Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS60 / TZ80 real-world samples and studio comparison

yeah, I should have written Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000

Mar 23, 2016permalink

McDonalds doesn't make the best cheeseburger in the world, but if you're hungry and it's what you can afford, it tastes really good. Try it with some of the barbecue sauce, small fries, and a small strawberry shake.

I figure the ZS 60 is at least as good as a McDonalds Cheeseburger.

Mar 23, 2016permalink

wev

I think you might get better pictures/video using the cheeseburger :)

Dec 23, 2016permalink

Comparing a $500 super zoom compact to what you could do with a full frame mirrorless and $12,000 lenses is asinine.

Mar 23, 2016permalink

The best pictures are the ones you take with the camera you have. Pictures taken with the camera you wish you had, don't come out well at all.

Mar 23, 2016permalink

If the pictures look really bad, maybe you need a new calibrated monitor.

Mar 23, 2016permalink

The world has changed. Digital allows me to shoot many more pictures than I did when I traded my Nikon S2 for a Minolta SRT-101. I don't make 8X10 prints anymore. I shoot birds and grandchildren. My wife likes to have a little camera that fits in her purse. I shoot HD video that we watch on a 24" Dell. I print from LightRoom to my Brother color laser and make large (8X11) prints that I stick on plain paper and put on the wall. I have an ever changing salon wall. From what I read here, there are people who want to make 30X40 needle-sharp museum quality pictures. And, they comment on IQ for a 1/2.3 sensor. R U effing crazy?

Mar 23, 2016permalink

lensberg

Oh god... the image quality is absolutely horrible... Panasonic are going from bad to worse with every generation of super zoom P&S .

Seemingly at anything beyond 500mm the IQ is so bad... I might as well paint the image on canvas myself... :)

Always stick with Canon in this segment... Their JPEG's are great and definitely a cut above the competition...

Mar 7, 2016permalink

Xentinus

I didn't try to calculate how big it supposed to be if it was a 1 inch sensor and 400mm or 500mm fixed focal length camera....But I am sure they would find more customer for it!

Mar 6, 2016permalink

Bob Thompson Photos

May we see some panorama samples from this and other cameras?
Thanks

Mar 6, 2016permalink

Lan

The image quality in the studio test scene is terrible. The JPEGs are not great, but just about acceptable if you have low expectations (which suggests some impressive image processing by the JPEG engine), but the RAW is depressing to look at - it suffers from both noise, and noise reduction at base ISO and there's no real detail in the images at all. Everything is just hazy and blurred.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

TSGames

I never really liked any Panasonic camera for image quality. Even the GH4 seems terrible especially at this price-point. For video, these cameras are great, but for stills, I would always pick another one.

Mar 6, 2016*permalink

pacnwhobbyist

It seems like a step back in IQ over its predecessor.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

I think this series peaked with the TZ40/ZS30. This was ultra small with a touch screen and GPS and a more reasonable 20x zoom but probably too many pixels but it has never really made that much difference. New cameras come out just because they have to produce new cameras and whether there is a real need for them is not an issue. The rear screen is very good so the EVF was never vital in my view.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

pacnwhobbyist

I am not a huge fan in general of high MP counts on small sensors. Frankly, it would have been better if they stuck with the 12MP sensor the previous model had.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

(unknown member)

I agree. Probably they are bouncing the pixel count up and down to entice different buyers at each iteration. The must have the pixels and the lower is better people. I suspect there are more of the former than the latter and 12mp probably cuts the sales.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

Anyone who wants 12MP JPEGs can just set the camera to output them. You'll get a tiny bit more detail than if the camera had a 12MP sensor instead (as evidenced by ZS40 vs ZS50 comparisons) and there will only be a significant noise difference at the highest ISOs (and nowhere near as significant as people seem to believe).

This is really a non-issue I think.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

piratejabez

Decent detail, acceptable noise for such a small sensor, but RAW doesn't appear to be able to add any useful benefit apart from exposure (and ACR doesn't know what to do with the colors). I think it's a great option for casual or traveling JPEG shooters.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

georgievv

I have the previous model ZS50 and use RAW exclusively. It helps to recover shadows and highlights and to tune sharpening and noise reduction to much better output than SOOC JPEGs. It is worth the effort.

There is a misconception that small sensors do not benefit from RAW. I think it it is just the opposite - the benefits of using RAW in small sensor cameras are greater than the benefits of RAW in big sensor cameras. This is based on my experience using the ZS50 and a Sony A57 DSLR.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

I totally agree, gerogievv.

My LG G4 smartphone pictures are like they're from a totally different camera when I open the RAW / DNG files compared to the JPEGs.

