Tz2 ???

[bascom]

The TZ1 price has dropped to $250 or less and the camera will soon be a year old. Do you think a TZ2 will be coming out soon? If so what improvements do you think it will have?

[Mike63]

Hopefully if one does come out they will fix the problem with the flash.:)

[bascom]

What flash problem?

[Mike63]

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22773

[John_Reed]

What flash problem?It seems to be an issue with a few units, and most folks don't even know there IS a "flash problem." Mine works great, in fact, I'd say wonderfully well. I especially like flesh colors with flash, how well they're rendered. I just haven't had any flash problems with that camera. Those who have shown problems seem to have gotten them fixed through Panasonic. I think it's wrong to imply that it's a generic issue with the TZ1.

[BryanMsi]

1. Better flash performance
2. LESS SENSOR NOISE without adding more noise reduction

Here is a sample of the TZ1 in a flash setting vs. a several year old Canon SD400. The Canon is on the left, and it is 1000% better than the TZ1 in this shot. Even without the complete loss of shadow detail, the wine glasses and bottles are poorly rendered.

http://web.mac.com/bmacdonald/iWeb/Camera/Camera%20Comparison_files/pastedGraphic_1.jpg

This is a comparison of the Pansonic TZ1 at ISO 400, the Fuji F20 at ISO 400, and the Panasonic FZ20 at ISO 400 (in that order). Guess which one would yield decent prints? Hint: its not the TZ1.

http://web.mac.com/bmacdonald/iWeb/Camera/Camera%20Comparison_files/unknown-1.jpg

[John_Reed]

If you'd let your TZ1 "do its thing" and not limit it to a low ISO, you might improve your flash results. Here's a well-rendered ISO 400 shot I took, and printed at 8X10:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/66512364-L.jpg

Of all the shots taken on my French vacation of last summer, and I took my FZ30 and my TZ1 on this trip, this shot was my favorite, a flash shot taken in simple mode at ISO 160 with the TZ1 by someone who hadn't used the camera before:

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/90693402-L.jpg

The shooter was about 7 feet from the subjects. Looks well-rendered to me? If you limit your camera's ability to capture light by shackling it to the minimum ISO, you will indeed have problems rendering details that aren't well lit.

[BryanMsi]

Thanks for the sample - your ISO 400 shot does look pretty clear, at least in the foreground. However, like the shot in my comparison, the background is completely black. The Canons and Fujis would do better.

Was your Panny on Auto, or did you try one of the "scene" modes? I found that night portrait produced far better shots than auto because the flash fired in slow synchro mode and much more of the background was visible.

I found noise unacceptable above ISO 200 on the TZ1, and I will freely admit that I'm both picky and spoiled by my D70. But I do think noise on the Panasonic TZ1 above ISO 200 is unacceptable for just about anyone, and limiting the ISO to levels below that is a poor match for indoor shots.

[John_Reed]

Thanks for the sample - your ISO 400 shot does look pretty clear, at least in the foreground. However, like the shot in my comparison, the background is completely black. The Canons and Fujis would do better.

Was your Panny on Auto, or did you try one of the "scene" modes? I found that night portrait produced far better shots than auto because the flash fired in slow synchro mode and much more of the background was visible.

I found noise unacceptable above ISO 200 on the TZ1, and I will freely admit that I'm both picky and spoiled by my D70. But I do think noise on the Panasonic TZ1 above ISO 200 is unacceptable for just about anyone, and limiting the ISO to levels below that is a poor match for indoor shots.When I first shot that ISO 400 flash I showed, I was expecting to see lots of noise, especially in the darker shadow areas. I pixel-peeped the whole image, and really couldn't find it. I printed it "as is," with a little adjustment for skin tones being the only pp I did on the photo. In the 2nd photo, there are lots of background objects that are illuminated by the flash, and they look plenty detailed?

I think to say that the Fuji or Canon would have done better on the 1st shot, wouldn't necessarily be accurate. The foreground subjects were separated from the background by enough distance that the flash reach didn't cover it. You could say of the Fuji that it could brighten up the background, with its higher ISO skills, but it wouldn't necessarily improve the photo. The photo's subjects were entirely pleased with the glossy 8X10 I printed, have it hanging in their living room, in fact.

The other thing these comparisons fail to bring into account is the benefits of OIS, which enables low-light photos like this one, shot at 137mm equivalent (outside the range of your Fuji), ISO 400, 1/5 second exposure, NOT full of noise. At full zoom + on the Fuji, are you saying you could handhold the camera at 1/20 second exposure and still get reasonable sharpness? I couldn't, but then, you may be younger than I, at 67 in my case. My experience with a Fuji F11 was that I couldn't hold it steadier than about 1/40 of a second exposure, at its shortest focal length yet.

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/81585473-L.jpg

[sjseto]

Bryan, those are very helpful comparisons. Have you considered asking Jeff if he's interested in hiring extra staff? ;)

John, that second flash shot is very nice. The exposure, flash output, colour, and sharpness are bang on. I'm so used to not using flash on my F30 that a lot of my flash shots don't turn out very well. Sometimes I should just let the camera make the decisions instead of trying to set everything manually.

At full zoom + on the Fuji, are you saying you could handhold the camera at 1/20 second exposure and still get reasonable sharpness? I couldn't, but then, you may be younger than I, at 67 in my case. My experience with a Fuji F11 was that I couldn't hold it steadier than about 1/40 of a second exposure, at its shortest focal length yet.

Actually, I've managed to get a handheld shot at 1/15s with my F30 at about half-zoom with what I think is reasonable sharpness. ISO 1600, no flash. The image was resized and colour balanced, no sharpening or noise reduction applied. Apologies for the distracting background:

http://www.rosecolouredglasses.ca/Pictures/F30 Samples/DSCF3997_800x600.jpg

But there were other shots that I took that evening that weren't as sharp, due to camera shake. I think that, from 1/15s to 1/30s, I'm successful more often than not. At longer shutter speeds, I resort to using the flash if I've reached the limit of useable ISO's.

It would be great to have a camera that had the F30's higher ISO capability with the TZ1's image stabilization. I think that it's the only thing that would make me buy the F30's successor.

As for the TZ1 noise issue, I agree that the noise gets pretty bad at anything over ISO 200. But when the image is resized for web viewing or printed to a reasonable size, it often isn't too noticeable unless you're very picky. It's a camera with shortcomings just like the F20, F30, or any other camera. It is often up to the photographer to overcome those deficiencies to get the best out of it.

To get back to the original post...I'd be surprised if Panasonic didn't announce a TZ2 this year. Hopefully it won't just be an increase in megapixels. If they manage to significantly improve the sensor and the way the images are processed at higher ISO's, they'll have a real winner on their hands.

Stephanie

[BryanMsi]

I think if Panasonic could release a TZ2 with the noise problem addressed, I would not only buy one tomorrow, I would replace a lot of my current gear in the process. Its an amazing camera let down by a noisy sensor.

Unfortunately, I'll bet the marketing wonks push the TZ2 in a direction of more megapixels when it already has too many. Its probably a 4MPixel camera, and would deliver very clean images at this resolution. Panasonic has compressed the light circle so much to fit that 10x optic into the camera body that they already light up only 5 MPixels of their 6.3 MPixel sensor. If they go any higher...well, I just can't imagine even casual users being happy with the results.

[John_Reed]

Bryan, those are very helpful comparisons. Have you considered asking Jeff if he's interested in hiring extra staff? ;)

John, that second flash shot is very nice. The exposure, flash output, colour, and sharpness are bang on. I'm so used to not using flash on my F30 that a lot of my flash shots don't turn out very well. Sometimes I should just let the camera make the decisions instead of trying to set everything manually. Thanks for that!:)
As for the TZ1 noise issue, I agree that the noise gets pretty bad at anything over ISO 200. But when the image is resized for web viewing or printed to a reasonable size, it often isn't too noticeable unless you're very picky. It's a camera with shortcomings just like the F20, F30, or any other camera. It is often up to the photographer to overcome those deficiencies to get the best out of it.Maybe you missed my point that both shots I showed originally were printable at full size? I printed the 1st one on my Epson 2200, NOT downsized for web-showing, but at 8X10 size. No noise was showing on the screen, or on the print either. The second one got printed a few times at full page size by Shutterfly in a book that I created to document our French trip. There's no noise in that photo either.

