6 Months with the Panasonic GF1

It has been 6 months since I first got the Panasonic GF1; Panasonic's most compact endeavor into the EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras to date. The GF1 boasts a small, portable body, interchangeable lenses, a hot shoe for external flash or electronic viewfinder, and a full Four-Thirds sized sensor. Designed to fill a niche between the most capable point-and-shoots and entry-level DSLRs, these Micro Four-Thirds cameras represent a brand new market within the digital photographic industry. Olympus has already release two more models (EP-2 and EP-L) of their M4/3 line since their initial release of the EP-1 back in july 2009. Just a month ago (May 2010) Sony announced their foray into the EVIL cameras with their NEX-3.With all this money and effort being funneled into the EVIL cameras, photographers and enthusiasts are left wondering just how good these little cameras actually are.

After some time with the GF1, I have formed a much clearer perspective on specifically the GF1, but also some general pros and cons to the M4/3 world.

What Do You Think of the GF1?

This doesn't happen often, but my initial impressions of the M4/3 and specifically the GF1 were pretty accurate. One factor I have found, which will greatly impact how someone will receive the GF1 or another M4/3 camera is what the user currently has for equipment. I have been using prosumer cameras like the Nikon D200, D300, and D700 along some of their better optics and great macro lenses. Honestly, shooting anything after the D700 or full-frame (barring medium format digital) leaves more to be desired. I am also quite familiar with the Canon G9, G10, G11, and S90 which are a few of the better P&S on the market. It was actually the vast difference between the phenomenal ISO performance of the D700 and the comparatively poor ISO performance of the G10 (or any P&S with such a small sensor) that caused me to explore the Micro Four Thirds System as an alternative to lugging around a big DSLR all the time while still getting good low lighting images.

What I Love:

• Under standard conditions, the GF1 is capable of beautiful images that can be easily enlarged to standard print sizes up to 8x10 and even greater.
• The kit 20mm f/1.7 enables the user to compose with a beautifully shallow depth of field reminiscent of film and rangefinders and relatively unknown to the point-and-shoot world (though that too is changing).
• Short flange-to-sensor distance allows for maximum adaptability. Just about any lens you can think of can be used on this thing with the right adapter, save for the most extremely intrusive lenses (such as the fisheyes from the older rangefinder systems which had a large rear protruding element, and even then, they may be usable ).
  
• HD video capability demonstrates clarity and quality with the added bonus of interchangeable lenses and legacy glass (noted above) in a small package to boot.
• Convenient, portable, and gives me full control of my image making.
  

What I Wish Were Different/Better:

• At high ISO, the GF1 fairs better than a P&S but still nowhere near the better DSLRs. The Four Thirds sensor is still just too small to yield the kind of results I would like. Given the physical reality, a small sensor with small photo receptors simply will not perform as well as a larger sensor with larger photo sites, I suppose I cannot help but accept the reality that this camera is not a D700. Though I do believe technology will eventually advance to a point where even the smallest sensors can produce nearly noiseless images at high ISO.
• TOO EXPENSIVE! The optics for these cameras are good, but not as good as optics of equal cost for DSLRs! The basic 20mm f/1.7 was retailing around $400. While Nikon's sharpest optics, the 50mm f/1.8 (roughly the equivalent focal length, 40mm, for an M4/3) retails around $100. The new 8mm fisheye is set around $800 and the 7-14mm ultra-wide rectilinear is nearly $1000. As much as I love this concept, I have a hard time with the fact that lenses for the GF1 run equal-to and more than some of my DSLR optics! Perhaps I am in the wrong mindset; I am using the GF1 as a smaller alternative or second-string device to my DSLRs. The image quality just isn't as good. So why am I paying more for less performance?
• Lens compatibility issues. Using the correct M4/3 adapter, I can use just about any camera lens I want on this thing (awesome). However, the liveview, which is the only means to focus unless you purchase the separate $200 EVF (I have read inside the EVF isn't all that pretty either), looks dreadful when using a non-CPU lens. And even though this doesn't affect the image quality, I am noticing a considerable degradation when using adapters and lenses vs. the dedicated Panasonic optics.
• The HD video while cool, doesn't offer me enough options. For a $900 "mini-DSLR", I want the ability to manipulate exposures and so forth in video mode. The GF1 is pretty limited in what you can change while shooting HD. Exposure and "Defocus control".
  
