Anyone have a Panasonic DMZ-TC1?

[Deb in IA]

Just got one for my birthday, after our Kodak EasyShare died.

Am still trying to figure out all the bells and whistles. Anyone else have this camera, and what do you like or not like about it?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

1. It's slightly better than the Kodak (but then again, almost any camera is better than Kodak)

2. Picture quality overall is good, but digital noise apparent even at ISO 80 (that's unacceptable for any camera), at ISO 200 or higher, forget about it.

 

[amid chaos]

I am not familiar with the Panasonic, but I'm sure you will have fun learning about all the bells and whistles and taking photos with it. Enjoy!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Panasonic Lumix TZ1 review on Popular Photography

Overall image quality: Extremely High
Resolution at ISO 80: Extremely High
Colour Accuracy: Extremely High
Noise levels at ISO:
80: near unacceptable
100: near unacceptable
200: unacceptable
400: unacceptable
800: unacceptable

 

[manning]

Here is the conclusion from dpreview.com

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz1/page11.asp

As hard as I looked I did not find the word unacceptable in the review!!

Sample shots look nice.

Here's a small photo sampling (about 600)

http://flickr.com/groups/tz1/pool/show/

 

[Kelly Grannell]

here's a quote for the "unacceptable part"

Noise - and heavy noise reduction - make ISO 200+ usable only for small prints
Noise visible in shadow areas even at ISO 80

In my book, that is unacceptable, obviously in "Popular Photography"'s book it's also unacceptable.

 

[Deb in IA]

What does "unacceptable noise levels at ISO 200" mean? In layman's terms?

Thanks!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

there is a LOT of digital noise. On the left is ISO 80 images from TZ1, on the right is ISO 80 images supposed to look like. Notice the black colour, the lens picture, etc. especially on images 4/5/6/7. You'll see lots of grains vs no grain. The grain at ISO 80 on the TZ1 is equivalent to an ISO 400 on the Fuji F10.

Regardless, there should be ZERO grain (in digital) at ISO 100 and minimal grain at ISO 200.

 

[Dan Murphy]

If this is the camera, Deb, http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_tz1-review/index.shtml looks like a nice one, enjoy. Hope to see some pictures soon.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the way ISO 80 supposed to be, TZ-1 ISO 80, TZ-1 ISO 400, TZ-1 ISO 800

 

[manning]

get a look at these shots all 668 of them.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tz1/pool/




There is only one problem with a perfect world......it doesn't exist.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

when the pictures are reduced to that small resolution (even less than 640 x 480), of course the digital noise is "hidden".

The perfect world is out there, Fuji F10 and Fuji F30, for example, they produce cleaner ISO 400 than Lumix TZ-1 ISO 80. It's not a subjective thing. I said that, Popular Photography said that, DPReview said that. What else do you want to defend?

It's a noisy camera plain and simple.

You can even see extreme grains on the following pictures even after reduced to tiny sizes:
look at the entire low-light picture

look at the skintone, background, interlocking blocks, everywhere.

look at the lack of details on the strings due to high noise, especially the ones on the left.

Not impressive at all.

 

[manning]

Kelly, I own the camera and don't have a problem with it. I have been on other sites where others own the camera and most don't have any problem with it.

The camera does what it is designed to do. And does it nicely!!! And at a decent price. And it has a nice compact size. Perfect? No. Fits my needs? Yes.

Of course I have to admit my wife's Sony H5 is better.

I do have the pleasure of not requiring to have the perfect picture every time. Just a real good one.

Here is a comment from a owner of the camera. You can find it on the dpreview site.

"I couldn't decide between Canon 700 IS and TZ-1. I loved and wanted 10 x zoom in fairly compact camera, but was hesitant to go Panasonic because of all the noise talk. I ended up comparing same photographs taken with both cameras. TZ-1 takes more vivid and attractive photos which are noisier than Canon's. Canon's pics are less noisy, but flatter looking. Once I processed them, to make them as "punchy" as Panasonic photos, the noise became more visible (pretty much the same as TZ-1). I had the same experience with my old Casio, which produced very flat noise free pics, but the noise would show up during processing."

I don't own the Fuji cameras, but what I have read they sound like excellent cameras.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

like I've written before, and I quote

Overall image quality: Extremely High
Resolution at ISO 80: Extremely High
Colour Accuracy: Extremely High

The problem is just noise, lots of it.

Judging by the number of people at the DISboards wanting to take concert, theatre, indoor pictures, I just keep on reminding people the importance of having a clean ISO.