[sjseto]

Thanks for that!:)

You're welcome! :)

Maybe you missed my point that both shots I showed originally were printable at full size? I printed the 1st one on my Epson 2200, NOT downsized for web-showing, but at 8X10 size. No noise was showing on the screen, or on the print either. The second one got printed a few times at full page size by Shutterfly in a book that I created to document our French trip. There's no noise in that photo either.

No, I didn't misunderstand...at least I don't think so. By "resized for web viewing" I meant exactly what you did for your photos so they aren't displayed at the full 2560x1920 resolution; they've been resized to 800x600. At full resolution I'm sure you'd notice the noise more...as you would if I displayed the photo that I posted at full res. In your first shot I do notice a fair amount of noise in the background (unless that's a special wall treatment), but it's difficult to see because it's so dark, so it isn't distracting, nor does it detract from the focal point of the photo, which is the lovely couple. So I'm not surprised that you could print it at 8x10. The second photo was, as you said, taken at ISO 160 (I had said that noise starts becoming an issue over ISO 200) so it likely wouldn't have any objectionable noise, even if viewed at full size or if printed out to quite a large size.

My point is that you have to be pixel-peeping to notice this noise. It's going to bother some people more than others. When people complain about noise in full res shots...I mean, really, who displays photos at full res? You can't even see the whole picture on your screen. And when printed out to a reasonable size (and I don't mean just 4x6's), the noise often isn't that noticeable anyway - unless, perhaps, if you take a magnifying glass to the photo, and what person is normally going to do that?

The TZ1 is an amazing camera in a lot of ways and the noise issue, for all practical purposes, really isn't one a lot of the time, as you have capably demonstrated. While it wasn't for me, it certainly was (and is) an intriguing camera and I'm looking forward to seeing how Panasonic can improve on it in the future.

Stephanie

[John_Reed]

As I said originally, I already "pixel-peeped" the ISO 400 shot at 100%, and found no noise. I printed it at 8X10 (a minor crop of the 2560 X 1920 pixel array), and saw no noise there. I won't belabor the point any more, but I'll also say that it seems that web-peepers are more demanding these days than the "honesty" of a good old 8X10 print! Peace be unto you.;)

[jcon]

Bryan, those are very helpful comparisons. Have you considered asking Jeff if he's interested in hiring extra staff? ;)


They are?:confused: I dont think they really showed anything. Mentioning that "comparison" with the unbias and excellent reviews Jeff does is just plain silly.

I have to agree with John in this instance. Both his pictures look fine and he captured what he wanted. The first picture, you obviously wouldnt want the background lit as it would take away from the subjects. The second picture is VERY well done and I can see why that would be hanging in someones living room!

As for Panasonic treating the noise problems in their cameras, I dont see that happening. Look what they did with the FZ50. People keep buying 'em so why would they change?

[sjseto]

As I said originally, I already "pixel-peeped" the ISO 400 shot at 100%, and found no noise. I printed it at 8X10 (a minor crop of the 2560 X 1920 pixel array), and saw no noise there. I won't belabor the point any more, but I'll also say that it seems that web-peepers are more demanding these days than the "honesty" of a good old 8X10 print! Peace be unto you.

