http://camerahoarders.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-tz100-dmc-zs100-review/

I thought TZ and ZS was that difference

I am confused. What is the difference between TZ100 and TZ101?

Test of zoom - from 370mm to 37mm, handheld:

One clip straight from the camera.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-tz100-review-29020

The above video comparison is not only superficial, it is incorrect. Here is a real comparison, based on actual use of the ZS100 and the RX100 IV:

I need small cameras. I have the Sony RX100 IV, which is perfect, for low light and wide persepctives - the resolution is terrific, the controls are great. The Samsung Galaxy S7 also works well, when there is no ability to bring any camera. But they both lack reach and close-up ability.

So, we have the new Panasonic ZS100, which gives you 340mm (equ.) at the long end and 34mm (equ.) at the short end in 4K (which crops). It can shoot video at the wide end 5 cm from the subject - instant macros in 4K.

What we need from such a camera is good ability to focus on small subjects isolated from the background and good bokeh, because in close and at the long end of the telephoto there will be lots of bokeh. The RX100 IV (or RX10 II) is simply terrible at picking out foreground objects when the background has detail - small flowers with tree branches in the background. So, you need MF in those cases, and MF is nigh impossible on the RX100 IV, because there is no magnification in 4K and peaking is defective - way too wide, so what you think is in focus turns out not to be. I have scores of clips out of focus of close objects like flowers where I had to use MF and rely on peaking.

So, does the ZS100 meet my requirements? Yes. The auto focus ability is like night and day compared with the RX100 IV - it always grabs the foreground subject. And in MF, focus peaking is effective and there is also magnification, in 4K. Bokeh is actually surprisingly good. The colors are very nice, and it appears to have slightly better DR than the RX100 IV (and there are controls for affecting the gamma curves).

Oh, and there is a touch screen - so if the AF does not pounce on what you want you just point on the lcd. And, of course, there are focus pull possibilties. This works well because the AF is purposefully slow but does not bounce (the design is to use AI and then focus).

Downsides: Because of the 4K crop, the 4K images are slightly noisier and less detailed than what the RX produces (like the LX100, which is no slouch). The color looksgreat, however. And like the RX100, OIS (alone in 4k) is not totally effective. But I have learned how to minimize shake at the long end (340mm in your pocket!). And no ND.

Ok, the videos:

The first (test) video was my use of the camera right out of the box. Open the box, charge the battery, run up the hill and shoot. I wanted to shoot almost exclsuively using the long end, and also take some close-ups. You will see at first the video is shaky but as I get used to the camera shake goes way down. Almost all the shots would have been impossible (I have tried) using the RX100 - it is almost all foreground subjects with busy backgrounds, mostly AF, and occasionally MF.

The next video is a short boring test of the AF and focus pulls in relatively low light. The issues: how well does the AF shift across subjects when you move the camera; how well does it shift focus at my command when the camera is still. It passed on both counts.

The third video goes beyond flowers to people and their activities - in this case droning! Again, mostly shot using the long end (340mm!).

Ready to travel with it.

4K video using mostly the 340mm end of the lens: