UPDATED: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100 / TZ100 real-world sample gallery

It will be useful for DPR to comparing this one with outdated/old much smaller 1/2.3" sensor Panasonic FZ200 while zoom in for optical performance.

Mar 11, 2016permalink

MJL1952

Had expected better results from this camera, very disappointing. Thrilled I've got the GM5 instead.

Mar 11, 2016permalink

tropicmerc

Very poor image quality. The specs of this camera are far better looking than the photos that are produced.

Mar 10, 2016permalink

AksCT

There are four samples at the highest zoom (one is 4K). But in the other three, I do not see any area of the images to be in-focus. Soft all around.
Is that what you see as well?

Mar 9, 2016permalink

fudgyfilm

What's the point of having 250mm when all you get is SMUDGED images....totally useless piece of crap

Mar 9, 2016permalink

I must say I am disappointed by the optical performance at the long end.
I am not sure that cropped images (aka digital zoom) from e.g., LX100 or RX100 (or DL or GX) would be visibly worse (at same FoV).

I know that I can heavily crop my RX100m3 images at 70mm and still obtain very usable images. Somebody should make the comparison, that would be a useful task when comparing all those recent 1" cameras ...

Mar 8, 2016*permalink

nicoboston

Concerning the optical performance, what exactly did you expect from a 10X zoom F2.8 - F5.9 ?
We can not expect such a camera to be optically as good as a RX100, possibly certain Canon GX or Nikon DL. I see is as a very decent and welcome RX100 alternative for those who need the 10X zoom. Also we should take a closer look at raw files when they become really usable. Panasonic has made choices and they have done a pretty serious job IMO. So far it looks like a great small travel camera. I never had a Panasonic camera before but I'm more pleasantly surprised by this Lumix than by recent Canon and Nikon announcements.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

> what exactly did you expect from a 10X zoom?

That's a good question. Frankly, I naively thought that the performance must beat that of digital zoom, as otherwise, a shorter zoom with better sharpness may simply fit the bill better.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

Go get the sharpest 70mm RX100 III shot you can possibly find. Crop out a 1.6MP portion of it (1532x1021, which corresponds to an area of the sensor that is smaller in size than the smallest smartphone sensor). Resample the image back to 20MP. Now look at it. After you've done that see if you can come back here and maintain your position that cropping the cameras output to match a 250mm EFL will get you even remotely close to matching the IQ of the ZS100 at the same EFL, with a straight face.

The LX100 wont do any better because it's not quite as sharp as the Sony. In fact if you head over to Imaging Resource and look at some resolution charts you will find that the ZS100 matches the LX100 for peak detail resolution when both are shot at full tele anyway so this is over before it begins, and definitively so.

You're gonna have to blame whatever softness you see on something other than optical performance. Camera shake, flare, AF inaccuracy, whatever, and who knows...

Mar 9, 2016*permalink

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

Mar 9, 2016permalink

I've done exactly what I suggested that you do, and a whole lot of other very similar things. I like to try to be diplomatic but you're so far off the mark here it really is a bit silly.

Go ahead and try it yourself. And go check the Imaging Resource resolution chart samples as well. Or don't, and stick with your RX100 III, and crop away. If you're happy, you're happy.

Mar 9, 2016permalink

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

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:

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.

Mar 9, 2016*permalink

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

And processed in DxO this time:

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.

Mar 9, 2016permalink

@cainn24, thanks for the interesting. work. I may do similiar tests as soon as I find the time. DPR's samples look worse to my eye though.

Mar 9, 2016permalink

deep7

Vastly better than I expected! Well done, Panasonic.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

piratejabez

Quite a bit better than ZS60/TZ80! Shows what a difference sensor size makes. I'd be very happy with this zoom range.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

KonstantinosK

Come on guys, what did you expect? It's got roughly the same size as the TZ5, which had the same zoom, but with a much bigger sensor. You can't have a bright lens with such a zoom and in this size. And you can't expect the IQ to be on par with APSC when it's much smaller than m4/3. It's a small pocket camera with a 1' sensor and a 10x zoom, there's nothing like it in the market. It's a marvel that they managed to put a 1" sensor and a EVF in a camera as big as the TZ5.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

Yes, it is, but Pana may be better to call this one LF2.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

KonstantinosK

Why? It looks to me that it belongs to the TZ line. And why the naming is important anyway?

Mar 7, 2016permalink

LF1 is also a travel zoom but did not use TZ to show the sensor difference in size.

