Lee Reamsnyder on the Panasonic G5

Lee Reamsnyder, longtime friend of thewsreviews and author of the best storage product review that I've ever read, joins us with his thoughts after spending a long weekend with the Panasonic G5.

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It isn't groundbreaking anymore.

Lee writes: In 2008, we were introduced to the first camera in what would become a swell little format, the groundbreaking Panasonic G1. It finally delivered on the promise of significantly smaller cameras and lenses matched with still-large sensors. It proved that electronic viewfinders (EVFs) were viable in a serious camera. It took great pictures.

No one talked about it.

Although the G1 came first, the internet hype machine didn't power up until the next year, which saw a perfect storm in the close releases of the smaller GF1, the sexier Olympus PEN, the more capable GH1, and the small but scrappy Panasonic 20mm/1.7 lens. When the system started to gel and the hyperbolic “we-love-photography-again!” reviews came out, the relatively plain G1 was history.

Aside from the revolutionary bits, the G1 got an awful lot right for the first time out: the grip is comfortable, the autofocus was fast and accurate, the magnified viewfinder has the same effective size as a full-frame DSLR, the rear LCD has the moves, the menu system shows an organization and clarity that is agonizingly rare these days, and it nails the switches-around-dials idea for quick access to major controls.

After 4 years with a G1, all I want is two tweaks:

1. Swap the Menu and Quick Menu buttons. The Quick Menu with all the shooting settings, not the configuration bank, should be the one that's quickly available under thumb.
2. Replace the too-clever tricky toggly main dial with a more obvious switch or a button-plus-dial method to control exposure compensation.

Basically: steal some control paradigms from Canon and keep up with evolving sensor tech. Boom, the next camera would be perfect…

…which is why I've found the actual evolution of the G-series so frustrating. The G2 stapled on a video mode and little else. The G3 upped the megapickles but lost the hand grip, the eye sensor that automatically switched between the rear LCD and the EVF, and like half of the buttons and dials.

Which brings us to the G5: it restores the eye sensor and a bunch of buttons, sports yet another body and grip design, and adds some niceties that I'll discuss shortly.

I'm in the market for a new digital system camera, and I'm fond of the G1, so I wanted to see where the G-series has ended up. After a long weekend with the G5 via the always great Lensrentals, I'm conflicted.

Plug, gratis

I can't really comment on autofocus performance, the great slayer of pretenders to the mirrorless throne. Though Panny's cameras have always set the standard on this front, I don't own lenses that would reflect any improvements. The AF motor in the 20/1.7 is satisfactory – no one would call it swift. I'm surprised the 7–14/4 comes with autofocus at all. Perhaps my 45/2.8 macro languorously hunted a smidge faster than normal? There's nothing I can pin on the camera.

Speaking of pins, there's a new 'pinpoint' autofocus that zooms in to a highly magnified portion of the frame to show you exactly where the camera is focusing, a clever idea that's still not as useful for critical work as true focus peaking. Seriously Panny: you have a video division. Call them, maybe?

One feature that I went in expecting to ignore but warmed to is the touch screen. The swivel screen is still one of the stand-outs of the G# line, and the touch features don't ruin it. Don't be suckered by the "touch" part. It's pressure-, not capacitive-,  sensitive, so don't expect graceful swipes or pinch-zooming like on a smartphone.

You can, however, prod the screen to indicate where you want to focus. Although Panny's multizone "just focus for me" setting is pretty smart, I can't understate how cathartic it is to just jab the sucker when it's not locking on the right spot. "No, focus HERE!" *poke*

Also, you can get quick(ish) access to two more custom functions via the touch screen, bringing the total number of customizable "buttons" to 5. Not too shabby.

Not that impressed, but not barking at the shutter either

One excellent candidate for quick access is the new electronic shutter. The mechanical shutter has a good, not-too-loud *fwip*, but the electronic one (after you turn off the autofocus bloops) is silent. Not muffled. Not quieter. Silent. If you work in any sound-sensitive environment – theaters, nurseries, churches, librarian fetish websites – this might be your camera.

