For owners of both the ZS100 and ZS200, how does IQ compare?

Greg Edwards said:

It's worth reading the DPReview ZS200 review. They compare it to the ZS100 several times, particularly making note that the ZS200 lens although longer is a little slower and therefore darker/noisier in certain situations. They also noted the ZS200 was a little soft on the three samples they used. But the ZS200 has an improved EVF that's bigger and higher res.

Click to expand...

Greg Edwards said:

They use the same sensor, the choice boils down to lens choice. Do you want longer or faster?

Click to expand...

chuckisgreat said:

Has anyone done a side-by-side image comparison with the 2 cameras taking the same picture at the same time to do some pixel peeping? Is there a link to examine the images?

Click to expand...

saudidave said:

I've had & used both the TZ100 & TZ200 extensively.

Pay no attention to the DP Review of the TZ200, it isn't representative of the camera and is totally misleadiing. It is best referred to as a travesty.

Properly set up there is no IQ difference between the TZ100 & TZ200. The claim that the "Slow lens" of the TZ 200 kills it is complerte B.S., it's laughable because the diffence is so minimal it makes no difference.

I'll conclude; I sold my G80+18-200 lens because the images from the TZ200 were so close to it it made no difference unless you enlarged them to the size of a house and strained to see the pixels. In the real world the biggest difference was the DR and a little saturation added to the TZ200 closed that gap more or less.

Use these settings on either camera and you won't go far wrong:

Contrast +

Sharness +2

NR -5

Saturation +1

The TZ200 lens is sharpest at 25mm-250mm at F4.00, beyond that F8.0

The TZ200 handling is far superior as is (obviously) the focal range

Click to expand...

1. For all intents and purposes, the 2 cameras take pictures of almost identical image quality (IQ).
2. The amount of noise in the photos is nearly identical between the 2 cameras,.
3. However, as might be guessed, at the widest angle, the ZS100 photo has marginally less noise. This makes sense given that the ZS100 is using f2.8 at the widest focal length (25mm) while the ZS200 is using f3.3 at the same wide angle focal length (25mm). However, in order to see that difference in noise, I viewed the images on my Dell 4K IPS monitor with a monitor resolution of 3840x2160 and the images were enlarged to 300% of the original image size. Detecting this difference without such magnification is probably unlikely to be noticed.
4. By 100mm, the difference in noise, sharpness, and IQ were negligible to the point of being indistinguishable even at high magnification of the images on my monitor. (The negligible differences might occur sooner, but I did not take 50mm images to compare since I was mostly interested in the telephoto performance.)

1. The image gallery contains sets of 3 photos that "go together." There is a file with a prefix of "ZS100_##" and then a file with a prefix of "ZS200_##" and then a file with a prefix of "ZS200vZS100_##{description of analysis results}" where "##" is the double-digit image count ranging from 01 to 10. Here is a link to the gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5059121794
2. When ## is the same, those images compose the set. So, "ZS100_01.JPG" and "ZS200_01.JPG" and "ZS200vZS100_01 at 300% ZS100 is less noisy, sharper.jpg" go together as a set.
3. The ZS100 and ZS200 JPGs are the original photos out of the camera--no editing. The ZS200vZS100 jpgs are screenshots from my 4K monitor of the FastStone image viewer side-by-side comparison between the 2 original photos. You can see at the top left of the comparison screenshot the magnification level at which FastStone is displaying the 2 images and then in green text is the basic EXIF information for each image at the top left of the image, e.g., date and time of photo (the times of the 2 cameras were not perfectly in sync, but the images were in reality taken about 2 seconds apart in time), shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and focal length (which you have to multiple by 2.7 to get the 35mm equivalent focal length, so, 9.2mm = 25mm in 35mm equivalent focal length).
4. In all the screenshots of the FastStone side-by-side comparison, the ZS200 image is on the left and the ZS100 image is on the right--but the title of the image is in the title bar so you can see the filename which indicates ZS100 or ZS200.
5. All images were shot using the 2-second self-timer, so movement from pressing the shutter button would not be a factor in IQ. I had both cameras set to use the settings recommended by @saudidave: contrast +2; sharpening +2; noise reduction -5; saturation +1. (I did not reduce exposure compensation to -1/3 because I liked the brighter images better for these test shots.)
6. Image: ZS200vZS100_01 at 300% ZS100 is less noisy, sharper
   This shows that at 25mm, the ZS100 is less noisy and sharper, noticeable at 300% magnification. Obviously, at magnifications less than 300%, the difference is likely to be negligible or even unnoticeable. Check out the original photos (ZS100_01.JPG; ZS200_01.JPG) at 100% to see that the difference is difficult to notice even when the ZS100 is using f2.8 and the ZS200 is using f3.3.
7. Image: ZS200vZS100_02 at 300% ZS200 is sharper, not as soft.jpg
   This shows that at 100mm, the ZS100 image is soft and "mushy" (presumably this is the camera's attempt to remove noise) while the ZS200 is sharper. To my eye, both images contain about the same amount of noise. So, in my view, this makes the ZS200 the "winner" with a slightly sharper image. Interestingly, the automatic settings had them both shooting at f5.2 which explains the similar levels of noise. However, these images were again at 300% magnification on my 4K monitor in order to see this difference, so, in typical viewing scenarios, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable. Again, you can check out the original photos at 100% to see that the difference is negligible: ZS100_02; ZS200_02.
8. Image: ZS200vZS100_03 at 200% ZS200 is sharper, not as soft, ZS100 more saturated color.jpg
   This shows that at 250mm, the ZS200 is again sharper and not as soft as the ZS100, however, the ZS100's color seems more saturated. To my eye, noise levels seem the same across both images when comparing the same parts of the images. Here, the automatic settings have the ZS200 at f6.3 while the ZS100 was at f5.9, so it is interesting that the ZS200 has about the same amount of noise in spite of the smaller aperture. Again, for me, this makes the ZS200 the "winner" with a slightly sharper image. yet, we are at 200% magnification to see the difference, so, in typical viewing scenarios, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable. Check out the original photos at 100% to make your own assessment: ZS100_03; ZS200_03.
9. Image: ZS200vZS100_04 at 175% ZS200 is sharper, not as soft.jpg
   As with the previous image, this shows that at 150mm, the ZS200 is sharper and not as "mushy" as the ZS100, but as before, the ZS100 seems to have more saturated color. Both cameras automatically selected f5.8 and noise levels were again similar. Here we had to magnify to 175% to detect these differences. For me, the ZS200 is the "winner" with a slightly sharper image, but the differences really are negligible. Check out the original photos at 100% to make your own determinations: ZS100_04; ZS200_04.
10. Image: ZS200vZS100_06 at 125% ZS200 is sharper.jpg
    This shows that at 250mm, the ZS200 is again slightly sharper with what appears to me to be the same amount of noise even though the ZS200 is at f6.3 and the ZS100 is at f5.9. We are at 125% magnification here. Check out the originals for your own assessment: ZS100_06; ZS200_06.
11. Image: ZS200vZS100_09 at 300% ZS200 is considerably sharper (waited for wind to stop).jpg
    Some of the first test shots I tried may have shown differences due to wind outdoors. This shot was taken after the wind had stopped so the wind should not be a factor in the IQ here. As above, this 100mm shot has the ZS200 sharper than the ZS100 when viewed at 300% magnification. Aperture and shutter speed were the same. Check out the original photos: ZS100_09; ZS200_09.
12. Image: ZS200vZS100_10 at 175% ZS200 is sharper (no wind).jpg
    In this final image at 250mm, the ZS200 is sharper. The ZS200 used f6.3 while the ZS100 used f5.9, but there was no noticeable noise since this is a well-lit outdoor shot. However, this was a 175% magnification to see the difference. Original photos are provided for your scrutiny: ZS100_10; ZS200_10.