If next TZ80 is TZ120, then buyers will confused with TZ80, TZ100 and TZ120...

SONY, in the other hand, is very clear for the P&S naming:
- RX1, RX10, and RX100
- Using other naming for smaller sensor P&S with or without pop-up EVF.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

BTW, Pana is already too confusing to using ZS and TZ for same P&S but different numbers.

Why? fool buyers?

Mar 7, 2016permalink

David 247

No, one designation for the International Market and one for the North American Market. That's what happens when you let the marking folks call the shots. It would be better in my mind if there was one global name, but they caved to the North American marketers.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

It may be ok to use TZ and ZS for the same camera, but why use different # for same camera?

- ZS100 is TZ100 - it's ok.
- ZS60 is TZ80 - the numbers are 20 apart
- ZS50 is TZ70
- ZS45 is TZ57 - the numbers are 12 apart
- ZS30 is TZ40 - the numbers are 10 apart

Panasonic has fun.

Mar 8, 2016*permalink

David 247

Yes, It doesn't make sense.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

grasscatcher

I am wondering if the different model numbers are to differentiate whether the camera can record video beyond 30 minutes (for which some countries are heavily taxed).

Mar 8, 2016permalink

shademaster

Hi guys. Thanks for the updates, but some people shots would be useful too. I took my LX-100 on holidays. It was great for what it was, but I found myself wishing for something longer often... this would be it. Would it be "good enough" in the 24-70 equiv range of the LX-100?

Mar 7, 2016permalink

Every user has different standard for "good enough".

Most importantly, for the same high ISO in low light, a photo seems "good enough" for printing 4x6, but may be not for 8x10.

Interns of LX100 vs TZ100 for SNR:
- LX100 lens is more than a stop faster
- LX100 sensor may have 1/3 stop advantage

So LX100 has 1.5 stop stop advantage in SNR,

Even we are not sure the difference in optical performance, but 20M 1" sensor will be most likely give you more detail in low ISO.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

So, the SNR is possibly as good as LX7, but with longer reach.

SONY 1" sensor is almost 2 stop bettter than LX7's sensoe in terms of SNR, but LX7's lens is 2 stop faster than this cam.

I upgraded my LX7 to SONY RX100.M3 b/c I need one stop better SNR, but I still bring LX7 with me as with conversion lenses via tube adpter, I can get 18mm with UWA, or 150mm with Tele.

Pana should use SONY 1" sensor for its LX100. By doing so, the lens should be noticebly fast with longer reach with very much body size.

Lets see what LX200 can offer as LX100 is not selling very well.

Mar 3, 2016permalink

SONY seems doing very well with RX100s, otherwise SONY will open another line, lets say RX200 with big body, for:

- longer zoom with faster lens liking this Pana, and
- UWA zoom liking NIKOK DL18-50

I wish some mfc can make a 1" sensor camera liking LX7 which can accept conversion lenses, UWA and Tele.

Mar 3, 2016*permalink

Jákup

Nikon J5?

Mar 7, 2016permalink

Nikon 1 (J5) has UWA 2X zoom, but:

- Two stop slow than NIKOK DL18-50
- Nikok UWA 2X zoom is 18-35mm (35mm Equivalent) vs this DL is 18-50mm

NIKOK DL18-50 could be a milestone in the P&S history just like first SONY RX100 which using 1" sensor.

Mar 7, 2016*permalink

Photo-Wiz

I hope these photos are not an indication of the camera's capability. The photos look grainy, a bit smudgy and lacking in sharpness. The one of the ship, looks weird as if shot through gauze. The London skyline across the Thames is noisy and lacking in sharpness. Building on the right looks all smudged out. I was thinking of buying this camera...not now.

Mar 3, 2016permalink

thx1138

The lens must be ordinary as nothing is sharp and even in jpg's noise is visible at ISO 400. Very underwhelming. Bzzt next contender please.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

zeissboy

1" sensor boys, what did you expect.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

thx1138

1" sensor does fine in Sony, Canon and Nikon cameras. And what does that have to do with the lens, which is the real problem.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

Herkybird

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

Mar 8, 2016permalink

zeissboy

Yes, "fine" would be the appropriate word.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

utomo99

Panasonic please tweak it again, so the images better.

