Lens sharpness tests, TZ100 and others

[telefunk]

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

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.

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.

Never used the RX100's EVF, so no problem with that. Except I did have to pay for it :-(

 

[Jon_T]

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.

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

IMO more of 'how practical' one wants to be; i.e.

How large would prints need to be when viewed at normal viewing distance see the differences between TZ100 and RX100M6?

Or the resolution/ size of a display viewed at normal viewing distance to view the full image to see differences between TZ100 and RX100M?

I fully understand for comparison purposes to use the same RAW PP settings, however with a little USM and CA correction your TZ100 200mm equiv. JPG image can improve the image:




Left is your OP TZ100 200mm equiv. • Right my tweaked version

Yes doing the same enhancements to the RX100M6 would probably have similar improvements, but still for practical purposes the mast majority of ZS100 users would never notice/ miss the differences between the ZS100/ RX100M6.

Hence as to your statement of "TX100 is very poor at 200m" in your OP not entirely true, and only at 100% pixel peeping, or possibly with vary large high quality prints would one see a difference at normal viewing distances.

For myself there's far more to a good "photograph" than digital perfection.

Again some previous ZS100 images at 250mm equiv. that I would not consider "very poor".


800 ISO; POF was women

Two images below were RAW images downloaded from Imaging Resource ZS100 review prior to purchasing the ZS100.




91mm/ 250mm equiv. lens test (full 20MP for the 100% Peepers)

The main reason of my post is that for that for those who may not know better by reading your OP may incorrectly dismiss the ZS100 as having poor image quality.

Yes the RX100M6 has a better lens as it very well should be for the smaller zoom range, larger max apertures (less diffraction at tele max aperture), and the price.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Digital Nigel]

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.

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

IMO more of 'how practical' one wants to be; i.e.

How large would prints need to be when viewed at normal viewing distance see the differences between TZ100 and RX100M6?

Or the resolution/ size of a display viewed at normal viewing distance to view the full image to see differences between TZ100 and RX100M?

I fully understand for comparison purposes to use the same RAW PP settings, however with a little USM and CA correction your TZ100 200mm equiv. JPG image can improve the image:




Left is your OP TZ100 200mm equiv. • Right my tweaked version

Yes doing the same enhancements to the RX100M6 would probably have similar improvements, but still for practical purposes the mast majority of ZS100 users would never notice/ miss the differences between the ZS100/ RX100M6.

Hence as to your statement of "TX100 is very poor at 200m" in your OP not entirely true, and only at 100% pixel peeping, or possibly with vary large high quality prints would one see a difference at normal viewing distances.

For myself there's far more to a good "photograph" than digital perfection.

Again some previous ZS100 images at 250mm equiv. that I would not consider "very poor".


800 ISO; POF was women

Two images below were RAW images downloaded from Imaging Resource ZS100 review prior to purchasing the ZS100.




91mm/ 250mm equiv. lens test (full 20MP for the 100% Peepers)

The main reason of my post is that for that for those who may not know better by reading your OP may incorrectly dismiss the ZS100 as having poor image quality.

I must be pickier than most.

I specifically bought the RX100M6 because I was so disappointed by the poor quality of so many of my TZ100 images. It seemed to be very dependent on focal length, with IQ being acceptable at some focal lengths, but visibly poor at others.

I bought it as the baby brother to my very satisfactory FZ1000. The features were fine, but the IQ was often much worse than the bigger camera. Conversely, I'm delighted that my RX100M6 has image quality almost equal to that of the superb RX10M3.



In fact, as it's a newer model with the super-fast PDAF focusing, it's actually better than its bigger brother for action photos. On the other hand, other than compactness, I can't think of any advantages of the TZ100 over the FZ1000.

Yes the RX100M6 has a better lens as it very well should be for the smaller zoom range, larger max apertures (less diffraction at tele max aperture), and the price.

It has more resolution at 200mm than the TZ100 has at 250mm, so it actually has a wider usable zoom range in practice. A resized, cropped RX100M6 image at 200mm will contain more detail than a TZ100 shot at full zoom.

 

[Digital Nigel]

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

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.

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.

Never used the RX100's EVF, so no problem with that. Except I did have to pay for it :-(

I never use the 4K video, but still had to pay for it.

Almost all modern cameras have more features than any individual purchaser will use.

 

[yanisha]

Does Sharpness Matter?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/02/does-sharpness-matter.html

The history of our own era can't be written for another 30 to 50 years, but, these days, many hobbyists pursue "sharpness" to fanatical excess, as if sharpness and resolution were a marker of some sort of religious or ideological purity or something.

