Support this site by shopping below

To compare real-life performance when zoomed-out, we shot this scene with the Panasonic Lumix FZ100, the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS within a few moments of each other using their best quality JPEG settings. The lenses on each camera were set to approximately the same field of view. As all three cameras have closely matched maximum wide-angle focal lengths – 25mm equiv for the Lumix FZ100 and FZ45 / FZ40, and 24mm equiv for the PowerShot SX30 IS we used these settings for our wide-angle quality comparisons.

All three cameras were set to Program mode at the lowest available ISO sensitivity – 100 ISO on the Lumix FZ100 and 80 ISO on the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and PowerShot SX30 IS.

The above image was taken with the Lumix FZ100 in Program mode. The lens was set to 4.5mm (25mm equivalent) and the metering selected an exposure of 1/800 at f4 at an ISO setting of 100. The original 4320 × 3240 pixel image had a file size of 5.67MB.

We’ve talked before about the difficulties this scene presents, in the mid-day autumn sunsine there’s a wide range of tones to capture, from the foreground shadow to the whitewashed walls. On the whole the Lumix FZ100 has done an ok job with the exposure, though it has overexposed the scene slightly. The auto white balance has made a good job of assessing the scene – there’s no perceptible colour cast and the colours are well balanced, vivid and natural-looking.

The detailed crops are something of a disappointment though. Without exception, they all look quite soft and fine detail is all but obscured. Look at the windows of the foreground houses in the second crop, the roof tiles in the third crop and the windows and balcony dividers in the fourth crop – all of the detail is soft and indistinct compared with the crops from the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the PowerShot SX30 IS.

The comparison with the FZ45 / FZ40 is of course interesting as both cameras share the same lens, which suggests that it’s the Lumix FZ100’s sensor and image processing that is the issue. One possibility is that the FZ100’s sensor has a worse noise performance than that of the FZ45 / FZ40 and Panasonic has increased the noise reduction to compensate. If this is the case it might be possible to squeeze a better quality JPEG from the FZ100 by adjusting the noise reduction and sharpness settings for JPEGs, or shooting RAW and processing the files using the supplied Silkypix RAW converter software or a third party conversion utility. Scroll down below the main crops to see a comparison of JPEGs at different processing settings, followed by some RAW comparisons.

Wide angle performance is only part of the story though, for the full picture make sure to take a look at our mid-range resolution and telephoto resolution test pages before seeing how they compare at higher sensitivities in our High ISO Noise results – and don’t forget our RAW results at the bottom of this page. We also have a comparison against its predecessor in our Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 versus FZ38 / FZ35 page.

Panasonic Lumix FZ100		Panasonic Lumix FZ45 / FZ40		Canon PowerShot SX30IS
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO		f4, 80 ISO

Panasonic Lumix FZ100: trying to get the best out of the sensor

As mentioned above, we believe the FZ100’s sensor suffers from worse noise than the FZ45 / FZ40 and Panasonic has increased the noise reduction to compensate. If this is the case it might be possible to squeeze a better quality JPEG from the FZ100 by adjusting the noise reduction and sharpness settings for JPEGs, or shooting RAW and processing the files using the supplied Silkypix RAW converter software or a third party conversion utility.

To put this theory to the test, we shot the same scene using the Panasonic FZ100 using its best quality JPEG setting with different noise reduction and sharpness settings. The FZ100 was set to Program mode and at 100 ISO selected an exposure of 1/500 at f4. There’s a clear improvement in image detail in the second crop taken with NR set to -1 with little if any perceptible increase in noise, while the third crop with NR reduced to -1 and Sharpness increased to +1 shows more detail still. At the lowest ISO setting at least, it’s worth considering adjusting the default noise reduction and sharpness in this way. But at higher sensitivities, noise will become more obtrusive with these settings.

Scroll down to see if there’s any benefit to shooting in RAW with the FZ100, or if you’re ready to move on, check out the camera’s performance at different focal lengths in our mid-range resolution and telephoto resolution test pages before seeing how it compares at higher sensitivities in our High ISO Noise results.