Mar 3, 2016permalink

strawbale

I prefer pictures from the very sharp 28-200mm eq lens of my P7800 (279€)

Mar 2, 2016permalink

gizmowiz

All the photos seem dark and grainy. I don't see the 1" sensor being very effective at all. Heck my old TZ5 seems to do better than this supposedly advanced camera!

Mar 2, 2016*permalink

Almost all of them have -1/3 or -2/3 EV exposure compensation dialed in, so it sounds like the screen and/or EVF may have shown the scene brighter than recorded by the sensor, and the photographer may have been better off just trusting the camera's metering.

Mar 2, 2016permalink

KonstantinosK

Hi. I've got the TZ-5 and it's a sweet little camera and I want to keep it for as long as it can live. But its IQ can't come close to what I see here especially as the ISO goes higher.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

sh10453

After looking at the full size of most of these images, I'm definitely not upgrading.
I like the sharpness of my LF1 images much better, aside from the LF1's faster lens, which is a big advantage as well.
Glad the images are posted without photoshopping. That's how I prefer to see them (as they come out of the camera).

Out of curiosity, I'm just wondering why they didn't simply use the nice 28-200mm f/2 lens (from the LF1) on this 1" camera!!!

Sorry Panasonic, but you goofed this time. One "inch" forwards, and 3 steps backwards.

Mar 2, 2016permalink

I just spooked the EXIF from the TZ100 files to fool them into thinking they are FZ1000 files so that Lightroom can open them. I find the RAW files look better than the JPEGs.

Remember also that the LF1 is only 12MP, so the 100% view of these files is almost double the size of the LF1 files.

Also, the LF1 only has a 6-42.8mm f2-5.9 lens that produces a much smaller image circle, whereas this 1" camera requires a 9.1-91mm f2.8-5.9 lens. They're very different beasts.

It's just like asking why don't you just use your 17-55/f2.8 APS-C lens on your full frame body.

Mar 2, 2016permalink

Ocolon

The duck photo – http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS3504x2336~sample_galleries/3496191771/0298516425.jpg – looks rather bad to me, smudgy and full of artifacts. It may be the JPEG engine that failed here and a RAW could prove to be very useful.

I know I'm pixel peeping, but my overall feeling about this is: Why have so many pixels if you're not supposed to look at them? With that quality I'd prefer to have half the numbers of pixels on the same sensor, hence smaller files, higher pixel peeping quality and the same or even a little better quality when not pixel peeping.

EDIT: Sorry, just realized this is a still from 4K mode. D'oh.

Mar 2, 2016*permalink

axlotl

Good samples, thanks for posting, good selection of subjects. Everything looks OK, sharpness/detail, out of focus rendition, highlight/shadow detail, flare control, high ISO rendition up to 3200. Noise reduction in the JPGs appears to be over enthusiastic as is typical of recent Panasonic cameras such as the LX100.
The lens looks OK. I think the RAWs will be fine.
Andrew

Mar 1, 2016permalink

David Lumsden

Might have been interesting to see a few examples of the post focus function.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

PKDanny

1 inche sensor = 25.4 millimeters sensor.

Look alike APS-C sensor !!!???

Mar 1, 2016permalink

aliasfox

1" is reflective of the diameter of the video tube needed to produce an image on this sensor, and doesn't even come close to representing any aspect of the sensor's actual dimensions, which are (roughly) 9mm x 13mm, or just about half the area of 4/3".

Mar 1, 2016permalink

darrinlingle

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

Darrin Lingle, Colorado

Mar 8, 2016permalink

aliasfox

@darrinlingle

Yes, should be exactly the same size. There's even potential that its the same sensor as used in the Nikon DL cameras and one of the newer CX bodies (can't recall which).

Mar 8, 2016permalink

That ship shot with the full reach wide open is quite detailed. You can clearly read the SEATTLE. Would have been cool to zoom out to 100mm and try that shot to highlight the added reach. I didn't think I'd like the ZS100 much but I think you're right Mr. Keller. Given enough light the f5.9 is just barely into diffraction so you're getting a lot of reach on your 20 mp from a pocket rocket.

The ~50mm ~f4 is just too dark for me and I tend to stay 50mm or wider, mostly indoors and in low light. Lots of pocket 1" options now with f1.8 wide angles. I'm not the target customer I don't think.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

PKDanny

They should make new one f1.2-1.8. Wish???

Mar 1, 2016permalink

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.

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

David Lumsden

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

Mar 1, 2016permalink

PedroMZ

PK Danny - a faster lens would be much bigger,no longer pocket size.

