My old TZ5 broke lately. I was fairly happy with it so thought I might go with its younger brother TZ40.
But looking for improved quality in low-light and long-zoom settings (eg classical concert hall), the FZ200 looks better, with its even longer zoom and constant f2.8 aperture.
After going through all the reviews (great job, thanks), I still can't make up my mind though.
I wonder if the image quality will visibly surpass that of the TZ40 in real conditions? After all, they both have the same tiny sensor size. I have seen controlled-setting comparisons (equal zoom, aperture, ISO...) and the quality looks to me not that different. But I have yet to see comparable images of the same real-life scene taken under real conditions (eg low light concert hall), where I would expect the larger zoom and aperture of the FZ200 to make a difference.
For short, is the extra quality really there and worth the extra bulk and weight ?