Lumix FZ100 JPEG defaults		Lumix FZ100, NR reduced		Lumix FZ100, NR reduced, sharpness boosted
f4, 100 ISO, NR 0, Sharpness 0		f4, 100 ISO, NR -1, Sharpness 0		f4, 100, ISO NR -1, Sharpness +1

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ100: JPEG versus RAW (including FZ45 / FZ40 RAW)

Panasonic Lumix FZ100		Panasonic Lumix FZ100 (RAW)		Panasonic Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 (RAW)
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO
f4, 100 ISO		f4, 100 ISO		f4, 80 ISO

To compare real-life performance mid-way through their focal ranges, we shot this scene with the Panasonic Lumix FZ100, Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS within a few moments of each other using their best quality JPEG settings.

The lenses on each camera were set to approximately the same field of view to evaluate their performance around the middle of their zoom range. We opted for an equivalent focal length of around 300mm on each model.

All three cameras were set to Program mode at the lowest available ISO sensitivity – 100 ISO on the Lumix FZ100 and 80 ISO on the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and PowerShot SX30 IS.

The above image was taken with the Lumix FZ100 in Program mode. The lens was set to 47.5 mm (264mm equivalent) and the metering selected an exposure of 1/2000 at f4.5 with an ISO setting of 100. The original 4320 × 3240 pixel image had a file size of about 5MB.

As with the wide angle crops the Limix FZ100 looks very soft and lacking in detail compared with both the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the PowerShot SX30 IS. In the first crop, you might argue that the image is merely less contrasty, but there’s no escaping the lost of detail and even smearing that’s visible in the second crop of the brickwork. And in the bottom crop none of the detail in the roof tiles that’s showing in the FZ45 / FZ40 and SX30 IS crops is visible in the FZ100 crop.

The third crop is interesting because it shows something you can’t see so much in the others. It looks very much like noise, or evidence of its suppression, or both. There’s a clumpy look to the detail which, interestingly, is more apparent in the punchier, sharper FZ45 / FZ40 crop.

As far as middle of the zoom range performance goes, this is an easy call to make, with the PowerShot SX30 IS in first place, the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 a creditable second and the FZ100 trailing in third place.

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to take a look at our wide-angle resolution and telephoto resolution test pages before seeing how they compare at higher sensitivities in our High ISO Noise results.

To compare real-life performance with the lenses zoomed all the way in, we shot this scene with the Panasonic Lumix FZ100, the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS within a few moments of each other using their best quality JPEG settings.

The lenses on each camera were set to the maximum telephoto end of their zoom range. For the Lumix FZ100 and Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 this is an equivalent of 600m and for the Canon Powershot SX30 IS it’s 840mm.

All three cameras were set to Program mode at the lowest available ISO sensitivity – 100 ISO on the Lumix FZ100 and 80 ISO on the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the PowerShot SX30 IS.

The above image was taken with the Lumix FZ100 in Program mode. The lens was set to 108 mm (600mm equivalent) and the metering selected an exposure of 1/1600 at f5.2 with an ISO setting of 100. The original 4320 × 3240 pixel image had a file size of 4.91MB.

At the maximum telephoto end of its reach, 600mm equivalent, the Panasonic Lumix FZ100 results bear out what we’ve seen at the wide angle and mid-point of the telephoto range. Once again the crops are soft on details and show a clumpiness that’s suggestive of a much higher ISO sensitivity than the 80 ISO at which they were shot. Having said that, looking at the extremely granular crops from the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40, you might prefer the softness of the FZ100 crops. In this set of crops, the Canon PowerShot SX30 IS treads the middle path producing a more balanced result.

At this stage its worth noting that the Lumix FZ100 image quality, while not the best we’ve seen and not up to the standards of either the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 or the PowerShot SX30 IS, is by no means poor. The FZ100 doesn’t suffer from the SX30’s colour fringing problem and its overall image quality is certainly good enough for most applications. And, as we’ve seen, with a little effort there are some steps you can take to improve it.

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to take a look at our wide-angle resolution and mid range resolution test pages before seeing how they compare at higher sensitivities in our High ISO Noise results.