Mar 8, 2016permalink

aliasfox

This might be a good replacement for my girlfriend's Panny GF3 when the price drops some. Right now, she mainly carries around her 14-42 II lens, and will occasionally throw on my Olympus 40-150 (non stabilized) when she wants something longer. The ZS100 is a stop slower in the lens department, but the 1" sensor should be about a stop better than the old 12mp m4/3 sensor in both low light and DR - even more in DR, most likely, as the 1" sensor isn't much behind the 16mp m4/3 sensor.

And with the newer sensor and stabilization, it will even come close to the GF3 with her 20mm f/1.7 in low light, though it won't have the DoF that's possible with the m4/3 combo (relatively close distance portraiture, for example)

Probably can't use her old filters though.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

The thing I'm having a hard time with is the lens speed. According to another review blog, the lens is f4.1 at 50mm and f5.2 at 100mm. So while the long zoom will be great outdoors, the wide end will be poor indoors or in fading light. That kills a lot of the versatility factor.

And then if it becomes an outdoor/daytime camera, maybe just get the TZ80 and enjoy 3x the zoom range?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

To be honest, I consider any camera with a zoom on it to be an outdoor camera.

Unless you're saddling up with a monster f2.8 zoom on APS-C or FF, which is still pretty marginal for high quality, just take a small mirrorless camera with a fast prime for your low light shooting. Everyone involved will be much happier.

I find f1.7 to be pushing it on M4/3 for high quality indoor photos with no flash, often running at 1/60s and ISO 2000. A huge 24-70 f2.8 on FF is only a little ahead there, and APS-C is still behind. An f1.8 fast zoom on an even smaller sensor like the RX100 or LX100 is farther behind in every way.

I think the extra image quality latitude, resolution, and ability to control DoF to a limited extent on the ZS100 would make it a much more satisfying general purpose camera than the TZ80.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

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.

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

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.

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

If the shot's still enough where you can open the shutter time and you don't need/want reach for framing, the compact camera zooms give big glass a run for it's money. I can hand hold my RX100 f1.8 28mm equiv down to amazingly long shutters like 1/20s if I'm careful and their ISO 3200 performance isn't that bad at all. That's a lot of light, even with just 1" of sensor behind it. No, a compact zoom doesn't do night portraiture well but if you stick wide I think you're under-selling.

This specific example is comparatively slow at the wide end with just f2.8 but with a lot more reach. You could pair it with an LX100 or DL18-50 to give you more low light options.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

raztec

The majority of these shots have some degree of negative exposure compensation. I wonder if that means the camera over exposes in general.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Jeff Keller

That was certainly my experience.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

PropaPH

the irony of travel cameras is that you need something small and light that you can carry with you all the time, with a wide range of focal lengths for myriad situations, but, you hopefully will experience sights that deserve preserving in the highest possible quality since you probably will never see them again. Back to work Panasonic!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

66GTO

A very uninspiring gallery here. Nothing to really show what the camera is capable of. Looks like just going through the motions shots. Try again with different shooters in a different location. Include some people pictures. Get yourselves inspired!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

SmilerGrogan

Nice work!!!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

dmanthree

I like this gallery better than the "100-400" gallery. People buying this camera will be using it in this manner; hand held snapshooting. The results are typical for the genre, but pretty good. Overall, it looks like a nice travel cam.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

piratejabez

Not impressed by these, but I think that's because of my expectations for RAW performance. Really looking forward to see how much of a benefit (at least in terms of detail) ACR support will provide.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

I think it is because of lens' performance...Don't expect much from RAW images.Really I wish they released 2 cameras to cover 18-200 focal lenghth.
like 18-50 and 50-200 1 inch sensor cameras with bright lenses!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

It doesn't look like it's the lens' fault at all, to me.

Almost everything that I can see that is problematic is messy processing artifacts. In fact, they're so bad that it's not easy to get any real indication of the lens' actual performance.

Most cameras in this class have JPEGs that are designed to look good at small magnifications. i.e. a 20MP image that is displayed at 1080p on a 15" screen. They are not designed for pixel-level quality.