The assumptions that manufacturers make when processing to make "pleasing" JPEGs, particularly in terms of noise reduction, are totally at odds with my own taste.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

breivogel

I would not agree it is acceptable. Especially at full zoom , quite bad. Agree the raw can not perform miracles, though it does allow one to easily adjust color balance and optimize nr to some degree.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

breivogel

Also, totally wrong to say that small sensors benefit more from RAW than large ones. The DR is so low in the 1/2.3" sensors, that the ability to lift shadows is minimal, as is highlight recovery.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

It depends on what you're trying to do with your files. It is still useful to have some DR latitude in deciding how you want your image to look when using small sensors, but the main thing discussed here is how overly aggressive noise reduction and sharpening destroys the files. There is a shocking amount of information in the RAWs from these cameras that is just totally obliterated in the JPEG.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

@ breivogel

Noise is the achilles heel of a small format camera like this. Optical performance is a close second partly due to miniaturization and partly due to diffraction. That's why RAW is so profoundly useful. You need to sharpen a lot which accentuates the already prominent noise which then necessitates the use of sophisticated noise reduction tools if you want reasonably clean and detailed output. Same is true when pulling shadows where small format output is even more in need of such treatment.

The bottom line is that I am a whole lot more likely to be satisfied with a SOOC JPEG produced by a larger format camera than one produced by a small format camera. And I suspect that most people would feel the same. Hence RAW is in fact more critical for small formats for the _discerning_ user.

Unfortunately not many people have seen what tools like DxO Optics Pro can do for small format output (most camera review sites included) so the benefits continue to be understated.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

rened

Completely ot but as this seems to be a trolling thread anyway. I have a TZ7 that I am very happy with. The TZ100 would be a great upgrade more usable high iso an evf, 4K video, Raw, bigger zoom range and a myriad of other features I won't even start to list. I can hardly imagine how fast things have developed in such a short time span. As a travel zoom the TZ100 is hard to beat maybe the TZ100 but that is much less pocketable but it is a serious option for pixel peepers and low light.

I would have liked some interior low light pictures though.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

@nicoboston That's how I see it too. The TZ-ZS line has been a favourite for many people. The way dpr chose to convert the RAW files is really unusual and debating this is the most natural thing on a digital photography forum.
What's important is keeping in mind that it's the conversion, not the camera.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

webber15

Nicoboston...We have seen the likes of "ridethelight"'s comments all to often...his post is unhelpful and just entirely inappropriate...comments on something you have no interest in are mostly pointless...these panny superzooms are good,,many ppl like to moan at the "phone sized sensor",,but lets see them phones get 700mm focal length (optical)...enough said...

Btw...you won't learn to much about gear reading these comments,,while there is good advice...there is plenty of bad too...as per ridethelights comments...

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

webber15

Nicoboston...if you need more reach,,the zs60 is the way to go...
If better image quality is needed,,get the zs100...
In case your wondering...cropping the larger sensors camera to match the smaller doesn't work...

Mar 4, 2016permalink

ZS100 RAW files can be opened if you use an EXIF editor and change the model number to DMC-FZ1000. Same sensor, they open just fine.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Ridethelight

Why does anyone need such a massive zoom in this type of camera ?
When I take photos, I like to be in the near vicinity of the subject, I'm seriously intrigued to what these super zooms are supposed to be for .
Tiny sensor and a slow zoom in 2016 is actually depressing .

Mar 4, 2016permalink

webber15

Dont buy it then dopey...

Mar 4, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Why do you care? Presumably people want to take pictures when they cannot be in the near vicinity without being encumbered with heavy kit and you do not. In which case why are you even posting in a thread on small sensor compact long zooms? This is probably the cause of your depression rather than a fault in the camera type.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Ridethelight

Dopey , what a bizarre response, are you a school child or something .

Mar 4, 2016permalink

FRANCISCO ARAGAO

@Ridethelight: you shoot lions, bears and the Moon near the subject?

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Ridethelight

Not with a small sensor super zoom no .

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Boss of Sony

They are really fun, silly. Holding a tiny thing in your hand and zooming to 720mm or more is extremely fun. They work surprisingly well, too. And pocketable 4k video at 900mm!??? Count me in! Photographers/videographers of early eras would have peed in their pants to hear that.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

I think you should brush up on how field of view changes perspective.

A while ago in these forums a wedding photographer recounted an anecdote about some people on a wedding shoot in San Franscisco frustrated with the photos their "pro" photographer was taking with an FF DSLR and a 24-70/2.8. The guy takes their memory card, puts it in his little travelzoom, backs way up, and using a 500+ mm equivalent FL takes a picture of the couple standing with the Golden Gate bridge looming huge in the background behind them, rather than as a small object in the background of the photos taken with the 24-70.

