TZ70 vs TZ80 (ZS50 vs ZS60)

[Pinmac]

I am very much just the family photographer and need a small compact for a family holiday to Disney World this summer. I really want to try to get off Auto mode and hope to go on a photography course next week to help with this. I have been looking at the TZ70 and TZ80 which are the sort of size I'm looking for. I'm trying to work out which would be best for me but I've spent so much time Googling that I now am completely confused.

The main attractions of the TZ80 against the TZ70 are the touchscreen, the 4K photo mode and the Post Focus mode. I have been wondering though whether that justifies the £86 price difference. Now I have seen reviews saying that the low-light photo quality is worse on the TZ80 than the TZ70 and also that I should maybe also be looking at the Sony HX90?

Has anyone any thoughts on my ramblings please?

 

[Erik Ohlson]

The trouble with most photography courses is that they are usually oriented toward large "full frame" dSLR cameras and much of what you need to know about the cameras you mention will not be well covered. For instance, with these cameras unlike "full frame" the apertures have only minimal effect on "depth of field", which is taught at length in such a course - with the short focal length lens you find in these small cameras you have LOT of DOF - sometimes more than you want!

You will probably get better advice here on this forum.

I have neither camera so I won't attempt camera-specific areas, but my personal standard with my ZS25 is: "A" (Aperture) mode permanently set to ƒ/ 3.3, EV set to -.66 ISO Auto.

This gives the lens it's sharpest setting and the shutter speed takes care of the rest of the exposure. The -.66 EV keeps highlight areas from being washed out, and gives you somewhat "snappier" contrast. The slightly darker shadows contain plenty of detail should you decide to go into Post Processing.(basically similar but more compact and lacking EVF.



--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]

 

[patticake]

I am very much just the family photographer and need a small compact for a family holiday to Disney World this summer. I really want to try to get off Auto mode and hope to go on a photography course next week to help with this. I have been looking at the TZ70 and TZ80 which are the sort of size I'm looking for. I'm trying to work out which would be best for me but I've spent so much time Googling that I now am completely confused.

The main attractions of the TZ80 against the TZ70 are the touchscreen, the 4K photo mode and the Post Focus mode. I have been wondering though whether that justifies the £86 price difference. Now I have seen reviews saying that the low-light photo quality is worse on the TZ80 than the TZ70 and also that I should maybe also be looking at the Sony HX90?

Has anyone any thoughts on my ramblings please?

 

[cainn24]

The main attractions of the TZ80 against the TZ70 are the touchscreen, the 4K photo mode and the Post Focus mode. I have been wondering though whether that justifies the £86 price difference. Now I have seen reviews saying that the low-light photo quality is worse on the TZ80 than the TZ70 and also that I should maybe also be looking at the Sony HX90?

Has anyone any thoughts on my ramblings please?

Sure, some thoughts:

The TZ80 is about 4mm thicker and about 40 grams heavier than the TZ70. It doesn't sound like much on paper, but the "pocketability quotient" is definitely a little lower. I don't consider the difference to be critical myself, but some people might.

The TZ80 has significantly better continuous shooting (burst) performance than the TZ70. So if you ever want to try your hand at snapping at few birds here and there on your travels the TZ80 is the clear choice.

The TZ80 has better auto focus performance, which can be useful in all sorts of circumstances.

The TZ80 has a more advanced JPEG engine that offers fine control of in-camera image processing parameters so you can bring things in line with your own image quality preferences and better handle challenging shooting conditions.

The TZ80 probably does in fact produce slightly inferior low-light images, but worrying about which camera is better in this regard is kinda like worrying about which spoon to bring to a knife fight. If low-light performance is a priority then you should be looking at completely different cameras.

As for the HX90/HX90V, sure, it's definitely worth a look. You might even want to look at the Nikon A900 and the Canon SX720 HS too. In fact if you don't strictly need a lot of reach, then you should very seriously consider the Panasonic ZS100/TZ100/TZ110 as it's probably the best travel zoom on the market right now.

 

[Jon_T]

I am very much just the family photographer and need a small compact for a family holiday to Disney World this summer. I really want to try to get off Auto mode and hope to go on a photography course next week to help with this. I have been looking at the TZ70 and TZ80 which are the sort of size I'm looking for. I'm trying to work out which would be best for me but I've spent so much time Googling that I now am completely confused....

When "Googling" did you find the sites that have full review with full size images you could view/ download to make image quality comparisons?

FYI the Photographyblog.com (HERE) has full reviews with JPG images to view/ download for the TZ70, TZ80, and the HX90.

By viewing full size sample images you can see (prior to purchasing) if the camera's image quality is acceptable for your preferences/ usage.