I'll confirm my suspicions with the RAW files, though. Given how satisfying the RAWs that come out of my LG G4 are compared to the JPEGs, I suspect it will be a revelation.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Androole,
Do you know how much software correction they are applying to fix lens faults?
Once I said Sony 16-50 pz lens is crap and a guy objected...I am using it and I know RAW outputs.
To be able to get that small lens for relatively big sensor requires compromises!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

makofoto

Long Zoom ... how about some Sports/Racing photos that stress tests the AF?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

cchen2

Please DPReview, post some portraits- I'm interested in seeing how the camera handles bokeh in ideal situations, like zoomed in from far away to get separation from the background. I know it's not going to be like a prime, but it might do ok in a pinch.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

I can't comment on quality, but in terms of quantity, at 150mm equivalent you would get blur comparable to using 100mm f10 on APS-C.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

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.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

XPloRR

Fully agree! Please show some portraits with bokeh. Try different zoom settings to show the difference in bokeh performance.

Mar 2, 2016permalink

Andersonm

I am blind to sample galleries. Mine eyes can only observe studio scenes. (once spoilt, twice rotten)

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

SGM23

Reviews/Comments are so difficult to decipher, so many differences of opinion, so many pros/cons of each camera. I guess that's what makes the world go round...So, what is a consumer to do? What camera should I take to Alaska for example? Something I can carry comfortably during an active trip. As an amateur I think I know my iphone is not going to take the landscape or wildlife photos I want, but I also know I don't have the time nor the inclination to understand every nuance of fine photography. However, I do want the manual options as I become more educated...So I am considering the camera above, bad choice? Decisions..Decisions. I posted a similar comment in another area but it was an older discussion. Thanks in advance for any thoughts...

Mar 1, 2016permalink

jsmiller

I'm going to Alaska in May, and I'm seriously considering this camera after seeing these samples. They look like what I would expect and need for a camera like this. I also have a Canon 5D III (heavy), bulky, a Olympus EM5 requires lens changes, so less conveniet when having just a short time to shoot, and a Sony RX 100 II (OK images, no EVF)., but this camera looks like a good compliement to the others: compact, long zoom, good images. 14x17 prints, even larger, from this camera would be very good.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

jimlock

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!

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

You have to determine the physical dimensions you can deal with. This ZS100 is all about compactness. If you don't value that compactness EXTREMELY highly, this is probably a poor choice. Panasonic's own 1" based FZ1000 is similar in price with more reach and more speed but with a lot larger lens. I'd point you in that direction unless you think size is a requirement. Budget also factors in. If you have $2,000 instead of $1000 you might want an A6300 and a couple lenses. If you have $4,000 instead of $2,000, you might want a full frame setup.

I generally reject the "room to grow" nonsense. Camera technology is improving quickly so buy what you want and try not to look forward too much. Controlling aperture, shutter, ISO, and exposure is almost a given these days (with varying degrees of control flexibility) and very little gear carries across market segments.

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

EdBen

I noticed that on one of the recent reviews online on another site (cannot remember which, link in a thread in pana compact forum here) iso 200 seems (noticably) cleaner than iso 125, so I presume the Base ISO is 200 while 125 is an extension.
Unfortunately most of these samples are at iso 125 or high iso, none at iso 200. @Dpreview can you confirm Base ISO and post some samples at iso 200?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

EdBen

@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?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

EdBen

@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?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

80 is the base ISO.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

HaroldC3

Pretty typical 1" sensor performance. Nothing to get excited about.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Since this has a 10x zoom and an EVF that doesn't pop-up, while remaining similar in size, I think performing like the "typical" 1" sensor camera is pretty big win.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

aris14

Τhe cam is just fine. Despite some ...smudgy comments from guys who would ask from a Hundai to perform as Bentley (and as usually they are ready to die to prove the obvious while nobody asked them) this cam would follow the steps of its predecessors because it's handy and versatile, delivers well and in some cases delivers fantastic results. I' ve seen a lot of people carry its predecessors and they all were quite happy using it because this lil guy delivers...
The pics I saw is just what someone would ask from an amendment of Pana series, 20 Mp is not really necessary -12 to 14 is rather enough- but who can oppose marketing stubborn guys (i.e the trend they created to the eager to consume potential buyers)...

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Dave Oddie

I like the idea of cameras like this. My first digital camera was a Minolta A1 with 28-200 zoom (eqiv) and I have plenty of photos I like to look back on from that.

Camers like this Panasonic are touted as idea travel cams when weight is an issue and I agree. Yet they have the one obvious "travel accessory" missing - GPS.

I find it extremely useful in my A77 and I note Canon and Pentax have included it on some recent d-slrs which are just the kind of cameras you might decide leave to other duties if a suitable compact alternative existed but I don't think one does except for a Sony with a tiny sensor (forgot the name of that camera).