This is something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on, because I have also seen that same photo at full resolution on your smugmug site and I definitely see noise in the shadows in the background. Maybe we don't define noise in the same way. It's not "Canon-style" noise which is fine-grained; it's a bit splotchier and less defined, which is characteristic of Panasonic. And yes, I am a self-confessed, overly obsessive, pixel-peeper. At least, I can be. Which isn't always a good thing. I believe you when you say that the 8x10 print turned out well. And in case I didn't make myself clear, I think that it's a fine photo. Is there noise? Most definitely. Does it ruin the photo? No, not in my opinion. Peace be with you, as well. :)

They are? I dont think they really showed anything. Mentioning that "comparison" with the unbias and excellent reviews Jeff does is just plain silly.

How is it silly? Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational. If I'm missing something here, fill me in. His first example was a comparison of flash shots between the Canon SD400 and the TZ1. Bryan will have to fill us in on what ISO was used for each shot, and they would have to be the same for it to be truly fair Also, subject-to-camera distance and focal length need to be the same, and both shots have to be in non-slow-sync mode. So in the absence of that information, I'll refrain from calling it "useful" if you'll refrain from calling it "silly."

The second example that Bryan posted looks like 3 full size crops from 3 images of the identical subject taken at ISO 400 from 3 different cameras. I believe that Bryan was simply trying to point out that the TZ1 produced the noisiest results of the three. If there is something wrong with his methods, what is it?

As for Panasonic treating the noise problems in their cameras, I dont see that happening. Look what they did with the FZ50. People keep buying 'em so why would they change?

You're probably right, I can't see them changing...because with each generation of cameras that they put out, the images don't seem to have gotten any cleaner. But the business philosophy of "if they keep buying them, why should we change?" is a dangerous one, because it smacks of complacency. And if you get complacent in a competitive market, what generally happens? Your competitors will come up with a better, more innovative product and the company that has the attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" will get left behind.

I'm not bashing Panasonic or the TZ1. I have several cameras (non-Panasonic) that I'm very happy with but it doesn't stop me from reading about and admiring other cameras and other brands. I hope that the upgrade to the TZ1 is better in the ways that matter (i.e. not just a megapixel increase) because, well, for one thing it would be unexpected. For another, anytime one manufacturer makes a significant improvment or breakthrough in technology, other manufacturers tend to follow suit, and that's good news for consumers all-around.

Stephanie

[jthutcheson]

In relation to the TZ2...it is inevitable that they will be putting out one, just when and what its capabilities will be one can only imagine. I am going to go out on a limb here and post a few of my conjectures as to what the improvements may be:

Definitely use Venus III engine, promising lower noise (read: stronger NR :( ), better battery life and increased overall speeds.

Same lens (that is what this thing lives off of, after all)

Possibly the 7MP sensor in the FX07, giving 6MP res (a most unfortunate, though marketing-saavy move)

(Crosses fingers but doesn't hold breath) A *few* more manual controls

Support for SDHC cards

I agree that Panasonic is notorious for its noise, and its something that is inherent in the sensors, and one would hope that Panny is doing *something* about that in future sensors.

I own an FZ7, and I love it. A few quirks, but isn't that for every camera?

JMHO, take it or leave it.

Peace

[John_Reed]

In relation to the TZ2...it is inevitable that they will be putting out one, just when and what its capabilities will be one can only imagine. I am going to go out on a limb here and post a few of my conjectures as to what the improvements may be:

Definitely use Venus III engine, promising lower noise (read: stronger NR :( ), better battery life and increased overall speeds.

Same lens (that is what this thing lives off of, after all)

Possibly the 7MP sensor in the FX07, giving 6MP res (a most unfortunate, though marketing-saavy move)

(Crosses fingers but doesn't hold breath) A *few* more manual controls

Support for SDHC cards

I agree that Panasonic is notorious for its noise, and its something that is inherent in the sensors, and one would hope that Panny is doing *something* about that in future sensors.

I own an FZ7, and I love it. A few quirks, but isn't that for every camera?

JMHO, take it or leave it.

PeaceJust FYI, the TZ1 already uses the Venus III engine.

[BryanMsi]

They are?:confused: I dont think they really showed anything. Mentioning that "comparison" with the unbias and excellent reviews Jeff does is just plain silly.