I have played with both with the same controlled situation, I wanted to love the TC-1, but ended up buying the SD700 instead (as a gift) because even after PUSHING the 'punchiness' of the pictures, it is NOT as noisy as the TC-1. Overall image quality? I like the TC-1 better than SD700, but for many people's purposes of taking pictures in the shadow, less than perfect lighting, SD700 is far far cleaner than TC-1

Of course, all of this argument is moot if you're printing no larger than 4x6.

 

[RadioNate]

Of course, all of this argument is moot if you're printing no larger than 4x6.

Which is what the overwhelming majority of 'normal' users are doing. I, for one, rarely ever print anything above a 4x6. For me it is unnecessary. Sure I might throw in a 5x7 now and again and the extremely rare 8x10 but I have no real need for anything larger. The truth is MOST people don't. You clearly have a need for larger prints but 'average' users snapping a few memories at WDW or of their kids birthday parties aren't making 20x30 prints.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Which is what the overwhelming majority of 'normal' users are doing. I, for one, rarely ever print anything above a 4x6. For me it is unnecessary. Sure I might throw in a 5x7 now and again and the extremely rare 8x10 but I have no real need for anything larger. The truth is MOST people don't. You clearly have a need for larger prints but 'average' users snapping a few memories at WDW or of their kids birthday parties aren't making 20x30 prints.

I don't think I have ever printed a 3x5 or 5x7. It has always been 8x10 or 8.5x11.

The review price of around $350... seems to me they spent the budget on making sure you can fit the camera in your pocket.

but, more to the ? of the OP, the camera should work well for learning. Except for learning when to use higher ISOs, or when not too, because of lack of quality issues. Not unlike taking a low light picture with the Rebel XT kit lens or low aperture as well.

check out dpreview.com
their forums are seperated by manufacturer and even camera models and you can get camera specific questions answered and also great tips.

Mikeeee

 

[RadioNate]

I don't think I have ever printed a 3x5 or 5x7. It has always been 8x10 or 8.5x11.

The review price of around $350... seems to me they spent the budget on making sure you can fit the camera in your pocket.

but, more to the ? of the OP, the camera should work well for learning. Except for learning when to use higher ISOs, or when not too, because of lack of quality issues. Not unlike taking a low light picture with the Rebel XT kit lens or low aperture as well.

check out dpreview.com
their forums are seperated by manufacturer and even camera models and you can get camera specific questions answered and also great tips.

Mikeeee

But what do you do with those prints? Display them in frames, albums, show your friends? What? I can't imagine bring a stack of 8x10s over to my friend's house to show her my vacation photos. We are talking about casual users not pros or photography buffs. People taking snapshots of their friends and family aren't generally printing 8x10s. They are printing 4x6s to put in an album or send to out of town relatives.

I have a lot of friends who don't care about photography. Cel phone pictures are usually good enough for them. They want camera's with maximum portability that they can whip out and take shots of their friends acting like idiots or of their kids being silly. These people rarely print photos and when they do it is almost always a 4x6.

For these people the TC1 is good enough. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with being this type of camera user if it makes you happy.

What happened to 'it's the photographer, not the camera?'

 

[knottsobad]

It amazes me that a person that passes themself off as a photography expert writes off ALL other merits of a camera just based on higher ISO noise levels, I mean this is a great camera in so many other ways but no it does not have great noise levels so it must be a bad camera

For all others, ISO and NOISE are not the ONLY factors in deciding what is a good or bad camera. Regardless of what "one person" proclaims. Yes it maybe an important factor to them but if the camera they recommend(F10) is inferior in every other way I would really look for a second opinion.

 

[caniswolfie]

The point is definately a good one that most people don't print their photos and when they do it's a 4x6. But sometimes that shot comes around that you may want to enlarge into a bigger size (such as an impromptu family portrait, etc.), and you can't because your camera can't do it. You really can't get another camera at the time, and your stuck with the camera you have. It's probably a trade off on whether the option to really enlarge is there or not. But it's something to consider nonetheless.

It somewhat similar to being somewhere and forgetting your camera. You couldn't get the shot you wanted because of the camera or the lack of one. Just something to consider in the decision making process of buying a camera.

 

[JR6ooo4]

I just feel bad for people that want a camera that will fit in there pocket and must settle. You can get a much much better camera in the $350 range but it will not fit in your pocket. Well not most pockets.

I also hate to see one person (who gives more help here than anyone else) get slammed for making a truth filled statement.

Mike