If within your budget IMHO for a "family" compact/ general purpose camera the ZS100 a overall better camera for overall better image quality than TZ70, TZ80, or HX90 camera with the small 1/2.3" sensor and lens' slow F3.3-6.4 max aperture lens. Also the ZS100 built-in flash much better than the tiny flash on the TZ70.

For lower light/ higher ISO conditions the ZS100's much larger 1" sensor (over 4x the surface area of the 1/2.3" sensor) will have much better overall image quality.

Below are two screen shots from DPR's Studio Shot Comparison tool HERE. Can use to make quick/ simple IQ (image quality) comparisons -- best to download full size images and do comparisons at your leisure on your system. (unfortunately DPR has not done studio scene samples for the HX90)


Daylight type lighting samples @ 800 ISO


Low light samples @ 800 ISO

I have the ZS50 (aka TZ70) and overall it's IQ good enough for the benefits of a pocket sized superzoom compact, however I do mainly shoot RAW images.

To get an idea of the TZ70 low light/ high ISO IQ you can take a look at my
"ZS50 for low lighting/ action shots?" HERE. Images posted are from RAW processed files, but also posted a couple out-of-camera JPG's to see the IQ differences between the RAW processed and JPG images.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[patticake]

To get an idea of the TZ70 low light/ high ISO IQ you can take a look at my
"ZS50 for low lighting/ action shots?" HERE. Images posted are from RAW processed files, but also posted a couple out-of-camera JPG's to see the IQ differences between the RAW processed and JPG images.

Cheers,
Jon

that's a great thread if you want to see the low light capabilities of the ZS50. i was already tipping toward it, and the pics in that thread were what made me decide to go for ZS50. the ability to put it in a big pocket or small bag (in a ziplock bag, of course) was a big factor, and the smaller size mattered to me. i already have an A6000 (with a 50 1.8 lens) and a P610 for birding, but i wanted a smallish, versatile "go everywhere" camera for less bucks.

 

[Lobalobo]

To get an idea of the TZ70 low light/ high ISO IQ you can take a look at my
"ZS50 for low lighting/ action shots?" HERE. Images posted are from RAW processed files, but also posted a couple out-of-camera JPG's to see the IQ differences between the RAW processed and JPG images.

Cheers,
Jon

that's a great thread if you want to see the low light capabilities of the ZS50. i was already tipping toward it, and the pics in that thread were what made me decide to go for ZS50. the ability to put it in a big pocket or small bag (in a ziplock bag, of course) was a big factor, and the smaller size mattered to me. i already have an A6000 (with a 50 1.8 lens) and a P610 for birding, but i wanted a smallish, versatile "go everywhere" camera for less bucks.

--
my old user profile
http://www.dpreview.com/members/1742491492/overview

If your decision is made, then great, and I'm sure you'll be satisfied. Moreover, I don't have a ZS50. But the jump from ZS40 to ZS60 was enormous in ease of use (mainly speed of operation) and, to my eye, in image quality. (These, e.g., were not all in bright light: ZS6 at Zoo ) Others have observed the same, as a search of this forum will reveal, and my impression is that, by contrast, few thought the ZS50 was a significant improvement over the ZS40. All in all, I'd wager strongly that if you used the ZS50 and the ZS60 for half an hour each, you'd choose the latter. But that's just a guess and, as I said, I think you'll be satisfied with either camera.

 

[Pinmac]

Thanks all for so many replies. To pick up on a few points, unfortunately the TZ100 is way over my budget although it does look very good. I did have the chance to have a good look at both the TZ70 and TZ80 at a Panasonic Roadshow a month ago but I didn't know much about them then. I'm going on Saturday to have another look.

I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG. I don't have any software with which to process RAW files but presumably Photoshop Elements would do this. It would be another learning curve but from Patticake's comment about shooting RAW and JPEG, I assume that I could do this at least to start with?

Thanks again for all the links which I am working through.

 

[Jon_T]

...I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG. I don't have any software with which to process RAW files but presumably Photoshop Elements would do this. It would be another learning curve...

Yes you can with PSE (Photoshop Elements) but you'll need version 14 to process the TZ60 RAW files. If you're familiar with PSE the learning curve should not be too bad. Plus due to PSE's popularity there are plenty of on-line help/ tutorials available. You can shoot with the JPG+RAW settings to have JPG images until you're comfortable with processing RAW images.

Quite a few of veteran PSE users process JPG images in PSE via the "Open in Camera RAW" option for a little extra highlight/ shadow recovery with ACR.

To see some differences between TZ60 JPG and RAW images see the
"ZS60. DPR Samples Gallery is Up. Comments?" HERE. I used PSE 14 to process the DRP sample ZS60 RAW images that I posted.

