to expand...

Yes, I might do a similar test at 24mm. I have a very sharp 16mm prime lens, so it'll be interesting to see how the compact cameras do against it. They all distort badly at that wide (9mm) focal length, though mainly at the corners, which this test doesn't capture.

I’m surprised at not having seen greater differences.

Papa48 said:

I’m surprised at not having seen greater differences.

Click to expand...

Yes, me too. In particular, I expected to see more difference between the 1" super zoom lenses and the sharp APS-C prime lens.

Of course, at higher ISOs, the 1" sensor images will degrade faster.

I'll have to confess, I couldn't see any difference at all. The similarity in image quality across this range of cameras kind of vindicates my decision late last year to choose Panasonic's small, versatile, and low cost 1" travelcam offering (albeit the TZ200 as opposed to TZ100), and it's good to know that I'm not sacrificing any real-world performance when compared to alternatives that are bigger, or more expensive, or both.

I also have an LX100-1. The TZ200 is far superior to the LX100 in terms of ergonomics and handling, being a proper modern design and not some confection dreamed up by Panasonic's marketing department, and if there's any difference in the image quality, well, I can't see it.

The main thing going for my LX100 is that it comes with a battery charger, and since it uses the same battery as the TZ200 it keeps its place in my travel luggage as a sort of add-on to the charger (TZ200 eats batteries, one isn't enough, be warned).

And here are some images shot at the widest zoom position:




TZ100




RX100M6








G7X






FZ1000






RX10M3

As expected, I think the differences are greater here than at longer focal lengths. They tend to be better with the larger cameras than the compacts.

Thanks for the time effort required for doing the tests.

I do similar tests prior to buying a camera with full size RAW images from at least three different online reviews.

Then after I have the camera do RAW IQ tests to verify IQ of the camera purchased.

But more importantly to 'me' I do print quality tests as the 100% pixel peeping imperfections are not as apparent in prints unless doing large prints.

I've found that with 20MP and higher, if a image looks good at 10MP any print I would want would look good. That's with the ZS100 RAW images I've been able to get even at full tele; e.g., my post HERE.

The ZS100 for its size, zoom range, and price is a good general purpose/ travel 'picture' taker.

Again thanks.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon_T said:

Thanks for the time effort required for doing the tests.

I do similar tests prior to buying a camera with full size RAW images from at least three different online reviews.

Then after I have the camera do RAW IQ tests to verify IQ of the camera purchased.

But more importantly to 'me' I do print quality tests as the 100% pixel peeping imperfections are not as apparent in prints unless doing large prints.

I've found that with 20MP and higher, if a image looks good at 10MP any print I would want would look good. That's with the ZS100 RAW images I've been able to get even at full tele; e.g., my post HERE.

The ZS100 for its size, zoom range, and price is a good general purpose/ travel 'picture' taker.

Again thanks.

Cheers,
Jon

Click to expand...

THX. Absolutely no problem for most people, even massively over spec'd for social media sharing. Cant believe most people shoot huge APSC cameras for that purpose. But I like to print 1m+

Jon_T said:

Thanks for the time effort required for doing the tests.

I do similar tests prior to buying a camera with full size RAW images from at least three different online reviews.

Then after I have the camera do RAW IQ tests to verify IQ of the camera purchased.

But more importantly to 'me' I do print quality tests as the 100% pixel peeping imperfections are not as apparent in prints unless doing large prints.

I've found that with 20MP and higher, if a image looks good at 10MP any print I would want would look good. That's with the ZS100 RAW images I've been able to get even at full tele; e.g., my post HERE.

The ZS100 for its size, zoom range, and price is a good general purpose/ travel 'picture' taker.

Click to expand...

It is, but it just depends on how fussy you are about image quality and features. For example, let's look at smaller crops of the images I've posted:


TZ100, 200mm equiv, small crop


RX100M6 200mm equiv, small crop

The RX100M6 clearly has much detail than the TZ100 at 200mm, but does the TZ100 capture more detail at max zoom of 250mm equiv?


TZ100, 250mm equiv zoom, small crop

Well, yes, it does have more detail than the same camera at 200mm equiv, but still has less detail than the RX100M6 at 200mm (look at the wheel spokes). So the extra zoom has no value when comparing it with the RX100M6.

Now let's look at small crops from wide angle shots:


TZ100, wide angle crop


RX100M6 wide angle crop

Clearly, the RX100 images are again sharper, with much more detail, but that may not be important for casual snapshots that are only viewed on small screens.

As a reminder, these shots were all processed from RAW, using the same settings, and the same average exposure. So the differences are not due to camera settings or different processing; they are a pure test of lens quality.

It would be interesting to know if the TZ200 captures as much detail at its full zoom as the RX100M6. Based on these results, I wouldn't be surprised if a cropped RX100M6 200mm image actually has more detail than a TZ200 image at 360mm equiv.

So, yes, the RX100M6 is much more expensive than the TZ100. But you not only get a sharper, faster, higher contrast lens for the extra money, but a much better OLED EVF, a convenient double-hinged rear screen, much better video, super-fast focusing and much faster continuous shooting. Despite all that, I'm still amazed that the RX100M6 is smaller in every dimension than the TZ100 (but you do need the optional grip for the RX100); the weight is almost identical.