chuckisgreat said:

It so happens that I have ended up with access to both a ZS100 and a ZS200. So, to help others in the future, I am addressing my own question and hope the information is helpful to folks with similar questions and interests.

Click to expand...

1. Image: ZS200vZS100_01RW2 images full-size comparison similar distortion, ZS200 has more vignetting
   I pressed A in FastStone as you advised to view the original raw image for both the ZS200 and ZS100 9.1mm (25mm in 35mm equivalent) wide angle shot. To my eye, they both had about the same amount of lens distortion, but the ZS200 has more vignetting.
2. Image: ZS200vZS100_01RW2 images 500% comparison, ZS200 sharper but more chroma noise
   As I'd done with the other comparisons, I magnified the comparison images to pixel peep for image quality (IQ). I magnified the original raw image to 500%. As before, the ZS200 appears sharper to me while the ZS100 appear softer/mushier. However, the ZS200 has noticeably more chroma noise at this magnification (although it is not noticeable in the full-size image).
3. Here are the 500% magnified screenshots:
   ZS200_01_RW2 screenshot at 500%
   ZS100_01_RW2 screenshot at 500%
4. Here are the full-size original raw images saved as jpg:
   ZS200_01_RW2 saved as jpg
   ZS100_01_RW2 saved as jpg

chuckisgreat said:

Thanks for the comments and feedback @kh1234567890.

I have uploaded to the gallery 6 additional images. These images are from the previous widest angle shots where both cameras were set at 25mm (even though the ZS200 can do 24mm--I wanted to compare the same focal lengths on both, so set both to 25mm).

Click to expand...

kh1234567890 said:

chuckisgreat said:

Thanks for the comments and feedback @kh1234567890.

I have uploaded to the gallery 6 additional images. These images are from the previous widest angle shots where both cameras were set at 25mm (even though the ZS200 can do 24mm--I wanted to compare the same focal lengths on both, so set both to 25mm).

Click to expand...

Many thanks for those. So basically the TZ200 has a marginally better lens over the TZ100 range. And as well as the extra reach, Panasonic have managed to squeeze an extra mm on the wide end without any obvious detriment. I also remember reading somewhere that the TZ200 image stabilisation is much improved - it is not easy to test this.

Of course the question remains - is it worth the price ? In the UK the best price for the TZ100 is about £419 as opposed to £679 for the TZ200. Probably yes.

Click to expand...

saudidave said:

It was probably one of my posts where you read that the TZ200 has better I.S. as I've said it many times and it completely negates any minor losses that the slower lens of the 200 has. ...

Click to expand...

Jon_T said:

<SNIP>

Jon_T said:

It was probably one of my posts where you read that the TZ200 has better I.S. as I've said it many times and it completely negates any minor losses that the slower lens of the 200 has. ...

Click to expand...

Only "... completely negates ..." with still shots when taking pics of "static" subjects, not for any subject movement.

Click to expand...