It's gotten so excessive it's actually kind of funny, primarily because most of us look at photographs—regularly, and happily—in forms that don't even allow us to see the level of resolution we're always arguing about. Most of the JPEGs we look at online are well under a million pixels, and fine detail in such small files is mainly only implied. And yet we look at such pictures contentedly all day long. A full resolution picture on a 27" Retina display requires only about 15 megapixels of information. To me personally, a Retina iPad is the nicest way to look at pictures today...and that requires files of only a little more than three megapixels. (I wonder how many people shoot with 42- or 50-megapixel sensors "in case I ever want to print"—but who never actually do?)

A Few Further Complications In Lens Testing

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...a-few-more-complications-in-lens-testing.html

So what I'd recommend is not necessarily choosing your lenses based on lens tests at all. Information is good, and good information like Roger's is infinitely better, but even good information is still just data. A good lens is one that does what you want it to do and that you feel good about...based on how the pictures look. Keep looking until you get there—whether finding it comes early or late, and whether the process is easy or difficult, casual or fanatical, or expensive or cheap. Don't let other people tell you what you're supposed to like, yes; but be mindful not to let lens tests dictate to you what you're supposed to like either.

 

[Belgarchi]

Does Sharpness Matter?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/02/does-sharpness-matter.html

The history of our own era can't be written for another 30 to 50 years, but, these days, many hobbyists pursue "sharpness" to fanatical excess, as if sharpness and resolution were a marker of some sort of religious or ideological purity or something.

It's gotten so excessive it's actually kind of funny, primarily because most of us look at photographs—regularly, and happily—in forms that don't even allow us to see the level of resolution we're always arguing about. Most of the JPEGs we look at online are well under a million pixels, and fine detail in such small files is mainly only implied. And yet we look at such pictures contentedly all day long. A full resolution picture on a 27" Retina display requires only about 15 megapixels of information. To me personally, a Retina iPad is the nicest way to look at pictures today...and that requires files of only a little more than three megapixels. (I wonder how many people shoot with 42- or 50-megapixel sensors "in case I ever want to print"—but who never actually do?)

A Few Further Complications In Lens Testing

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...a-few-more-complications-in-lens-testing.html

So what I'd recommend is not necessarily choosing your lenses based on lens tests at all. Information is good, and good information like Roger's is infinitely better, but even good information is still just data. A good lens is one that does what you want it to do and that you feel good about...based on how the pictures look. Keep looking until you get there—whether finding it comes early or late, and whether the process is easy or difficult, casual or fanatical, or expensive or cheap. Don't let other people tell you what you're supposed to like, yes; but be mindful not to let lens tests dictate to you what you're supposed to like either.

I am a little on the 'sharpness fanatic' side, but I must admit that practical experience with lenses can be very surprising... For example, I tested and re-tested and re-re-tested my Pentax 43/1.9 FA Limited, each time with pretty poor results... but in real photography, I love the photos I take with that lens. It is something in the color rendition I think, but I am not sure.

 

[telefunk]

I am a little on the 'sharpness fanatic' side, but I must admit that practical experience with lenses can be very surprising... For example, I tested and re-tested and re-re-tested my Pentax 43/1.9 FA Limited, each time with pretty poor results... but in real photography, I love the photos I take with that lens. It is something in the color rendition I think, but I am not sure.

Interesting. And completely valid argument!

 

[Belgarchi]

Looking at your 'gear list', I am curious: why did you give only one star to the Fuji X-T20? I am a little bit disappointed by the I.Q. of mine, but would still give it 3.5 or 4 stars.

 

[telefunk]

Looking at your 'gear list', I am curious: why did you give only one star to the Fuji X-T20? I am a little bit disappointed by the I.Q. of mine, but would still give it 3.5 or 4 stars.

It managed to make 5 out of 8 test shots out of focus. The subject was a (static!) tree in my garden.

The well-focussed shots displayed horrible watercolour artifacts. Useless. The XT100 is light years better.

 

[yanisha]

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

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.

This is not meant to be argumentative, but by definition a lens that is labeled Leica is a Leica lens and lens labeled Zeiss is a Zeiss lens. The only exception is if the Leica/Zeiss name was being used fraudulently. I think it is very reasonable to believe that Leica would love to sue the huge Panasonic corporation if they were doing that. Probably they could get hundreds of millions of dollars. And same for Zeiss and Sony.

Over the years I have seen all kinds of speculation about what the Leica and Zeiss names on Panasonic and Sony cameras means. I have never seen anything definitive. And it doesn't matter since as long as the Leica and Zeiss lens labels are not used fraudulently then they are Leica and Zeiss lenses.

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

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.

See above.

 

[Digital Nigel]

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

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.

This is not meant to be argumentative, but by definition a lens that is labeled Leica is a Leica lens and lens labeled Zeiss is a Zeiss lens. The only exception is if the Leica/Zeiss name was being used fraudulently.