Support this site by shopping below

We shot the scene opposite with the Panasonic Lumix FZ38 / FZ35, Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and the Lumix FZ100 in RAW+JPEG mode so that we could compare images produced from each camera using the RAW data.

The lenses on each camera were set to approximately the same field of view. As all three cameras have closely matched maximum wide-angle focal lengths – 27mm equiv for the Lumix FZ38 / FZ35 and 25mm equiv for the Lumix FZ45 / FZ40 and FZ100 we used these settings for our wide-angle quality comparisons.

All three cameras were set to their lowest available ISO sensitivity – 80 ISO on the Lumix FZ38 / FZ35 and FZ45 / FZ40, and 100 ISO on the Lumix FZ100. The RAW image files were processed using the supplied SilkyPIX Developer Studio 3.1 SE. By default, the Unsharp Mask is set to zero in SilkyPIX, which unsurprisingly delivers a very soft result, so here we’ve increased the amount to 100 in order to accentuate fine details.

For a level playing field, not to mention to avoid diffraction, we set the aperture to f4 on all three models using Aperture Priority; note the earlier FZ38 / FZ35 has a tendency to select f5.6 in program or Auto modes, given a bright scene, and as we saw in our review of that model, this will soften the result due to diffraction. The image above was taken with the Lumix FZ38 / FZ35 with the lens at 4.8mm (27mm equivalent), where the metering selected an exposure of 1/500 at f4 using an ISO setting of 80. The original RAW file was 14MB from which SilkyPIX produced a 5MB JPEG.

We’ve seen test crops from the Lumix FZ38 / FZ35 before, of course, in our full review, but what’s interesting here is to compare it with images shot from the the two newer cameras, the FZ45 / FZ40 and the FZ100, particularly in light of reports that the Image quality of the FZ45 / FZ40 and FZ100 are not up to that of their predecessor.

We’ve looked long and hard at the 100 percent crops below and it really is too close to call for the FZ38 / FZ35 versus the FZ45 / FZ40, at least at 80 ISO. Doubtless there will, and have been, those who say the image quality of the FZ38 / FZ35 is better than that of the FZ45 / FZ40, but we’d put them neck and neck here at their lowest sensitivity. Look closely and the FZ45 / FZ40 looks to be marginally better in terms of detail on the lighthouse crop and the third crop from the frame edge with the roof tiles. But in the first and last crops the FZ38 / FZ35 looks slightly sharper and more detailed. The earlier model also has fractionally fewer noise speckles in areas of flat colour like the blue sky, but again this is serious pixel-peeping.

Don’t forget that with these comparisons we’re also not comparing shots from the same sized sensor shot at exactly the same focal length. The FZ38 / FZ35’s 12 Megapixel sensor produces a 4000 x 3000 pixel image whereas images from the 14 Megapixel FZ45 / FZ40 measure 4320 x 3240 pixels. And the FZ38 / FZ35’s wide angle is 27mm compared with the FZ45 / FZ40’s 25mm. These differences effectively cancel each other out on this page, which is why the crops show the same area.

On balance, it seems fair to conclude Panasonic has delivered a camera with a longer lens and slightly higher resolution that’s capable of producing images every bit as good as those of its predecessor – albeit not actually superior, and again we’ve only tested here at the lowest sensitivity.

As for the Lumix FZ100 though, that’s a different story. As you can see on our first results page, its in-camera JPEGs suffer from noticeable smearing which greatly reduces fine detail. On this page though, the RAW files have revealed what’s happening underneath: a reasonable degree of detail is recorded, but with higher visible noise speckles. Clearly Panasonic has attempted to mask these higher noise levels on in-camera JPEGs with noise reduction, but the result is smearing.

By tweaking the in-camera noise reduction, or processing RAW files, it’s possible to retrieve much more detail from the FZ100, albeit at the cost of higher visible noise levels. That much is clear from the crops below. But what’s also clear is the older FZ38 / FZ35, like its successor, still out-performs the FZ100 in terms of detail and noise levels whether shooting JPEG or RAW.

Now head over to our Panasonic Lumix FZ100 gallery to see some more real-life shots in a variety of conditions.