Field of view matters. Whether you like that kind of photography, or have the creativity to take advantage of it, is an entirely different story.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Revenant

I like to be near my subjects too, which has caused me a lot of grief at the local zoo. I've been bitten, mauled and even arrested once for harassing the hippos. My insurance company won't have anything to do with me anymore, I'm up to my ears in medical bills, and I'm pretty sure the parrots are making fun of me. But I have some spectacular shots of porcupines going in for the kill, so it has all been worth it.

;-)

Mar 4, 2016permalink

hirukakuni

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/2EEB9097AB8D4F79BB245387B22950F2.jpg
and
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/814DD8DC7EC04144A9722C3C624F34E5.jpg
shooting from the same location sometimes FOV can only be cropped but you just can't no matter how 'closer' you walk.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

A casual birding option that fits in a pocket. Really. These cameras can produce decent grabs in the right hands, just like any other camera.

It's that simple really.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

JordanAT

I like to be close, too. But, while on vacation in Yellowstone, we happened to see an eagle in a nest about 1/3 mile off in the center of a canyon. I got a BIF image which holds up to scrutiny from the casual observer in a printed size of about 3x4". So that's the size I printed it out, and it's a nice accent piece on that page of the vacation photo album.

I won't be entering any contests with it, but it's a shot that nobody else in the family could get with their phones or standard zoom pocket cams.

Mar 7, 2016permalink

Dragonrider

For what it's worth, DXO Optics does a much quieter conversion than ACR on a ZS40, so when DXO gets the ZS60 profiled, expect to see considerable improvement there as well. The prime NR process is too slow for general use, but if you have a keeper that you want to look good, it really cleans up the noise without much loss of detail.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

@nicoboston
Nothing you are posting is relevant to this specific camera.
If you want to beef about this type of sensor size why not go to a general topic forum and air your opinions. Have you anything to say about the TZ80 as a camera in relation to other cameras of its type.
Large sensor gear sneerers trolling these compact camera threads really serves no purpose and it all becomes very tedious and repetitive.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

Dragonrider

@nicoboston Sorry, but I have several DSLRs (including a 5dsr) and a number of lenses. There are times when my FZ300 is the best camera and there are times when the ZS40 is the best camera for the occasion (like when you can't carry anything bigger). In those situations, getting the best out of the camera is desirable and the best it will do with the DXO converter is actually quite usable. I would expect the same to be true of the ZS60.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

Panasonic made a travel zoom camera that shoots RAW. Three in fact (5 if you count the LF1 and the ZS100). Lightroom supports them all. DxO Optics Pro already has support for some, and will very likely support more.

Such cameras are being made. People are buying them. And clearly some of those people are using them to output RAW files that they then process in programs like Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro. I know of many such people personally. I am one of them. We may be a small portion of the market, but not only are we out there, we are _in here_ reading these reviews and posting in the comments section. As such Dragonrider's comment is right at home.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

Dragonrider

BTW, the ZS40 samples on DPR are not consistent with the performance of the ZS40 I have. Mine performs much closer to the ZS60 samples (particularly in raw). I think DPR may have tested a unit with a compromised lens.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

tkbslc

Cell phone quality with a big zoom and a viewfinder. Good enough for the masses, but certainly not great.

If you don't need 4K, save a bunch and get last years version.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Touchscreen! The reintroduction of the touchscreen is a big improvement in usability, IMO.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

tkbslc

Did not realize the last one didn't have it. 4k+touchscreen is definitely a good upgrade. I love picking my AF points that way.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

As long as people do not print larger than 4x6 or view images on anything other than cell phones, these types of pictures should be OK. My old Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 (2006) with 7MP really put his camera to shame with much better IQ.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

lotzi

Well, pretty much all the images look very, very good at a 27inch 4K monitor full screen. So I assume they would be just as good printed in a comparable print size as well.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

You may need to get some glasses. If you have access to a printer, try printing out any of those pictures at 11x14", and let me know who it turns out ;/

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

Imaging Resource said the old 12.1MP 1/2.3" FZ200 yields good 13x19" prints at base ISO, so...

Mar 5, 2016permalink

"Good" is a VERY subjective term.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

"My old Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H5 (2006) with 7MP really put his camera to shame with much better IQ."

Nope. An all too common classic mistake on your part. 18MP TZ-series output downsampled to 7MP will be more crisp and more detailed than what your Sony produces because the higher pixel count simply wins out even when up against the additional diffraction introduced by the slower lens.