Nobody has suggested that the name is being used fraudulently.

I think it is very reasonable to believe that Leica would love to sue the huge Panasonic corporation if they were doing that. Probably they could get hundreds of millions of dollars. And same for Zeiss and Sony.

In both cases, the Japanese camera companies pay the German companies a licence fee to use their names. In Sony's case, I think they also use Zeiss lens coatings, but there's no sign of any Leica technology or designs in the Panasonic lenses.

Over the years I have seen all kinds of speculation about what the Leica and Zeiss names on Panasonic and Sony cameras means. I have never seen anything definitive. And it doesn't matter since as long as the Leica and Zeiss lens labels are not used fraudulently then they are Leica and Zeiss lenses.

No, they are not Leica or Zeiss lenses in any real sense. It's purely a commercial arrangement and when you buy a cheap Panasonic camera you're not magically getting an expensive Leica lens. You're just getting the cheap Panasonic lens you paid for.

They are not specified, designed, engineered, produced or quality controlled by those German firms. And the Leica-labelled Panasonic lenses are typically of a much lower standard than real Leica lenses. The Zony lenses are designed and made by Sony, but are at least relatively premium lenses, though some purely Sony-branded lenses are actually better.

They're a bit like a code-shared flight: you book on high quality airline A, get a ticket and boarding card showing their flight number, but when you board the flight, you discover that it's actually a plane operated by the lower standard airline B. You get the lower quality seat, meals, drinks and service of airline B, despite having, you thought, selected the more expensive airline A.

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

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.

See above.

 

[Mike Wrob]

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

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.

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.

I can pull the TZ100 out of it's case with one hand and turn it on with one hand and shoot. Couldn't do that with the pop up viewfinder. I know you're supposed to hold the camera with 2 hands for stabilization, but I use my camera a lot when hiking and have my hiking poles in the other hand.

Since I rarely print pictures anymore, just mostly post on line somewhere, I can live with the lower (relative to the RX100) IQ of the TZ100. The IQ from the TZ100 may not be as good as the RX100, but it is still far superior to what you could get from a compact camera 10 years ago and probably as good as a 35mm camera from days past, so we're just getting spoiled.

 

[Jon_T]

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.

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

IMO more of 'how practical' one wants to be; i.e.

How large would prints need to be when viewed at normal viewing distance see the differences between TZ100 and RX100M6?

Or the resolution/ size of a display viewed at normal viewing distance to view the full image to see differences between TZ100 and RX100M?

I fully understand for comparison purposes to use the same RAW PP settings, however with a little USM and CA correction your TZ100 200mm equiv. JPG image can improve the image:




Left is your OP TZ100 200mm equiv. • Right my tweaked version

<SNIP>

... I must be pickier than most.

I specifically bought the RX100M6 because I was so disappointed by the poor quality of so many of my TZ100 images. It seemed to be very dependent on focal length, with IQ being acceptable at some focal lengths, but visibly poor at others. ...

With all due respect the softness in your posted images also due to post processing as I've shown by tweaking your "TZ100 200 P1060265 cropped resized 4000 200" JPG image.

Given my improvements with the small JPG image, you should been able to get better IQ from the RAW image PP with DXO PhotoLab 2; based upon my own experiences with my ZS100 and DXO PhotoLab 2.

Also do not see similar 'softness' in the Imaging Resource 91mm/250mm equiv Lens Test (even at the corners) posted in my previous post.

I generally consider my self 'pickier' than most here as I shoot mainly RAW and I PP images from EACH of my cameras 'as needed' to get the best possible IQ results.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Digital Nigel]

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.

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: ...

IMO more of 'how practical' one wants to be; i.e.

How large would prints need to be when viewed at normal viewing distance see the differences between TZ100 and RX100M6?

Or the resolution/ size of a display viewed at normal viewing distance to view the full image to see differences between TZ100 and RX100M?

I fully understand for comparison purposes to use the same RAW PP settings, however with a little USM and CA correction your TZ100 200mm equiv. JPG image can improve the image:

... I must be pickier than most.

I specifically bought the RX100M6 because I was so disappointed by the poor quality of so many of my TZ100 images. It seemed to be very dependent on focal length, with IQ being acceptable at some focal lengths, but visibly poor at others. ...

With all due respect the softness in your posted images also due to post processing as I've shown by tweaking your "TZ100 200 P1060265 cropped resized 4000 200" JPG image.

All the images were post-processed with identical PL2 settings, including its lens sharpness optimization.

Given my improvements with the small JPG image, you should been able to get better IQ from the RAW image PP with DXO PhotoLab 2; based upon my own experiences with my ZS100 and DXO PhotoLab 2.