Yet there are workarounds such as WiFi to a phone but that is a compromise and something else to keep charged up.

For a travel camera it seems an odd omission.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

The JPEGs in the browser look nasty to me, but I've never been happy with the JPEGS out of any camera, so at some point maybe I'll download a few of the RAWs and see what they can do.

I'm really hoping the ZS100 works for me...it would be great to replace my ILC superzoom with this.

The image quality on the whole is a bit blotchy, but I guess it's totally unreasonable to expect pixel level quality at 20MP from a 1" sensor that's anywhere near the 16MP I get with much larger sensors...

I wish there was a way to actually turn off all the luminance noise reduction and just leave on chroma NR in camera. Apply a very modest sharpening, and I'd be much happier with OOC JPEGs. Basically, replicate Lightroom's RAW conversion defaults...

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

phazelag

Can someone tell me how to be able to scroll through these images and maximize my screen real estate? I am not sure why there needs to be so much wasted space and such small images. Using the Loupe is not the same as seeing the entire photo in full screen. Also downloading individually is time consuming. I do find that entering presentation mode on my browser helps but still not full screen.

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

Battersea

The old gallery was much better, did what you described.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

phazelag

Thank you.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Aroart

Great results from a 1 inch sensor...

Mar 1, 2016permalink

photo perzon

Fuzzy pictures

Mar 1, 2016permalink

nicoboston

I'm not sure about this. We need to see raw files because NR looks very harsh. I remember seeing more convincing jpeg images from G*X cameras. Wait and see...
[wrong place... should have responded to Aroart above ;-) ]

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

shademaster

flare. ouch. worse than lx100? I think so.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

rpm40

I only see any flare in one image, shooting almost directly into the sun. I doubt its an issue.

Besides, I would hope the 3x zoom on the larger, more expensive LX100 would outperform this pocket cam with its 10x zoom.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

It's a 10x pocket zoom, man. Be real.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

captura

Yes, there's a grand tradition to these Panasonic travel-cams. They've been doing this for a long time....mine is a TZ4. And they've gotten very good at it. I'm impressed!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

Disappointing. Smudgy everywhere, what's the point of having 20 MP when max 12 would have been just as fine? Ya know, 20 MP is the psychological lower limit these days, or so marketing says.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

I agree with you about 12 mp...Even 10mp would be better.
For a 24mp APS-C sensor;
366.6/24=15.275<<<which means 15.275 mm2 surface has 1 mp
For a 12mp 1 inch sensor;
116.16/12=9.68<<<<<which means 9.68mm2 surface has 1 mp

Mar 1, 2016permalink

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.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

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!

Mar 2, 2016permalink

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.

Mar 2, 2016*permalink

jnd

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.

Mar 2, 2016permalink

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..

Mar 2, 2016*permalink

solsang

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)

Mar 8, 2016*permalink

F31fd... yep, and it still is a good camera for websized snaps and not overly large prints. http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS2848x2136~sample_galleries/2615676010/1464761130.jpg

Mar 9, 2016permalink

Gesture

$500.

Mar 1, 2016permalink

rpm40

$17.50.

....we're just shouting out prices, right? ;)

Mar 1, 2016permalink

If you wait two years, that's what you'll pay. You're a patient person, right?

Mar 1, 2016permalink

I don't think producing a 1 inch sensor is much much more expensive than producing 1/1.7 inch sensor...There are some cameras with APS-C sensor cost around 500 USD.
So 300-500 USD is not bad for these cameras!..(I consider the lens itself too)
But weird thing is we customers are talking as if we are making money when those brands sell.
All about supply and demand!

Mar 1, 2016permalink

And probably producing an M4/3 sensor isn't much more expensive than a 1" sensor.

And probably producing an APS-C sensor isn't much more expensive than an M4/3 sensor.

And probably producing an FF sensor isn't much more expensive than an APS-C sensor.

Where's my $500 FF pocket-zoom already?

Mar 1, 2016*permalink

as i said already;
But weird thing is we customers are talking as if we are making money when those brands sell...

Mar 1, 2016permalink

I think the mature among us realize that without profits, you won't have any new and improved cameras in the future to satisfy your gear lust. Certainly they will be coming from fewer manufacturers as the losers drop out one by one (see Samsung).

I don't complain about prices, I just don't buy equipment when it's brand new. Be patient and get deals. It's as simple as that.

Mar 1, 2016permalink