Zoom zoom zoom…

Another feature I'm mixed on is the zoom lever, new on this model. I don't own any power zoom lenses (though the compact 14-42 is tempting); however, you can configure the G5's zoom lever to control exposure compensation as a pseudo second dial. I'd have liked this _much_ more if it also disabled the toggling between aperture and exposure compensation on the primary dial. As Matthew mentioned in his GH1 review, you can still accidentally switch between major functions at random times even while turning the dial, even though with the G5 you basically have two dedicated controls. So stupid. I've missed enough shots to main dial surprises with the G1 that this still rankles, even though I infrequently take pictures in a hurry.

The electronic viewfinder remains excellent even if it's mostly unchanged from the G1. If you're manufacturing cameras and don't need to pay for the precision hunk of glass for a prism, I don't know why you wouldn't provide a really, really, ridiculously magnified EVF. Glowers at the significantly smaller unit in the OMD. What is this? A viewfinder for ants?

Another carryover from the G1 is the conservative meter; I dial in +2/3 compensation in almost any situation where I'm not worried about shutter speed or blowing highlights. After going through several hundred underexposed shots in Lightroom, I can confirm that the G5's RAW files are quite forgiving of big exposure corrections.

Mom's Attic

A "nature" photo, for me

IQ is pretty darn good, even as you crank up the ISO. With the G1, I used ISO 100–400 with abandon, 800 with a good (over)exposure, and 1600 for snapshots. Improvements to Lightroom gave me another stop(ish) of acceptable noise if dynamic range wasn't a concern. I'd say the G5 adds another stop, maybe two, of usable range for me, which seems about right compared to the best APS-C cameras. It's not a D800, but the G5's sensor is no longer getting smoked in the noise department by my overachieving Canon S100. Since my other camera is a film rangefinder that's usually loaded with 400 film exposed at 250, the improved sensitivity is liberating.

Or, at least it should be. But something about the G5 left me cold. It might be the body gestalt. Although it's marginally heavier and smaller than the G1, it feels more hollow, empty. The magnesium front plate doesn't compensate for the rest of the cheap plastic shell and mushy buttons. The new grips – hand and thumb – feel plenty comfortable, but I didn't find myself reaching for it as much I thought I might.

Put another way: with my Ikon and S100, in idle moments I often find myself twiddling with the dials. I like the indulgent tick-tick-ticking of spinning the aperture ring on my 35/2 or twirling the ribbed lens wheel on the S100. I also know that with either of those cameras I could quickly reset if a photo opportunity arose; at this point I could probably set and focus my Ikon blindfolded. I can't imagine myself doing the same with the G5. These things shouldn't matter, but, well, yeah, they do! Particularly for an expensive hobby.

I've heard the GX1 is better when it comes to the intangibles, but you'd be losing the very useful swivel screen and the built-in EVF. The G5 remains the more practical and flexible choice.

During my rental period, I welcomed the excuse to give my much-adored Micro Four-Thirds lenses some exercise with a more modern partner. But I doubt I'll buy a G5 for myself. I honestly don't know what I want. The GH2 might be right, but it's also aging and its replacement has a larger, all-new body. Maybe I'll try the GX1. Maybe the grass is greener with Olympus or Fuji these days.

Fly away

It's an exciting time to be a digital photographer. It's also a frustrating time to be in the middle of the market. Big iron DSLRs have overwhelming firepower for those that need extreme resolution or speed. For everyone else, 'serious' compact cameras are getting so much better so quickly that it's almost scary. Here's the puzzle for everything in between: I think anything that can't offer ultimate size or ultimate IQ must offer a premium experience to be worth using. Although the G5 can use those excellent M4/3 lenses, the camera itself doesn't get my photographic juices flowing.

And I think that's where I left it: the G5 checks a lot of boxes but it does so without a lot of pizazz, like an above-average PowerPoint from the accounting department. For the size, image quality, features, and lens selection I would totally recommend it to friends looking to get into an interchangeable lens system, definitely before I would recommend any crop-sensor DSLR. Compared to the Olympus OMD or the GH series, it's totally a bargain. It appeals to that side of me that reads Consumer Reports. It's just fine.

