Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 23, 2008, 2:36 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8
Default

I know the obvious differences between the 2 with the lcd screen size and other things. I have however noticed that the sensors differ between the two.

TZ4
1/2.5", 8.32 Total Megapixels CCD, Primary Color Filter

TZ5
1/2.33", 10.7 Total Megapixels CCD, Primary Color Filter

Can anyone shed light on any pro and cons between the two. You'd figure larger sensor and less pixels may be better.
thomasmagnum is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 23, 2008, 9:43 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

thomasmagnum wrote:
Quote:
I know the obvious differences between the 2 with the lcd screen size and other things. I have however noticed that the sensors differ between the two.

TZ4
1/2.5", 8.32 Total Megapixels CCD, Primary Color Filter

TZ5
1/2.33", 10.7 Total Megapixels CCD, Primary Color Filter

Can anyone shed light on any pro and cons between the two. You'd figure larger sensor and less pixels may be better.

One of the best features of the TZ3 is the "actual"16:9 format sensor. 16:9 is a wider format than 4:3, so for the 28mm wide angle end tostay a legitimate 28mm at 16:9, the wide side of the image has to belengthened over the 4:3 image field.Most digicams simply crop the top and bottom of the file and leave the long side the same size, creating a narrow file that mimics 16:9, but you no longer have an actual 28mm field of view. This is what the TZ4's sensor does.

When you change the format of the TZ3 from 4:3 to 16:9, you see the wide side actually take in more area at 16:9 than it does at 4:3. That same thing is done with the higher spec TZ5. If you look at images of the backs of the TZ5 and TZ4, you'll see the TZ4's LCD is more squared. The reason for this is, the TZ4 does not utilize an actual 16:9 format. All they do is crop the long sides like most other digicams do. This alonewould beenough to keep me from buying a TZ4 over the TZ5.

There's also a significant difference in the review modes. The TZ4's LCD is 230,000 pixels, which is the same as the TZ3 I have, but the TZ5 raises the number to 460,000 pixels, which will give a MUCH higher resolution image to check on your LCD after shooting.

I wonder if the TZ4 is even going to be an available camera here in the US. The TZ2, which the TZ4 replaces, never was as far as I can see.

Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 7:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default

Greg,..that is an excellent description of the 16:9 format. I had no idea how this worked. Right now I shoot 16:9 with a Canon TX1 but notice that when I switch back to 4:3 I get the same width of field.

From what you say, the TZ5 should be a great choice for picking up moving subjects at as distance (like my bird dogs running) due to it's wider field. I think I need to get one of these beauties.
Setter Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2008, 12:04 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36
Default

I agree that Greg's description is very convincing, but then I found the specifications for the TZ4 and when it comes to resolutions in the different aspect ratios, they say:

• 4:3 Aspect Ratio: 3456 x 2592 pixels, 3072 x 2304 pixels, 2560 x 1920 pixels, 2048 x 1536 pixels, 1600 x 1200 pixels, 640 x 480 pixels
• 3:2 Aspect Ratio: 3552 x 2368 pixels, 3072 x 2048 pixels, 2560 x 1712 pixels, 2048 x 1360 pixels
• 16:9 Aspect Ratio: 3712 x 2088, 3072 x 1728 pixels, 2560 x 1440 pixels, 1920 x 1080 pixels

As you can see, the maximum resolution at the 16:9 ratio is 3712x2088, while the maximum resolution at 4:3 is 3456x2592

Therefore, since the horizontal size of the 16:9 picture is larger than the 4:3 picture size, it looks like the statement that the TZ4 simply crops the top and bottom of a 4:3 picture in order to make it looke like it's 16:9 might be not true...

If preferring a TZ5 over a TZ4 has a meaning, it might lay somewhere else. ;-)

Sciamano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 9:35 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Sciamano wrote:
Quote:
I agree that Greg's description is very convincing, but then I found the specifications for the TZ4 and when it comes to resolutions in the different aspect ratios, they say:

• 4:3 Aspect Ratio: 3456 x 2592 pixels, 3072 x 2304 pixels, 2560 x 1920 pixels, 2048 x 1536 pixels, 1600 x 1200 pixels, 640 x 480 pixels
• 3:2 Aspect Ratio: 3552 x 2368 pixels, 3072 x 2048 pixels, 2560 x 1712 pixels, 2048 x 1360 pixels
• 16:9 Aspect Ratio: 3712 x 2088, 3072 x 1728 pixels, 2560 x 1440 pixels, 1920 x 1080 pixels

As you can see, the maximum resolution at the 16:9 ratio is 3712x2088, while the maximum resolution at 4:3 is 3456x2592



Unfortunately, you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Go to Panasonic's website and check the "real"specs of the TZ4 out..