Can see FZ1000 JPG vs RAW images HERE of example showing of the ability of RAW PP to recover highlights/ shadows. Used PSE 14 to process the FZ1000 RAW image.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Lobalobo]

I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG.

Years back, I was a devoted RAW always snob. But I've come 180 degrees. I now never shoot RAW on these small sensor cameras. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes advantages; undoubtedly there are. But the advantages are seldom worth the trouble (at least on the road, where secure backup is a potential issue). In any case, remember that the comparison is not between processed RAW and out-of-the-camera JPEGs, it's between processed RAW and processed JPEGs (the latter where necessary); it's this comparison that reveals little difference on point-and-shoot cameras, at least to my eye.

 

[ANAYV]

I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG.

Years back, I was a devoted RAW always snob. But I've come 180 degrees. I now never shoot RAW on these small sensor cameras. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes advantages; undoubtedly there are. But the advantages are seldom worth the trouble (at least on the road, where secure backup is a potential issue). In any case, remember that the comparison is not between processed RAW and out-of-the-camera JPEGs, it's between processed RAW and processed JPEGs (the latter where necessary); it's this comparison that reveals little difference on point-and-shoot cameras, at least to my eye.

I shoot both RAW+ jpeg these days (thanks Jon) ...always have the RAW if needed...and SD cards are so cheap these days.

Most times I will just lower in camera settings for NR, sharpness and contrast, then edit the jpeg..and all is well .

But,



Here's an example. Tried to get the milky flowing water effect, by lowering shutter speeds...my ZS60 has no ND filter...so overblown highlights are the result:







Here's same exact shot, but the RAW version, quick edited in PSE14 ACR:







All blown highlights are recovered. ... thanks to RAW



ANAYV

 

[Lobalobo]

I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG.

Years back, I was a devoted RAW always snob. But I've come 180 degrees. I now never shoot RAW on these small sensor cameras. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes advantages; undoubtedly there are. But the advantages are seldom worth the trouble (at least on the road, where secure backup is a potential issue). In any case, remember that the comparison is not between processed RAW and out-of-the-camera JPEGs, it's between processed RAW and processed JPEGs (the latter where necessary); it's this comparison that reveals little difference on point-and-shoot cameras, at least to my eye.

I shoot both RAW+ jpeg these days (thanks Jon) ...always have the RAW if needed...and SD cards are so cheap these days.

Most times I will just lower in camera settings for NR, sharpness and contrast, then edit the jpeg..and all is well .

But,

Here's an example. Tried to get the milky flowing water effect, by lowering shutter speeds...my ZS60 has no ND filter...so overblown highlights are the result:



Here's same exact shot, but the RAW version, quick edited in PSE14 ACR:



All blown highlights are recovered. ... thanks to RAW

ANAYV

Maybe, but is this image (from your JPEG) significantly different from your RAW file? There is some difference, to be sure, but is it significant? In any case, you're right that file storage is cheap. But when traveling, I find file management easier with a single set of images.

 

[Pinmac]

Just came back to reply to LObalobo to say that the review of the HX90V on the comparison site posted above said pretty much the same thing in terms of RAW files and small sensor cameras. But ANAYV's example is quite persuasive! If I go for the TZ70 or 80 it wouldn't be a problem but the HX90 doesn't shoot RAW.

 

[Lobalobo]

Just came back to reply to LObalobo to say that the review of the HX90V on the comparison site posted above said pretty much the same thing in terms of RAW files and small sensor cameras. But ANAYV's example is quite persuasive! If I go for the TZ70 or 80 it wouldn't be a problem but the HX90 doesn't shoot RAW.

So here's the thing, and I believe that ANAYV will agree (or at least I have not disagreed with anything said yet by ANAYV). If the in-camera jpeg settings clips the highlights then such highlights might be recoverable if there is an accompanying RAW. But highlights are infrequently blown by the JPEG settings, particularly if the camera is set to a negative exposure compensation (which many do as a matter of taste). Assuming the highlights are not clipped in the JPEG, then the advantage of RAW becomes digging detail out of the shadows, and there typically isn't much such detail in a small sensor and so little is lost if a JPEG setting blocks such detail.

 

[ANAYV]

I was interested in the comments about shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG.

Years back, I was a devoted RAW always snob. But I've come 180 degrees. I now never shoot RAW on these small sensor cameras. I'm not saying that there aren't sometimes advantages; undoubtedly there are. But the advantages are seldom worth the trouble (at least on the road, where secure backup is a potential issue). In any case, remember that the comparison is not between processed RAW and out-of-the-camera JPEGs, it's between processed RAW and processed JPEGs (the latter where necessary); it's this comparison that reveals little difference on point-and-shoot cameras, at least to my eye.