• I didn't think focusing solely with the LCD would be an issue. But it is. Trying to make a macro of a flower on a beautiful sunny day is far more of a challenge than it needs to be. Again, this can be remedied by the EVF, but I just don't have the money right now. Plus that's one more step closer to DSLR size.
• No audio options beyond mono recording. I would like the ability to at least add stereo.
  
• AF isn't incredibly fast or extensively manipulate-able (such as numerous easily adjustable focal points or something)

Wow, that gripe list looks awfully long; it's longer than the love list...

In A Nutshell

Ultimately the GF1 is just too expensive for what it is. In some ways I feel like it is being marketed more as a gadget than an image making tool. Sure, it is more than I ever got out of my already stupidly expensive P&S. I remember having the hardest time picking out a P&S because every time I finally got close to picking something that had the options I felt I needed in a camera, it was the most expensive (usually one of Canon's G cameras) at around $500. At which point, I felt, why don't I just get a small DSLR body with still better image quality? But now I have doubled that price and still am not quite getting DSLR quality images. Maybe I just want too much. This would all be different if the GF1 (with lens) cost around $600, and lenses at most cost $400. Ridiculous perhaps but somehow it makes sense in my fantasy world of photography.

Again, this could all be tainted by the fact that I regularly shoot a D700 which, as far as I'm concerned, is just a gorgeous camera. I can make some killer images with that beast, and print them to perfectly reasonable (and absurdly unreasonable) size, and need nothing more. And the fact remains, even when technology has moved on, my "old" D700 will still be able to enable me to make the same great images, printed to the same normal, or huge sizes, to my heart's desire. An 8x10 is an 8x10. And my 20x30's look just awesome. I'm not printing billboards...yet.

Did I mention I am bipolar? Practicality aside (not all but that which was mentioned above), I find the GF1 to be an excellent tool and it does possess some strong points. It represents a great first attempt at a new type of camera. I find benefits to it all the time! People act more natural around it since it is less intimidating than a DSLR. As photography becomes more persecuted where people are more wary of who is taking pictures and why (I see this a lot in retail stores. I come in with a camera just to browse and owners/managers always want to know why the camera and who I am taking pictures for. The small GF1 is unassuming and saves me that trouble 9 times out of 10. Without the loud mirror clack, I can make images in quiet venues (Though the GF1 isn't silent, the minimal shutter noise is far less disruptive). The GF1 is a great camera and a wonderful tool to have in the kit. It just costs more than it should and given the tighter financial status of beginning photographers, I wouldn't recommend this camera as a replacement for a DSLR. Though I will say, photojournalists may find something like this an excellent sidearm due to the importance of minimizing your presence and capturing a moment in as pure a form as you can.

Other EVIL Cameras


As mentioned before, these small interchangeable lens cameras aren't going away. As of this post, Olympus and Panasonic are going the Micro Four-Thirds route. Sony is using APS-sized sensors in their NEX line. Samsung has released a brand new line starting with the NX10, which utilizes a brand new mount system and APS-sized sensor. It is rumored Nikon has something on the way too.

It is a new niche and technology will only get better. I still feel the same initial excitement over these smaller EVIL cameras, even despite the drawbacks of the GF1. A newer, better model will always be on the way. The beauty here, is that conceptually, these cameras have such potential. I don't know what it is about large gear that people find so upsetting, but it doesn't seem to be the images quality. Though, it would appear the line of thinking may be: bigger camera means more "professional" or detailed image to which the self-conscious flushes with reluctance and excuses. "Oh, stop I don't have make-up on." Side-note: I love that strange desperate yet seemingly erratic attempt to get out of the frame. Where the person ducks and bobs while awkwardly searches for the edge of the image as if it will be a physical frame which they can grab and dive out of.