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-e...702#tabsection

I know for a while, evenDPReview had several parts of the spec differences between the TZ4 and TZ5 switched/messed up and it had several of us confused, but those numbers you quote above are only applicable to the TZ5.

The TZ4's maximum "wide side" resolution is 3264 pixelsand, unfortunately, that number is constant at all three aspect ratios. What you've quoted aboveare the 9 megapixel numbers of the TZ5.

Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 1:14 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Go to Panasonic's website and check the "real"specs of the TZ4 out..
OMG, you are right...
I've found those specs on DPReview (a side by side comparison between the TZ4 and the TZ5) and I thought that site would be reliable...
Thanks for pointing this out, that comparison page really is deceiving.

Sciamano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 2:24 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Yes, when the TZ4/5 were first introduced, they had the specs messed up, and I don't know that they've ever gone bacl and corrected that initial announcement. The last time I checked, they had not.

The main differences I saw between the two cameras before handling eitherare those specs regarding how they handle the various aspect ratiosin addition to the LCD's resolution, which is a very good 230,000 pixels on the TZ4, but a much higher 460,000 on the TZ5. I've just recently taken delivery of a new TZ5 and, comparing it performance-wise to the TZ3, image quality, especially from ISO 400, is much improved and the flash technology is like night and day.

You can now expect very good flash shots from the TZ5 as long as you stay within the flash units'range, with built-in redeye removal, which the manual says is only available with the TZ5 (as noted on page 38 of the manual).... another big selling point for buying a TZ5 instead of the TZ4. I have tried numerous people, and zoomed in using the longest focal length setting where, with any otherdigicam I've ever tried would have resulted in horrible redeye problems,and not seen one red eye yet when the removal systemwas turned on.
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 2:44 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36
Default

What makes me lean towards the TZ5 is the sensor, honestly. Exactly why I was leaning towards the TZ4 before you pointed out that its sensor just cuts the frame to simulate different ratios.

The quality of the LCD display is not essential. I mean, of course a better display is ... better! But I'm already used to my Nikon D50's display which honestly sucks, but that does not mean one cannot take good photos

Same for all those other gimmicks of which P&S cameras are full... they are there just to "sell" the product, they hardly ever are really needed nor even used.

I'm interested in the ISO performance, though. I've read that all the Panasonic cameras have an automatic NR system that can not be disabled, and that it can cause a loss of detail. Is this true? I mean: is the better performance at higher ISO settings of the TZ5 due to a real improvement of the sensor, or is it just the NR system that eliminates more noise than before? The second option would mean that more details get lost...

Sciamano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 3:05 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

Yes, with the TZ seriesNR cannot be disabled. They've lumped all the sharpening/contrast/noise reduction parameters into three coloroptions... Natural, Standard and Vivid, with no ability to make individual sharpening, contrast, NR adjustments or turn off NR completely.

Standard and Vivid produce excellent images with the TZ5. Natural is the least invasive in terms ofinternal processingand outputs very soft results that HAVE to be post processed to get the best results.

I've just started putting together a set of TZ5 images here..

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/galler...87765466_oNWDR

These are all uploaded at their full size and you are free to download as many as you like if you want to see how they look. Most all of them have had some amount of post processing already applied to them.
Greg Chappell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2008, 3:20 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36
Default

Thanks a lot for sharing.
I had a look at some of your pictures and I can't really see a significant loss of important details. And I could only recognize some sort of NR artifacts in a few shots, for example the very first one (the flower with the bee), where the background seems a little 'fuzzy' (don't know how to explain, english is not my primary language).
Is it like that originally, or might it be due to the postprocessing?
Because in most of the other outdoor shots I couldn't notice the same artifacts.

Anyway, very good pictures! Definitely MUCH better than those my current P&S takes (a Casio EX-S600)!

Also (sorry if I go OT) how's SmugMug for you? I'm a flickr user (have a pro account valid until 2009 so I won't change soon) but I'm looking elsewhere because I don't like their latest choices in running the service.
Sciamano is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:58 AM.