I shoot both RAW+ jpeg these days (thanks Jon) ...always have the RAW if needed...and SD cards are so cheap these days.

Most times I will just lower in camera settings for NR, sharpness and contrast, then edit the jpeg..and all is well .

But,

Here's an example. Tried to get the milky flowing water effect, by lowering shutter speeds...my ZS60 has no ND filter...so overblown highlights are the result:



Here's same exact shot, but the RAW version, quick edited in PSE14 ACR:



All blown highlights are recovered. ... thanks to RAW

ANAYV

Maybe, but is this image (from your JPEG) significantly different from your RAW file? There is some difference, to be sure, but is it significant?

Well, depends if overexposed areas are ok with you...or would you rather be able to bring back the detail gone....The RAW file looks the same, before I lowered the exposure, and brought back the detail in the water



ANAYV

In any case, you're right that file storage is cheap. But when traveling, I find file management easier with a single set of images.

 

[ANAYV]

Just came back to reply to LObalobo to say that the review of the HX90V on the comparison site posted above said pretty much the same thing in terms of RAW files and small sensor cameras. But ANAYV's example is quite persuasive! If I go for the TZ70 or 80 it wouldn't be a problem but the HX90 doesn't shoot RAW.

So here's the thing, and I believe that ANAYV will agree (or at least I have not disagreed with anything said yet by ANAYV). If the in-camera jpeg settings clips the highlights then such highlights might be recoverable if there is an accompanying RAW. But highlights are infrequently blown by the JPEG settings, particularly if the camera is set to a negative exposure compensation (which many do as a matter of taste). Assuming the highlights are not clipped in the JPEG, then the advantage of RAW becomes digging detail out of the shadows, and there typically isn't much such detail in a small sensor and so little is lost if a JPEG setting blocks such detail.

Pretty much. I most always shoot jpeg these days. Only few reasons to shoot RAW ( for,most folk)

1. Recover blown highlights ( better with larger sensors)

2. Avoid Noise reduction, and recover more,details ( especially with higher ISO settings)

3. Change white balance, after shooting.

4. A bit more lattitude when lifting shadows, and processing.

I shoot both, just in case... but would rather shoot jpeg, even with my FZ1000.

Both are,coming to Alaska this week, both set to RAW+,jpeg.

ANAYV

 

[patticake]

i also shoot raw plus jpg. if the jpg is fine, great. if the pic is one i really like but needs some help, the raw version is there for me to process.

 

[Lobalobo]

i also shoot raw plus jpg. if the jpg is fine, great. if the pic is one i really like but needs some help, the raw version is there for me to process.

 

[Jon_T]

i also shoot raw plus jpg. if the jpg is fine, great. if the pic is one i really like but needs some help, the raw version is there for me to process.

--
my old user profile
http://www.dpreview.com/members/1742491492/overview

Yes, this is frequently said. But remember, it's possible to process JPEGs also. It is a rare photo on a small sensor camera where adjusting the JPEG is significantly inferior to adjusting a RAW. ..

At low ISO's and good even lighting agree that may not be significant difference with JPG vs RAW. But as lighting conditions become more adverse and ISO increased the clearer the benefits as to highlight/ shadow recovery and much better NR become.

If you looked at links in my previous post quite easy to see. With the small max lens apertures of the ZS40 - ZS60 in less than good daylight type lighting will be needing higher ISO's at the tele focal lengths.

Anayv's ZS60 images are much better than the sample ZS60 JPG images posted by DPR. Even the 80 ISO images (HERE ) fine details were being smeared by the default JPG settings; definitely not encouraging endorsement for the ZS60's IQ.

Below are ZS50 (1/2.3" sensor) 800 ISO JPG NR vs. RAW NR comparisons; in both comparisons left image JPG; right RAW PP with PSE14 & DeNoise (view original size).





The important point is that no amount of JPG PP will be able to undo the JPG NR degradation finer details. Any further PP NR to reduce JPG noise/ artifacts will further degrade fine details.

Ditto for the FZ1000 in-camera JPG NR at higher ISO's as posted HERE.

To each his/her own preferences.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[cainn24]

Well, depends if overexposed areas are ok with you...or would you rather be able to bring back the detail gone....

Some people just have a higher tolerance for certain sorts of imperfections, or just don't really notice them at all. There are a lot of different reasons for that. Too many to get into in a short post. And it's OK. Unless you're a professional and you have demanding clients dictating creative terms to you, it's really just about what "works" for the individual.