Mistake? Yes. The only way you can reach the conclusion you reached is by doing a comparison at 100% which is just plain silly. If a 7MP image is a point of comparison, then it's a point of comparison.

You can fall back to complaints about colour/contrast/WB differences if you like but the ZS60 is the first TZ to offer properly configurable JPEG engine. And if you shoot RAW it simply doesn't matter.

My ZS40 even outresolves my Coolpix 8800, which has an 8MP 2/3"-type sensor and is of roughly the same "golden era" vintage as your Sony.

Nostalgia quickly evaporates when the comparison is fair.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

So you think pixels that are 2.5 times smaller on the same size sensor can take better pictures, lower noise, has better IQ? I think not. Basically, putting 18 vs 7mp's on that size sensor is ridiculous. Besides that, how many MP's can you view on your computer monitor, more than 7mp's, I think not. I'm just keeping things in perspective, that's all. Also, go back and looks at those noisy, grainy pictures again at very low ISO levels. Are they something YOU would be proud of? Answer that questions.

Mar 5, 2016permalink

"So you think pixels that are 2.5 times smaller on the same size sensor can take better pictures, lower noise, has better IQ? I think not."

Put a modern 18MP 1/2.3"-type sensor in that Sony of yours, set it to output 7MP JPEGs (or just downsample in post), and you'll have a camera that produces more detailed images with less noise, particularly at higher ISOs. This is because sensor technology has advanced quite a lot in 10 years.

The 30x TZ-series cameras are at a bit of an optical disadvantage in some respects but the sensor resolution makes up for that (that doesn't work forever but it's certainly a factor in this case).

If you don't understand this I think it would be wise to take a step back and rework your perspective on the IQ equation based on the wealth of performance data that is available for perusal.

"Are they something YOU would be proud of?"

These look respectable: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57390016

About the same resolution as your Sony as well.

Mar 5, 2016*permalink

Print? Nobody prints, anymore. They look at pictures on phones, tablets, computers, and big screen TV's. You'd be amazed at how good a picture from a Panny DZ 1000 looks on a 59" Samsung.

Mar 23, 2016permalink

sh10453

Good camera for its intended purpose and audience, for ravel, snapshots, images for eBay, ..., etc.
Images are exactly what to be expected from a 1/2.33" sensor (when you look at the full / actual size image, even at ISO 80), so there are no surprises here.

I'd expect it to be selling at around half the MSRP in a few months time.

I'm sticking with my LF1 for a pocket camera.

Thanks for review (or pre-review)

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

I wonder if any of the people complaining about noise on this have ever shot a roll of film in their lives...

Even Ektar 100 or Portra 160 shot on 6x7 medium format will show this level of grain.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

Do you also compare your car's fuel consumption to a 1986 model?

Mar 4, 2016permalink

And do you think that all images made before 2005 are worthless because they're too noisy?

My point is that if viewed at full size, there is not visible noise. Just because you can pixel peep at 18MP doesn't mean that you should.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

That being said, if the images are this noisy at lower ISOs, they are going to be very bad at higher ones.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

A car from 1986 also got you from A to B, does that mean we should be content with its fuel consumption?

And by the way- as I said it's due to the RAW conversion done by dpr and I guess they saw it and chose to keep it that way. Could happen with most comparable cameras.

If you are opposed to technical progress you may not want to discuss digital photography in a forum. But if you do post, please stop from putting words into other peoples' mouths- nowhere did I say or insinuate that older pictures are worthless. What you did there is called trolling.

Mar 4, 2016*permalink

Realll

Sooooooooooooo noisy

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Frank666

The earlier (this week) TZ 100 samples seem sharper and more vibrant than these photos, so there must be a distinct difference between how these two cameras are configured.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Carey Rose

The sensor in the TZ100 is much, much larger than the one in this camera.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

bernardly

The thumbnails in the gallery stamped RAW are not the ACR conversions as according to the comments accompanying the photo metadata. Otherwise, good samples showing the capabilities and limitations of this camera.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Allison Johnson

The Raw stamp means the original Raw file is associated with the image and can be downloaded.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

piratejabez

Thanks, Allison! I'd always assumed the stamp meant it had gone through some type of conversion software (even if only in-camera). Thank you for the clarification.

Mar 4, 2016permalink

bernardly

Thank you for the clarification, Allison. I was really flummoxed. Now I finally understand. :)

Mar 4, 2016permalink

Extremely grainy at ISO 200, but I guess that's how the person who did the raw conversion likes it. Even at ISO80 (firetruck photo, houses at lakefront).

Mar 4, 2016permalink