For me, these benefits are well worth the extra cost of the RX100M6, but I know not everyone will agree.

Digital Nigel said:

It would be interesting to know if the TZ200 captures as much detail at its full zoom as the RX100M6. Based on these results, I wouldn't be surprised if a cropped RX100M6 200mm image actually has more detail than a TZ200 image at 360mm equiv.

Click to expand...

This is the case and has been stated in a number of reviews. I posted the links in another thread.

Digital Nigel said:

For me, these benefits are well worth the extra cost of the RX100M6, but I know not everyone will agree.

Click to expand...

My issue with the RX100 is the pop up viewfinder, I just couldn’t feel any love for it. It does take beautiful pictures though.

123dy said:

I'll have to confess, I couldn't see any difference at all. The similarity in image quality across this range of cameras kind of vindicates my decision late last year to choose Panasonic's small, versatile, and low cost 1" travelcam offering (albeit the TZ200 as opposed to TZ100), and it's good to know that I'm not sacrificing any real-world performance when compared to alternatives that are bigger, or more expensive, or both.

I also have an LX100-1. The TZ200 is far superior to the LX100 in terms of ergonomics and handling, being a proper modern design and not some confection dreamed up by Panasonic's marketing department, and if there's any difference in the image quality, well, I can't see it.

The main thing going for my LX100 is that it comes with a battery charger, and since it uses the same battery as the TZ200 it keeps its place in my travel luggage as a sort of add-on to the charger (TZ200 eats batteries, one isn't enough, be warned).

Click to expand...

I disagree totally about the ergonomics of the LX100. But more importantly, it is vastly superior at ISO 1600 and more, and has a lens with two more aperture: the LX100 is way better in low light than the TZ100 or TZ200, and a proper flash can be used in extremely low light.

Panasonic has a Leica lens and Sony has a Zeiss lens. Leica and Zeiss have long been known to have their own, different character. Some people prefer the Leica look and some people prefer the Zeiss look. You prefer the Zeiss look.

yanisha said:

Panasonic has a Leica lens and Sony has a Zeiss lens.

Click to expand...

In reality, the Panasonic has a pure Panasonic lens, and the Sony a Sony lens. I very much doubt that Leica or Zeiss had much to do with either lens.

yanisha said:

Leica and Zeiss have long been known to have their own, different character.

Click to expand...

Which may well be true, but is irrelevant in this context, as neither of these lenses is a Leica or a Zeiss. They're both mass produced, super zooms that neither Leica nor Zeiss would ever design or build themselves.

yanisha said:

Some people prefer the Leica look and some people prefer the Zeiss look. You prefer the Zeiss look.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that anyone prefers blurry, low contrast photos like that Panasonic lens produces? Leica should be ashamed at prostituting its valuable brand and long history by accepting a bribe to have its name (though not its red logo) on a lens of such poor quality.

There's only one thing that people like about that lens: it's very cheap. And that's certainly not something that anyone would say of a real Leica lens.

Mike Wrob said:

Digital Nigel said:

For me, these benefits are well worth the extra cost of the RX100M6, but I know not everyone will agree.

Click to expand...

My issue with the RX100 is the pop up viewfinder, I just couldn’t feel any love for it. It does take beautiful pictures though.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a slight nuisance popping it up, but it's worth it. Pushing it down is easy, and is a neat way of switching off the camera (if you choose that option). The EVF is a high quality OLED, with the same resolution as the excellent one in the FZ1000.

The advantage of the pop-up EVF, of course, is that it allows the camera to be smaller in every dimension than the TZ100, despite having a brighter, sharper lens and a double-hinged rear screen, with 270° movement.

In reality, popping up the EVF is no more of a problem than folding out the articulated rear screen on the FZ1000, which I also don't mind doing.

Digital Nigel said:

Are you suggesting that anyone prefers blurry, low contrast photos like that Panasonic lens produces?

Click to expand...

I do ;-)

kh1234567890 said:

Digital Nigel said:

Are you suggesting that anyone prefers blurry, low contrast photos like that Panasonic lens produces?

Click to expand...

I do ;-)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kh1234567890/sets/72157687585421680/show

Click to expand...

I do see what you mean: that lens creatively adds bright colour fringes to what might otherwise be grey, dull midwinter shots:




A tasteful green CA glow brightens up a boring bolt




CA colour fringes are so much more interesting than the boringly sharp, monochrome edges a real Leica lens would produce

Digital Nigel said:

kh1234567890 said:

Digital Nigel said:

Are you suggesting that anyone prefers blurry, low contrast photos like that Panasonic lens produces?

Click to expand...

I do ;-)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kh1234567890/sets/72157687585421680/show

Click to expand...

I do see what you mean: that lens creatively adds bright colour fringes to what might otherwise be grey, dull midwinter shots

Click to expand...

Actually it is even better than that, at 9.1mm it also adds nice fishy distortion and a beautiful vignette ;-)


TZ100 9.1mm uncorrected

Saves me hours of fiddling around in post-pro ...




Processed to avoid overexcitement ...