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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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

Not with a small sensor super zoom no .

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.

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.

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.

;-)

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.

@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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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

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.