Also do not see similar 'softness' in the Imaging Resource 91mm/250mm equiv Lens Test (even at the corners) posted in my previous post.

My TZ100, like many others, might have a sub-optimal lens. But none of the Sony RX cameras seem to ship with imperfect lenses. I was even prepared to buy a grey market import, which slashes the high UK price, confident in Sony's quality control.

I generally consider my self 'pickier' than most here as I shoot mainly RAW and I PP images from EACH of my cameras 'as needed' to get the best possible IQ results.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[Henry Richardson]

I think my TX1/ZS100/TZ100 does pretty well at 250mm f5.9:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62337549

Maybe you got a dud. Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

 

[telefunk]

I think my TX1/ZS100/TZ100 does pretty well at 250mm f5.9:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62627961

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62337549

Maybe you got a dud. Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

Have NEVER seen a sharp picture at more than half zoom... Huge blooming sets in due to diffraction.

 

[Jon_T]

I think my TX1/ZS100/TZ100 does pretty well at 250mm f5.9:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62627961

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62337549

Maybe you got a dud. Unfortunately, it happens sometimes.

Have NEVER seen a sharp picture at more than half zoom... Huge blooming sets in due to diffraction.

With OOC with default JPG settings yes; with RAW you can get much better overall IQ.

... Again some previous ZS100 images at 250mm equiv. that I would not consider "very poor".


800 ISO; POF was women



Two images below were RAW images downloaded from Imaging Resource ZS100 review prior to purchasing the ZS100.






91mm/ 250mm equiv. lens test (full 20MP for the 100% Peepers)




174mm EFL

For myself find the ZS100 more than adequate for a "pocketable" general purpose// travel camera.

Yes the RX100 VI sharper, but it should be for the additional cost, and kudos to Sony for limiting the lens to f/4.5 200mm EFL.


25mm EFL




250mm EFL



Cheers,
Jon

 

[Henry Richardson]

My TZ100, like many others, might have a sub-optimal lens.

Ahh, I see that you already acknowledged that you probably got a dud. Unfortunately, it happens sometimes. My Sony A700 and A100 both had lots of problems. :-( But, lots of people got good ones. My Sony RX100 has been okay. Well, except that it is so darn slow to power on and extend the lens and AF is slow. My Panasonic TX1 is many times faster.

I know that Sony usually, just like Panasonic and all the rest, makes good stuff. Sometimes duds get through though. It seems like it should be about time you got over it though and moved on, don't you think? Life just isn't all that long and the older you get the more you realize it.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Digital Nigel]

My TZ100, like many others, might have a sub-optimal lens.

Ahh, I see that you already acknowledged that you probably got a dud.

Ah, I see you've just noticed a post from three months ago.

Unfortunately, it happens sometimes. My Sony A700 and A100 both had lots of problems. :-( But, lots of people got good ones. My Sony RX100 has been okay. Well, except that it is so darn slow to power on and extend the lens and AF is slow.

That's certainly not the case with modern RX100s, which have much better, faster AF than the TX1.

My Panasonic TX1 is many times faster.

I know that Sony usually, just like Panasonic and all the rest, makes good stuff.

Looking at the images you've posted, I think you have a dud, too.

Sometimes duds get through though.

Yup, and it looks like you got one, too. And, judging by published results, so did everyone else who actually compared its image quality with other cameras. I think the problem is with the basic design of the cheap lens, not manufacturing quality.

It seems like it should be about time you got over it though and moved on, don't you think? Life just isn't all that long and the older you get the more you realize it.

I have. I'm delighted with my RX100M6, which produces superb images. Consequently, I no longer use my TZ100.

I advise you never to compare the images you get from your TX1 with what you could be getting if only you'd bought an RX100M6, which is smaller, has a very usable EVF, a 270 degree double-articulated rear screen, faster focusing, and produces much better (sharper, brighter, more detailed) images.

 

[yanisha]

I fully understand for comparison purposes to use the same RAW PP settings, however with a little USM and CA correction your TZ100 200mm equiv. JPG image can improve the image:




Left is your OP TZ100 200mm equiv. • Right my tweaked version

With all due respect the softness in your posted images also due to post processing as I've shown by tweaking your "TZ100 200 P1060265 cropped resized 4000 200" JPG image.

Given my improvements with the small JPG image, you should been able to get better IQ from the RAW image PP with DXO PhotoLab 2; based upon my own experiences with my ZS100 and DXO PhotoLab 2.

Also do not see similar 'softness' in the Imaging Resource 91mm/250mm equiv Lens Test (even at the corners) posted in my previous post.

I generally consider my self 'pickier' than most here as I shoot mainly RAW and I PP images from EACH of my cameras 'as needed' to get the best possible IQ results.

Jon, you made your point very well. Thank you.