Thanks Richard, looking forward to it!

Hello,

ACR & Lightroom now support this new camera. Richard, do you know something about these names listed in the Lightroom support matrix? Are they only marketting aliases or is there any technical differences?

Panasonic DMC-ZS100 (DMC-ZS110, DMC-TZ100, DMC-TZ101, DMC-TZ110, DMC-TX1

This TZ100 is really interesting as I'm looking for a replacement for my good old DMC-FX35 which I cannot use any more since I bought a Nikon D610 + AF-S 85/1.4G. This one could be the perfect pocket companion for travels (I think the 70-80 mm limitation of the available compact experts is a bit annoying..).

The difference between the ZS100 and TZ100 is an NTSC/PAL distinction. The other models similarly-named models: ZS110, TZ110, TZ101 are likely to be cameras with a very slightly different spec, sold by a single retailer in each country who's paid to have an exclusive model (we're rarely told about these sub-models, so I don't know the exact differences).

That 1.6MP upscaled may indeed look about the same. That was my point exactly. Did YOU do the test?

Here, I did the work for you. These are center crops from IR test charts all shot at full tele for all cameras. The best performing fnumber for each camera was chosen. The RAW files were rendered with RawDigger which means no sharpening and no noise reduction. So we have an even playing field on which to try to judge optical performance:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pcym24e08e3h120/comparo.png?dl=0

RX100 III left, ZS100 middle, LX100 right (upsampled to match)

The RX100 III crop is clearly sharper, as expected. And the ZS100 shot is lacking a little contrast, which also isn't exactly shocking. But the differences here aren't remotely significant enough to lend any credence to the idea that a 70mm RX100 III shot could be cropped to a 250mm EFL and remain in the game.

1.6MP just isn't enough. The remaining sensor area just isn't enough. And the remaining image circle area just isn't enough.

But again, that's not to say that there isn't _something_ wrong with DPRs ZS100 shots.

And processed in DxO this time:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jhiv7obrsu43mzx/comparo_sharpened.png?dl=0

RX100 III left, ZS100 right

DxO Optics Pro seems to do some sort of deconvolution sharpening (the Lens Softness module), and it's sometimes a very effective operation. The Sony still has a clear edge, but it appears to have diminished slightly.

Interesting.

Nikon J5?

1" sensor boys, what did you expect.

The photos have the typical Panasonic jpeg processing, watercolor. Also, the pictures are from the Seattle area.

is this sensor about the same size as the nikon CX (nikon1)?

Darrin Lingle, Colorado

lol I'd pay $1,000 for it. Something tells me that wouldn't be enough. I guess what I want is to keep f2.8 through portrait range (say 85mm). After that I just want to avoid diffraction so f5.7 is fine.

Note that the ship shot – actually a ferry – is an in-camera raw conversion. Thus the detail. I find that this function works adequately for 90% of my raw shots on my FZ 1000

If I have to bring an ILC + prime lens on the trip to swap to in bad light, then I might as well just bring another lens for it too and forego the expensive compact.

Something like a DL24-85 that keeps the aperture in the f1.8-2.4 range in the wide-normal range means I have a good shot at staying at ISO 1600 or below, which is still quite good on 1"-ers.

Sure. But a high quality superzoom in the 28-300mm range costs as much as the TZ100, weighs as much as the TZ100, and is as big as the TZ100. Actually, in most cases they're bigger and heavier than the TZ...

So I think I'd still rather have that TZ100 as a 2nd camera in my kit than a lens that will achieve similar results.

In low light, I just don't think anything substitutes for a larger sensor and a fast prime.

Interestingly, at 150mm/5.9 the TZ100 has the same ability to blur the background as the RX100 IV at 70mm/2.8, and so if you're able to stand back a bit farther and/or frame more tightly, you should be able to get significantly more blur at 250mm/5.9, especially for distant backgrounds.

Did two weeks in AK last summer, carrying my Sony a6000 with a Sony 18-200mm lens. Great travel combination; fits in a small Lowepro bag easily carried over the shoulder. The 24mp APC sensor left plenty of room for cropping too. Took it hiking, kayaking, and on bus tours. Very happy with results. Have a great trip!

@Dpreview And next question: If 200 is the Base ISO, is the camera defaulting to 125 for some reason in auto iso or did the photographer choose that setting?

Imagine that you could get perfect A4-sized prints and even A3, with a bit of stretching, from six megapixel image sensors.
D3s was sensational on its launch - that is 12 MP Full Frame. Now imagine current sensor technology with similar figures. The buffer depth when doing bursts. And so on.
In my humble estimation I have no use for crappy oversized and over-corrected images when I can make do with 6-8 MP snaps that actually look amazing.
The only thing that's maybe interesting is 4K movies.

I don't think they would give us all in a camera...Thats why I didn't mention to buffer depth,but you are right.
Sony has made an awesome camera A7s with 12 mp full-frame sensor.But since a full frame sensor is big enough to handle the high ISO values,people didn't show enough interest for this camera maybe.
But when it is a camera with relatively small sensor,I think professionals would prefere those cameras if they were around 10 mp.
I have written this under another thread too;if Sony improved their already good 16mp APS-C sensor,instead of pushing mp to the 24 mp levels,I would be happier.

But this time it is not those camera bands' fault.It is us,we customers who are the guilty!

That's why we're sort of condemned to use quirky cameras, like Fuji's. They do care about their niche, but don't make stupid populist mistakes by adding un-needed features and pixels. I was actually surprised by the 24 MP X-Pro2, but I guess the professional niche that started using their flagships wanted perhaps a bit more at low ISO. At any rate, I believe it would make sense for them to have distinct lines, one with a lesser pixel count and one with high pixel count (like D3X/D3S) to have something appealing for both the professional good / staged light shooter and the avaiable light enthusiast. Which might yet happen.

More megapixels are definitely useful for lens aberration corrections (like distortion, CA). I would rather choose to work with oversampled data than less pixel because it's convenient to someone and still lose details because the image isn't so granular. Also, remember that with the same lens, you still gain useful information if you only double resolution of the sensor, there is no binary cut off point. Set up lower resolution files if you like it.

It's good to actually have that choice. I'd rather have good equipment and little need for oversampling but it's obviously not true to your needs, which I of course respect. However, mainstream users do not work with oversampled data.

The crappier the lens you use, the more useful oversampling becomes. At the cost of extra false detail, bigger files, slower buffers and file processing (bad since you can only have passively cooled processing units in cameras), significant degradation of SNR as you go up ISO.
How about using GOOD lenses and worry less about distortion, CA? Just look at the Fuji 14mm 2.8, 16mm 1.4...
Otherwise, the next relevant step up would be 48 megapixel crop sensors... all that while medium format digital tops at 100 and has 53.7 x 40.4mm sensor size versus 24x16 mm crop... while most crop lenses are so crappy that you only get 10MP equivalent detail in the end... I don't care what the camera does as long as I get a nice 8-12 MP file in the end. Not the 20MP one..

Set the camera to EZ and get 5 MP photos with zoom to 500mm :)
(the famous fuji F31fd was way better than anything else at its time, and its 6 MP took less toll on harddisk space and mail)