I wasn't interviewing for Jeff's job with my post nor was I trying to launch my own photo-comparison site. . . just trying to post some comparison shots. :) Besides, Jeff's own reviews faulted the Panny for noise, so I'm not showing anything new here.

But, I will say that in my 4-way shootout shot, all cameras were at the same ISO, the same focal length as best as I could make them, all on tripods (actually on a cardboard box on a countertop) to remove any shake (I even used self timers to make sure the cameras were stable), under the same lighting conditions, and using the same "auto" settings for exposure, shutter, and flash as you would use in the real world. If you don't think that's a fair comparison, then I don't know what is.

The other shot (wine glasses) was handheld with Canon on Auto ISO (no idea what ISO it really used) and the Lumix was on ISO 80. I have noticed the Lumix does quite poorly when using ISO 80 and indoor flash shots. I suspect if I had used a scene mode like Party or Night Portrait the picture would have been better....and also likely noisier.

So we have a very controlled shot, and a much less controlled shot. Both illustrate very visible problems, either noise or flash performance. If you are happy with the TZ1, great! John's getting good results and he's clearly pleased as are his subjects. Most of the reviews I have seen online hit these same two issues, and all I can say is that I saw 'em both and they were too much for my tastes.

Mostly, I post online and print no larger than 8x10. Even at that size I saw noise, but again, I'm pretty picky about it. John, I thought your second shot was really nice, and would print well at 8x10. It was clear and exposed properly.

But I want to know that if I chance upon an amazing scene, I could print at larger sizes without seeing speckles...and I don't think the TZ1 could offer that.

[John_Reed]

Actually, people who complain about the Venus III engine, heart of the TZ1's control system, say that it over-processes noise to eliminate the "speckles" you're worried about, supposedly at the expense of fine details on the images, especially at higher ISO. I'll show you an example of a photo I took at ISO 200, which actually showed some "speckles:"

http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/65394256-L.jpg

In particular, the "speckles" showed up on the sky, near the distant horizon. So, I applied Neat Image to the image, which eliminated those spots, seemingly without loss of detail. For the ISO 400 photo I posted and also printed at 8X10 (is that not a "larger size?") I could see that there was some noise processing at work, but no speckles. When I printed it, the print looked very sharp.

Now, I don't care what kind of camera you buy, that's your choice. I just wanted to make the closing arguments for the TZ1. I'm not the only one who's very happy with this camera.

[Riley]

As for Panasonic treating the noise problems in their cameras, I dont see that happening. Look what they did with the FZ50. People keep buying 'em so why would they change?

with respect Jason
im pretty sure, that despite a better equipped camera, sales of the FZ50 are down
that is comparatively against sales with FZ30 and the like

be aware that representatives of most camera companies cruise forums to get a feel about the market, or specific camera issues. they would be aware of the issues, and then there was that manifest for a firmware fix

That said, some Panasonic cameras are quite unfairly treated where people in ignorance, but while perhaps trying to help, see the word Panasonic and make an immediate association with noise. My complaint is it aint always so...

[jcon]

Riley, my point, which I stated, was that I dont see Panasonic making drastic changes to the noise issue in most of their cameras. They have proven that with model after model. I used the FZ50 as an example because the noise issue is the worst in that camera because they decided to keep the casual customer happy by cramming more pixels into an already noisy camera. The casual enthusiast sees pixels and thinks better quality. Well we all can see what they pixel cramming and that aweful noise reduction software did, and its not pretty. I go back to the FZ10/15 up to the newest FZ50, the noise hasnt drastically changed, there may be some slight improvement but nothing to make me believe they are listening to the people and spending quality time tryin to fix this problem. I know you and a couple others have accused me of bashing Panasonic and have never used one of their cameras, I began with a Pana FZ20 and have shot with every FZ model after. If they were to fix this problem, Id be back in a heartbeat, but I wont hold my breath.

[JMBZ71]

I'm not the only one who's very happy with this camera.

No you're not John. You can read all the reviews you want but you have to shoot a camera to really know it... and to know the Tizzy is to luv it!!! ;)