Links/Resources

For a comparison of sensor sizes, see this great chart from Wikipedia.com

Using 35mm lenses on the Panasonic GF1

So in continuing with the previous post about the new micro four thirds system (m4/3), I thought, as always, it's best to demonstrate results rather than just talk about them. As soon as I heard about the GF1's ability to record 720p HD video, I immediately thought of my Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 lens. Not only will I, with the correct adapter, be able to shoot tac sharp macro stills with this little guy; I can also record live action on a macro level. National Geographic style right? Ok well, maybe not THAT good, but pretty excellent quality.

Adapters



One thing I feel necessary to address, due to my own curiosity, is the adapters. Since the release of the m4/3 system, more and more adapters for virtually any camera lens mount ever made, are appearing. The biggest problem, I feel is the complete lack of information on most of them. It seems many are being manufactured in China and being sold on eBay. Sure they boast of their supreme "quality" and all but like most other products, those that shout the loudest are typically compensating for their utter or complete lack. Unfortunately, I have little insight to offer on these adapters. For Christmas, my family bought the GF1 and a Nikon F mount t0 m4/3 adapter for me. They got it from amazon and it appears to be made by "fotodiox". It looks like it cost about $75 too. After some use, it seems a tad loose on the nikon mount side. Also, when locked into place, the nikon lens scale is slightly off center, in relation to the top of the camera (I made this mistake when I rigged a nikon adapter for my old Vivitar Series 1 105mm in MD mount. I JB welded the two parts without remembering to align them so the distance scale would face topside.) More importantly, if a lens, such as the Vivitar 90mm, has a built-in tripod mount, the camera now sits at an angle and the tripod must be adjusted to compensate for a level shot. But these mounts are "precision" made, you say. The other thing I am noticing is that while many of the mounts go for between $35-75 USD, some companies are making them and selling them well into the $100 range, sometimes for a little over $200! Again, lack of detailed imagery leaves me with very little insight into just why these miniature rings of metal command such a premium price. I can't believe just because (if they do at all) something like aligning the distance scale would make the adapter so much more costly. Materials may be one explanation but again, they all claim similar builds. One may just be actually doing it, while the other "claims" it. I know Voigtlander appears to make a pretty solid m4/3 adapter for their Leica M mount lenses. Once again though I surmise this purely based on a better image of the product and a good experience with the companies other equipment. That adapter runs a hefty price too. I suppose, in the end, my finances being what they are, I can live with the cheaper adapter!



Above is the GF1 with the Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro, 1:1 converter, and m4/3 adapter.

Test Shots

I own this camera because I have ultimate versatility with lenses. That being said, I have to take special care using these 35mm lenses, especially something like these Series 1 lenses, being that they weigh over 1 lb. while the camera relatively speaking, feels like a feather. You will want to take care and support the lens primarily so as not to damage the mount.

GF1 Test Reel from David Kovaluk on Vimeo.

This is a small test reel I pulled together from the past couple weeks of shooting. I threw in a favorite song by The Books. If you haven't listened to them before, they make music using clips, found sounds, invented and traditional instruments, and anything else they can get their hands on.

I have not done a whole lot of video work, as is most likely evident in this reel. In the first sequence, I was hand holding the camera just above steering wheel. The fog was out in force that day as I was on my way to work and I spontaneously decided I should get a shot crossing the bridge. Regarding the macro shots of the shrimp, they were taken with my Series 1 90mm through the glass of my small aquarium. My tank is actually a thick glass cylindrical vase, which I have converted into an underwater habitat. The glass actually has (what appear to be) part lines and its thickness is relatively uneven. In filming the little guys I often see "warbling" going on as I pan the camera across the glass. I'm not blaming all my poor camera work on this, but most of it haha!