The G5 is a perfectly acceptable photographic appliance, but it's in an era where 'perfectly acceptable' might not be enough.

last updated 22 mar 2013

Ken Kirkwood on the Fujifilm GX680

I recently received an email from UK-based photographer Ken Kirkwood about his experience with the Fujifilm GX680 family of cameras, of which I had previously reviewed the Mark III version. I have to say that reading his letter makes me want to get out with my camera again, so it's time to pull some film out of the freezer.

With his permission, I'm including it in its entirety here. Ken has also been kind enough to provide these sample photos.

It was with great interest that I recently read your excellent review of this fabulous camera.

As a professional here in the UK working mainly on location shooting architecture and interiors (amongst many other subjects) I have used the 680 since 1990. I started with a Mark 1 (obviously as that was the only one available then!)

In my view it was the 'perfect' camera for the work I was doing, not that there is such a thing as a 'perfect' camera.

I found that it combined many of the useful/essential features of a view camera with the mobility of a medium format kit. Obviously the word mobility is used in the context of it being quicker and easier to handle than a Sinar or a Linhof, both of which the 680 replaced. It is still a lump to carry round. My assistants used to say it was a Hasselblad built by Tonka Toys, which sums it up beautifully, I suppose!

I later added a Mark 2 then finally a Mark 3, which was an improvement on a camera which I thought could not be improved on!

To say I used it a lot is an understatement! For example just ONE of roll film backs' exposure indicated shows 150,000+ exposures on that back alone!

Whilst it is bulky to transport and carry around it didn't seem to matter too much as I was shooting mainly interiors in offices, hotels etc so on location we usually transported the camera kit plus lighting on trolleys. Outdoors it was a different story but it was still possible to move around with the Fuji so long as it was not too far! I was very interested to see your solution to carrying it on location.

If I had to move/shoot fast or over some distance I resorted to the Hasselblad kit.

We literally transported the beloved Fuji all over the world from Hong Kong, the Middle East and the Caribbean by air freight. In Europe it was just case of throwing all the equipment (in big Peli cases) plus lighting and grip kit in our van and just set off.

None of my 680s ever once let me down on any shoot anywhere. The only problems we ever had—and these were minor and easily overcome by using spares—was with the roll film backs and this was just because of amount of use to which they were subjected! They just wore out!

The image quality of the lenses was incredible—but that I suppose is subjective. I have never been a nerd that had to feel better knowing how may lines per millimetre a lens could deliver. That is chimera in any case, in my view, as any superiority any lens might in theory display eg a Zeiss Biogon is nullified when an image is reproduced in print in a brochure. That is the reason I was shooting so when the images went through the four colour reproduction process they were normally only printed using a maximum screen process of 360. So it was not possible to detect what lens was used to deliver the final image!

Because of the subjects I was shooting my most used lenses—possibly my favourites, too!—were initially the 65 and 80 mm. I could hardly wait until the fabulous 50 mm came out! I loved that lens even more.The front standard movements, rise, fall, cross and tilt made the camera unbeatable for interiors whilst with the shutters being in the lenses it meant that flash sync. was not ever a problem. Long exposures were easy and accurate, this was essential because I was using tungsten lighting or available light almost exclusively.

Because of the rail extensions and front tilt it made the 680 an ideal camera when shooting food on location as we often had to do in hotels. Sometimes we had two 680s on different tripods setting up a food shot on camera and shooting another dish on the other as it was prepared. So we could move FAST and more than often had to! Clients loved the quality and resolution of the 680 as well as the format as well as the mobility and speed of use of the camera itself. My time was their money so I always worked FAST.

My total lens kit comprises 50, 65, 80, 180, 210, 300. 500 and the HUGE zoom—what a lens that is! Both it and 500 each had be supported on a special extended plate before attaching to a tripod! I also have several 120/220 roll film backs, bellows, extension tubes, finders, etc plus batteries and chargers. Almost as soon as we arrived at a location we would plug in a charger, just in case, because we would shoot a LOT of roll-film 120 and 220 per day using Kodak EPP, or Fuji RTP, or Provia films as well as the excellent Fuji Instant film. I never shot much, if any, Velvia which I could never get on with. But we hardly ever had a flat battery even after a long day's shooting.

