ZS100 - is it worth considering as a viable alternative IQ wise to an RX100

Isola Verde wrote:

travelfoodphoto wrote:

Isola Verde wrote:

travelfoodphoto wrote:

Isola Verde wrote:

kh1234567890 wrote:

travelfoodphoto wrote:

Will I be disappointed in the IQ?

It depends whether you are happy with the muddy, devoid in detail, images that your RX100 seems to produce. The ZS100 would struggle to do that

Some of my TZ100 (ZS100) images are in my sig links. Full size copies should be visible by clicking the Flickr links. All shot as RAW with minimal processing in PS.

Something rather unusual seems to have happened to that file - at an enormous 26MB, it's a considerably larger JPG than the camera would have produced ( at least judging by output from my RX100ii and RX100iv).

Very possibly TZ100 files would have fared no better?

Peter

Peter, I did the same significant crop with one of his full size images and got the same results, see my above post. When I view the file data on my image, it states 16MB, as it should.

Best,

TFP

Of a downloaded copy of that one of yours I'm seeing dimensions of approx 16 million pixels - but a huge 25.2 M file size... thus..

Any idea quite what you did with it?

Not that this really matters re the choice of a replacement, or so I'd say!

Peter

Peter,

Very odd, as the dimensions stated in your download of 4486 X3588 only equal about 16MB. So who knows?

TFP

I've had a look at my own files, and - from those I checked - have got these....

RX100M2 - 3:2 format - pixel count 5472x3648 (= 20.2Mp)
Partner ARW (RAW) files, approx 20.4MB
JPG file size 4.6Mb to 7.4MB
JPG - MB per MP 0.3 megabytes per megapixel
.............

RX100M4 - 3:2 format - pixel count 5472x3648 (= 20.2Mp)
Partner ARW (RAW) files, approx 20.4MB
JPG file size 5.4Mb to 8.3MB
JPG - MB per MP 0.3 megabytes per megapixel
.............

OP's first example
RX100 - cropped to 4486x3578 (= 16Mp)
JPG - file size 25.2MB
JPG - MB per MP 1.6 megabytes per megapixel
++
OP's second example
RX100 - cropped to 1760x1609 (= 2.7Mp)
JPG - file size 3.162MB
JPG - MB per MP 1.2 megabytes per megapixel
++
OP's third example
RX100 - cropped to 3135x2508 (= 7.9Mp)
JPG - file size 12.1MB
JPG - MB per MP 1.5 megabytes per megapixel
++

So there's quite a lot more data per given quantity of pixels in those three than in the SOOC JPGs produced by my cameras.

And I'd guess that the extra information has been "synthesised" by whatever processing software was used?

While that process has made files that do look pretty good when constrained to computer monitor size, the "true" IQ from the camera has been pretty much lost.

I think you should be able to get overall better results... perhaps slightly gentler sharpening, and setting a slightly lower quality (perhaps 10 rather than 11 or 12) for the eventual Save stage, might be worth a try?

Peter

PS - For a lightweight and versatile pairing, I like my RX100iv (bought "used", and great for its tilt screen) together with the ZS100 (TZ100 here)... but do sometimes curse their differing menu systems!

Morning Peter,

I find the issue curious, as all I use is Apple's Photo app minimally for PP. But in any case, here is the SOOC JPEG, see what it says when you download it.

My best,

TFP