Below is the new and improved shrimp abode, complete with three new inhabitants: algae eaters.


Side Note: Above is actually the first iteration of my shrimp tank concept. I don't have an image (and am currently away from the house) of version two, where the filter is nearer the top and a large piece of driftwood fills out the central region giving the shrimp a little more to play on. Version 1 also failed because the shrimp kept sneaking down into the filter by slipping past the tray on which the gravel and moss balls sit. I didn't think there would be enough room...ha!

Stills

In terms of still images, the GF1 performs just as one would expect, excellent (just as long as you are using a great piece of glass to begin with). I will say, in its "natural" setting, which is where I typically use it, the images come out less saturated than on the neutral setting of my D700. I shoot this way because on the vivid setting, I find the images come out too bold and tend to break down quickly. I shoot RAW + .jpg right now despite not being able to process RAW efficiently (I need a newer CS version).

Using the Vivitar 90mm, I have made a still of the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens and a 100% crop, as well as a crop from an image of my newly acquired Mamiya 65mm f/3.5 TLR lens (Blue dot). Picked it up for $15 on craigslist in very clean condition with a slightly gnarled top filter thread, still accepts filters though! Actually, I had the Mamiya c220 and sold it some time back but have been wanting another just because I loved using it. I suppose now I have an excuse...(don't tell the girlfriend!) In case she reads this, I won't be buying it any time soon.




I first image was made at f/4. I can't get over how much I love that 90mm lens. It's my favorite lens I have ever owned. The Mamiya image was made at a higher f/stop, f/8 I believe. I posted it because I feel it a good representation of the kind of crisp detail the GF1 delivers right out of the camera! These images have only been minorly retouched (a bit of curve added for contrast and some color boost, also a piece of dust or two removed because I hate dust).

I have also used the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 lens on this camera as well as with the added TC-201 MF 2x teleconverter. With the lens alone images look great! Once the teleconverter is on, things fall apart. Not that the GF1 has anything to do with that. These cameras have a 2x crop factor making my 200mm, a 400mm tele.

Conclusion

Not that there was much going on in this write-up in terms of the unsolved. Just wanted to show a few examples of how versatile these cameras truly are, and the kind of quality one can get out of them even when using them in non-traditional fashions. I am crazy about the micro four thirds concept and really hope they continue to develop and support it!

The Micro Four Thirds System - The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

As soon as I first read about this camera I was hooked. The concept seems simple enough, something I (and I am sure many others) have dreamt about since joining the digital revolution. Sometimes to the extreme, "Just give me a sensor and a shutter, that I can stick an optic on!" Whatever the case, Panasonic's GF1 fulfills a niche, a need really, within my camera kit, the joy of which I can hardly begin to describe (a little over the top? I'm sorry, I swear this thing is just that cool!).

Micro Four Thirds and the Camera Continuum:

After having shot film for a substantial number of years (not nearly as many, relative to others, considering my age) my first digital camera was a DSLR, a Canon XTi to be exact. While looking for my first digital camera, I of course initially began looking at compact point and shoots (P&S). Being that the price of DSLRs was so much higher compared to P&Ss, I figured it would be a good intro into the world of digital while, depending on the model, affording me some creative tools to continue making images in a similar fashion to what I was currently used to. Not so. In fact, it was nothing short of impossible for me to fathom surrendering the many fully manual functions I possessed within my DSLR, in a considerably less expensive P&S. So in narrowing down my decisions, I kept ending up back at cameras like the Canon Powershot G series, or something similarly near a $500 pricetag. Well for that kind of money, I could get an entry level DSLR!

I became discouraged from buying a P&S further by the fact that their performance. Even those with the full manual controls, paled in comparison to the DSLRs. Now at the time, it wasn't a huge deal. Size wasn't really a concern and being the tech junkie that I was (and still am) I thought, "I actually WANT one of those beastly looking tank cameras!" Not that I am overcompensating...Just liked the idea of having a solid, robust piece of machinery in my hand.

In any case! I ended up going the route of the DSLR. No regrets, never looked back. For most tasks, nothing compares in quality, to date (though it seems that is changing). I have continued to have a hard time justifying forking over $500+ for a P&S sidekick camera, that will only leave me grabbing the DSLR to get what I need. It wasn't until I began doing some photojournalism that I really began questioning the DSLR. I was actually finding that despite its creative superiority, it's size was a big problem (no pun...). People often altered their behavior upon seeing it. That coveted cloak of invisibility to preserve journalistic accuracy only became more illusive. People did not seem to mind, however, seeing me with a small P&S camera. Well on a bright, clear day under average conditions, with a modest output size (4x6 print, web image), a P&S can produce some very nice images. So I picked up a Canon G9 gave it a try. I found it to be a very reliable camera, as well as discreet. The lack of mirror box allowed me to take nearly silent shots, in comparison to the thundering clack of the DSLR. Still, the G9 (as well as almost all P&Ss) had some shutter lag, lacked any real burst capabilities, had a fixed lens. Worse yet, it performed fairly sketchy beyond ISO 800. Well humans have made do with what they had for thousands of years and I'm certainly not here to complain. Technology just wasn't there yet.

Enter the "Poor Man's Digital Leica":


The Micro Four Thirds System is great. Let me first just say, the GF1 is by no means perfect nor is it the "end-all be-all". Along with Olympus's EP1 and EP2, it represents a revolutionary new niche in digital photography. One that is empowering, as well as affordable (unlike the supremely expensive Leica M9, $7000 worth of awesomeness). My excitement is probably more directly related to the conceptual implications the Micro Four Thirds System represents.

I will delve further into the specifics with some ISO comparisons and more DIY projects involving the GF1 in the future. But generally what does the Micro Four Thirds System (M43) have to offer? The M43 system is based on the Four Thirds System developed by Olympus. With the M43 system, you get basically, a Four Thirds sensor (that is roughly 30% smaller than an APS-C sensor, and a 2x crop factor, same as the Four Thirds System cameras), in a thin pocketable body. The mount is called a Micro Four Thirds mount. It is smaller than the standard Four Thirds mount and lenses from the latter are compatible through an adapter.

Why It Matters:

The sensor in these cameras is 9x that of standard P&S. Larger sensor, means larger photo sensors in the chip as well as shallower depth of field capabilities. ISO performance is much better than P&Ss. The camera itself has DSLR-like shutter lag, hardly any. Burst modes. Relatively quiet. And most important of all, because of its lack of a mirror box the flange to sensor distance is short enough, with the right adapter, virtually any and every lens ever made for a film camera can be used on this camera.

The bundled Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Pancake lens is a compact gem of a lens that gives the beautiful shallow DOF feel of a DSLR or even the older film compacts.


Of the various options currently available in the M43 system, it seems the GF1 is the most capable and well thought out at this point. Plus, the bundled 20mm f/1.7 was a big sale point for me. In getting a small camera such as this, having an ability to utilize depth of field is incredible.

Changing the Way We Shoot:

I used to lug my D700 around everywhere, just in case something came up. I love making images. The P&S was just convenient but in the end I was often looking for more in the images that came out of it. New cameras like the M43 cameras, or Ricoh's new GXR are redefining how we think of compacts. Utilizing the newest technology, these companies are putting the power of the DSLR is our hands, without the weight, social impedence, or just outright inconvenience. Take as you will, but it is happening. I for one, am embracing full heartedly. The images are still made by the photographer, no matter how large or small the camera is.

Links:

Wikipedia's article on the Micro Four Thirds System

DPreview - Panasonic GF1