The ability to rotate the magazine was also a terrific bonus but perhaps the best feature of this camera was the format 6x8 cm. It is almost on the same diagonal as 35 mm, 6x4,5 and 5x7". And it is an almost perfect fit on A4 paper. A win-win situation.

At the same time as I was using the 680 I was also using the other Fuji masterpiece: the 6x17 panorama camera, with three lenses.

Sadly these days the beloved Fuji (or the FOOJ as my assistants used to call them!) is hardly used. Lack of work and the cost benefits (to clients at least) of digital medium format has rather made it unnecessarily redundant. I know it is possible to use my Sinar Eyelike digital back on a 680 body with an adapter but its' 645 format negates the benefits of the 680 format. Also, the widest angle lens the 50mm is nothing like as wide on the 645 format so all my lenses immediately would become 'longer'. How very sad. I miss it so much and it breaks my heart to see this fabulous kit unused but there is almost no second-hand market for it especially in the UK. But there is no way I could just dump it all…

I just think that this fabulous camera should be more appreciated and have—and should have had—a better press. That other photographers never accepted it or even investigated it is their loss. Years ago a pro dealer I used in London, when I asked about ordering a Fuji 680 item said 'I don't know any photographer, especially of architecture, who would ever use that camera'. I said 'How about me?' He investigated it and lo, and behold he stocked it and sold it!

I used the camera to photograph the work of some of the best known architects and interior designers in the world. It was not uncommon for us to return home at the end of a shoot overseas, in Europe or the UK with literally hundreds of rolls of film. Almost all shot without instant film/Polaroids. I knew I could rely on the 680 and it NEVER let me down. EVER.

In terms of cameras I have owned and used almost all the Big Names in medium and large format: Hass, Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax, Linhof, Sinar, but none of these ever came close to the Fuji 680. The optimum compromise. As near perfect as a camera can get, in my book. I think the man in Japan who conceived, designed and then manufactured it deserves all the credit and accolades he should have. So does Fuji Photo. But he will always be an unsung hero. How sad. What a shame, too, that they no longer manufacture it.

What also made it so great was the format: 6x8 cm which is wider than 6x7 but not so wide as 6x9 and the added 'hidden' bonus was the fact that with 9 frames per roll (or 18 on 220) it was easy to bracket three exposures per shot without having an odd image at the end of a roll of film.

I understand that it had a greater appreciation in the US and obviously could attract a much bigger customer base there. But you have already discovered just how good it is. Great news.

Sure, it takes a little getting used to to really appreciate its' qualities but that also applies to another Great Lump: the fabulous Boeing 747! They are both in the same league in my book: big, brilliant, unequaled work-horses.

I just thought you might like to share my Fuji 680 thoughts. If any have any contacts interested in purchasing a Mark 1 or Mark 2 body please put them in touch.

But again thanks for an excellent and justified review, I agree with every word you wrote—and then some!

Ken has vastly more experience with the GX680 than I ever will; while I do cherish it, mine mostly lives in its purpose-built storage unit and only comes out to play a couple of times a year. But Ken's experience rings true for me as well. If medium format film ever becomes scarce, my 680 is the camera that it will be dedicated to.

I also had to laugh when I read Ken's characterization of the Hasselblad as the system he would resort to when he'd need "to move/shoot fast or over some distance". That's exactly why I bought my 500c/m – the idea of a `blad as a small, convenient camera is something that makes perfect sense to people who use the GX680. The Fuji has a dedicated Kata 210 backpack and wooden tripod that also needs its own bag, while the Hasselblad can slip into my usual Billingham Hadley Pro and fits on a tripod that can be hand-carried. But I'd still only use the little Swedish camera when that added mobility is more important than image quality.

While many photographers are just being reintroduced to Fujifilm through its retro-styled "X-series" digital cameras, to me the GX680III will remain their greatest achievement. There may not be a 'perfect' camera, but the 680 remains undefeated.


Ken Kirkwood can be reached at
ken at kenkirkwoodphotographer dot com.
His website is kenkirkwoodphotographer.com.

last updated 13 june 2012