Is it just me, or is the TZ10 fundamentally crap?

Ejizz said:
Looks to me like the camera is being forced to use high ISO due to incorrect settings being used for the conditions it's in.
Op should first select a low light option (like night portrait) so the camera can use a wide aperture (F3.5) and slower shutter to keep ISO (noise) under control, failing that the flash should be used.

It seems point and shoots are not a magic bullet, sometimes some photographic knowledge and skill is required also.
Click to expand...

I assumed the OP knew they aren't very good at high ISO so didn't bother checking :p

A Samsung WB500 or Sony HX5 will offer better low light performance at £100 and £170 respectively, for example:

TZ10 @ 1600ISO - http://images.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/12830-tz10iso1600.jpg

HX5 @ 1600ISO - http://images.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/13003-hx5iso1600.jpg
 
That picture with my GF in the blue coat is at:

Fstop: 3.3
ISO: 400
Exposure -0.3
Focul: 4mm
Max Ap: 3.44

On auto

I will post something when I get back, but the GF has just gone into labour...bloody women! :D I am taking the old sony and the lumix. Luckily the sony can fire while plugged in, another thing the lumix can't do.

I am aware of the hi iso limitations, but countless reviews state anything below 800 is good.

I have got a shot where I set it to "nightshot", and it did come out better, but I had to manually set that, in the middle of the day.

I am quite happy to learn and set settings on the camera, but the GF isn't, hence that's what the auto is required, which is really what I have the problem with.

Thanks for the help.
 
Raikiri said:
I assumed the OP knew they aren't very good at high ISO so didn't bother checking :p

A Samsung WB500 or Sony HX5 will offer better low light performance at £100 and £170 respectively, for example:

TZ10 @ 1600ISO - http://images.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/12830-tz10iso1600.jpg

HX5 @ 1600ISO - http://images.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/13003-hx5iso1600.jpg
Click to expand...

I have been looking at the HX5, although I read a lot of complaints at it's "too processed look", but to be honest processed or not it looks better than what I am seeing.

If I send this back I am looking at getting the Casio EX-FH100, which also does RAW mode, which would be nice.
 
Below is my Gf's TZ10 at 100% on 'Intelligent Auto'.
Not the cleanest but at 50% the image looks tack sharp.

P1010568100.jpg


P101056850.jpg
 
You can set the camera so that the maximum ISO is 400, even in Auto.

Of course, this doesn't help you as the shot was taken at ISO 400! I must say that unless your image (blue coat) is highly cropped, there may be something wrong with your camera.

The only other thing I can think of is that something is happening in transfer from camera to PC as that image is showing massive, MASSIVE noise/compression artefacts which is smudging the image.

I have a TZ7 and get noticeable noise in dim light at anything over iso 200. It was still one of the best in its class when I bought it. In good light, image quality between cameras becomes much closer. That's just the way it is with compact cameras generally as they have tiny sensors which just aren't able to gather enough light.

Otherwise you're looking at bigger sensor compacts such as the Panasonic Lx3, four-thirds compacts or dslr and then you will really notice the difference!
 
My daughter was after a compact and I read every review available for the TZ10 and all raved about it, from What Camera to Computer Shopper. On paper it looks great, but she went with a Canon because 'it looked nicer' so I can't speak from experience. However, looking at your pics I reckon you must have a dud. Any modern compact should shoot a half decent shot on auto in daylight.
 
I have the TZ8 and very disappointed with the ISO performance. ISO400 is *just* about usable. The FS series is better (assuming performance is similar to the FS30). And the Canon IXUS I had years before this was better. Haven't actually used it outside in the day yet so can't comment on that, but it should be fine.
 
It is tricky, I bought the missus a Cannon IXUS 130 and the IQ on that was shocking. Ive sent it back and got a full refund. Just waiting for its replacemnet (TZ7) to show up. Seems finding a decent compact these days isnt as easy as it used to be.
 
kidloco said:
Seems finding a decent compact these days isnt as easy as it used to be.
Click to expand...

Megapixels...megapixels...megapixels....people have been force fed more and more of them, yet the sensors don't get any bigger, so IQ suffers.

My eight year old 3 megapixel Canon Powershot A70 blows most modern 10 megapixel cameraphones out of the water for noise and colour, but 10 megapixels *must* be better, surely? :rolleyes: It's more about 'feature' lists than quality...how did we manage before face detection...?:rolleyes:

Shame it's gone that way really.
 
cochoc said:
Megapixels...megapixels...megapixels....people have been force fed more and more of them, yet the sensors don't get any bigger, so IQ suffers.

My eight year old 3 megapixel Canon Powershot A70 blows most modern 10 megapixel cameraphones out of the water for noise and colour, but 10 megapixels *must* be better, surely? :rolleyes: It's more about 'feature' lists than quality...how did we manage before face detection...?:rolleyes:

Shame it's gone that way really.
Click to expand...

Yep you are spot on. I had a 5 year cannon ixus that recently gave up the ghost. was only a 3 or 5 megapixel camera. cost around the £200 mark when new and the pictures I took with that put every other compact ive tested since to shame. Including far more expensive ones.

What baffles me though is why none of the big review sites arnt picking up on this. The IXUS 130 I bought the missus for a present was bought after quite a bit of reading up, it won best compact camera of the year on one place, recomended on many others yet the image quality was quite frankly cr@p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom