Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Silver, Part 1

Panasonic Lumix GX1 with Lumix 1.7/20mm

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: It now costs 1/5 what it originally sold for.
The Long Version:

It may say "Henry" on my birth certificate but my middle name is really "Cheap." That's why I wait until the very end of a product's lifecycle to pick up a lot of µ4:3rds camera gear, especially camera bodies. I did that with my E-PL1 (US$150) and my E-PL2 (US$200). And I did it again when the price of the Panasonic GX1 body dropped to $200. With free shipping.

My primary reason for owning a Panasonic body is to have a reference against which to use my three Panasonic Lumix lenses; the 14mm, the 20mm, and the 25mm. I've never had any issues using any of those lenses with any of my Olympus µ4:3rds bodies, including the OMD E-M5, but I keep reading about the terrible problems other posters in other fora seem to have when using one vendor's lenses (Panasonic) with the other's bodies (Olympus). So far I'm happy to report that all my Panasonic lenses work just fine with the GX1, just like they work just fine with all the Olympus bodies I own. And if you think I own too many µ4:3rds bodies, I direct your attention to photographer William Eggleston's fine collection of Canon and Leica rangefinder cameras. I got nothin' on him.

In The Beginning...

The GX1 was first introduced nearly 18 months ago with a 14-42mm X kit lens for US$950. That put it squarely in the same price league as the Olympus E-P3.  I'd already heavily panned the E-P3 on my personal blog, stating in no uncertain terms that hell would freeze over before I'd buy an E-P3 at Olympus' asking price. Two years later, even with the heavy discounts the E-P3 has undergone, I still feel no desire to own a copy. I took a dim view of the E-P3 and unfortunately cast the same jaundiced eye towards the GX1 when it was introduced. That was my loss.

With 20/20 hindsight I've come to realize the GX1 does have some key advantages over the E-P3. Foremost is the GX1's sensor vs the E-P3's. At 16MP, it could be argued the GX1's additional 4MP won't buy you much and you're probably right as far as raw resolution goes. But there's a lot more going on with that sensor and associated image processor than just four additional megapixels. Quoting DPReview conclusions about the E-P3 from August 2011: "The E-P3's biggest problem, through, is that its 12MP sensor is essentially the same as that which we first saw in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 almost three years ago, and in the face of rapid progress from other manufacturers it's now looking distinctly dated." The GX1 borrowed the sensor from the G3, which was released the same time as the E-P3, and which had at least two years of refinement behind it. DPReview's conclusions about the G3 (and later the GX1) were glowingly effusive in comparison to their E-P3 conclusions. I don't mind buying a two-year-old sensor from Panasonic, but five years for Olympus is more than a bit of a stretch, especially when I realize it's the same sensor I have in the E-P2, E-PL1 and E-PL2. Note that while I still don't care for the E-P3, my feelings for the OMD E-M5 are just the opposite, which I own and like greatly. You can have my E-M5 when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. But I digress...

Working with the GX1

The GX1 has a compact body with a design quite reminiscent of the Olympus E-PL2. Sit the two side-by-side and the Panasonic GX1 and Olympus E-PL2 look more alike than different, even if the E-PL2 is supposed to be channeling the old Olympus film Pen lines. Their construction bears remarkable similarities, even down to the use of the same number and placement Phillips screws on both ends of the body as well as across the bottom plate of the body. You'd think they came out of the same design bureau.

Dig a little deeper physically and there are differences between the two. The E-PL2 makes greater use of composites ("plastics") in its body, while the GX1 body is nearly all metal (the E-PL2 used metal on the front face plate, composite on the back). The tripod mount on the GX1 lines up with the lens mount and sensor, while it's very offset on the E-PL2. There're more direct controls on the GX1. Finally, there's an explicit on-off power switch on the GX1 top plate that wasn't mimicked by Olympus until the E-M5 and the just-announced E-P5. The construction, at first blush, appears a bit more robust with the GX1, although I wouldn't classify the E-PL2's construction as either poor or flimsy, far from it. They both exude good quality fit and finish. The best way to describe the GX1 with a Lumix 1.7/20mm and the battery is "dense", which goes to further reinforce the feeling of quality with the GX1.

Out in the field the GX1 is fairly easy to get to work the way I expect all my cameras to work. The menus in the GX1 are radically different from the Olympus Pens, which is to be expected. The GX1 menus are fairly "flat" (few menu levels) while the Olympus cameras have greater depth (more levels to traverse). Having now had to deal with both I don't see where either one is better than the other. They're both equally bad in my not so humble opinion, but their menu systems aren't deal breakers. You dive in, learn the menu layout, make your changes, and then get on with photography.

I'll note at this point in the review that I set auto review to '0' (turning it off) and turned the focus assist light off. With auto review off there is no apparent delay between shutter releases (having the image pop up like that always surprises me enough to cause me to delay, even if very briefly). With the focus assist light off the camera and I are a bit more stealthy, and the battery lasts a bit longer.

As I noted earlier the GX1's sensor resolution is 16MP, which matches the resolution of the OMD E-M5. However if you look at the sensor scores for those two cameras at DxOMark, you'll see that the overall score of the E-M5 is 20 points greater than the GX1. That's pretty substantial and is due in part to the E-M5's greater exposure range (about 1 1/2 stops if I read the numbers correctly). From my limited experience so far with the GX1 with the 20mm produces excellent results, especially close to base ISO. I've set auto ISO on the GX1 with a maximum of ISO 3200. While I've gotten fairly high, I've yet to reach a point where noise has become a problem.

ISO 250

ISO 160

Monochrome, ISO 400

ISO 1000

The GX1 in Black and White, or the Poor Man's Leica M Monochrom

I have tried for years to get a decent monochrome exposure out of the Olympus Pens, and for my uses I've been pretty dissatisfied. And then, on a whim, I set the GX1 to Monochrome Photo Style, and further tweaked the following settings: Contrast -1, Sharpness +1, Saturation -1, and Noise Reduction -2. It took a few times to reach those settings, but once there I realized I'd finally found a decent monochrome µ4:3rds body. Coupled with the 1.7/20mm and I suddenly had a pretty decent "artsy" camera that more than satisfied my wants. I love the deep blacks that come out of the GX1 instead of the muddy darks that the Olympus produces. If I had any doubt about keeping the GX1 that doubt was completely removed when I saw the SOOC black and white JPEGs it produces.

ISO 800

ISO 160

The last two photos show what the GX1 RAW files are capable of. The top photo is straight out of the camera. The "problem" with the top photo is that the sky looks overexposed with what many in the fora would call blown-out highlights (which I don't totally agree with). The bottom photo is the RAW file with LR 4.4's highlight slider set to -100 to recover the maximum information from the highlights. Now you can distinctly see the clouds in the sky.

Unfortunately it has also brought up a lot more detail in the mid-tones, especially in the bushes and across the car hood in the lower left corner. The top photo seems softer, more romantic, but there's enough detail and byte in the bushes to add interested to the overall composition. The bottom photo has too much busy detail. But these are meant to be references and comparisons. If I were really serious about producing a good final image and print from these files, I'd use at least two layers in Photoshop, one for the sky and the other for everything else, to isolate changes to the clouds in the sky. It would be the same as me burning a bit of the sky in a wet darkroom in the past.

ISO 160

Edited with LR 4.4 and Silver Efex Pro 2

That pretty much wraps up the first part of this review. In the final part I'll spend more time examining the ergonomics and how the GX1 compares with the E-PL2 and the E-M5. In the mean time, if you want a recommendation on whether to buy a GX1 or not, I heartily recommend you grab a copy while the price is down to $200. If you don't have any µ4:3rds lenses then I recommend either the Lumix 1.7/20mm (40mm equivalent) for $350 or the 2.4/14mm (28mm equivalent) for $250. If you get the 14mm you'll discover you have a camera that competes with the latest fixed lens cameras from Ricoh and Nikon that also have 28mm f/2.8 equivalent lenses, except they cost a whole lot more money and they're fixed lens

Technical

Hero photo of the GX1 taken with the Olympus E-M5 and M.Zuiko 12-50mm set at macro mode. All other photos taken with the GX1 and 1.7/20mm set at f/1.7. Color photos were processed in LR 4.4 and Color Efex Pro from RAW. Black and white were SooC except where noted.

last updated 29 may 2013

Lowepro Photo Hatchback AW 22L

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Yes, it's yet another camera bag review.

The Long Version: I'm going to get this out of the way right up front – the Lowepro Photo Hatchback AW is an exceptional mixed-use camera daypack. I've owned seven different backpacks, with four currently in the rotation, and the 22L Hatchback is easily my favourite.

As a mixed-use bag the Hatchback has a large compartment to hold non-camera items, which is reached through a zippered opening across top of the bag. The secret to the bag, and the feature that gives it its name, is the body-side access panel to the camera compartment that takes up its lower half. This is basically invisible when the bag's being worn, letting the Photo Hatchback be mistaken for a basic daypack or student's book bag.

The Hatchback looks so unremarkable that it's almost remarkable. There's a fabric grab-handle on top, tall elastic water-bottle pockets on each side, and a couple of access zippers across the top and front of the bag. There's no tangle of cinch straps and clips, no lash points for MOLLE gear, no intricate panels of heavy-weight Cordura that can double as a cheese grater. It's an untechnical and unpretentious bag.

The lower compartment of the 22L Hatchback can carry a large SLR with a short lens attached. There's still room alongside for another lens and perhaps another small accessory. The 60/2.8G with its hood attached squeaks in and still leaves room for my entire three-lens Nikon V1 kit alongside it, and I can tuck the battery charger in as well. Even my F5 can fit by lying flat when it's lensless or with a 50/1.4D on it; there's still room for a decent-sized lens beside it, too. This could be an uber-stealth way to carry a full-sized SLR and separate standard zoom.

The top compartment can fit enough stuff to get me through an overnight trip somewhere. It has two internal mesh organizer pockets and a zippered nylon pocket that's big enough to hold tickets, passports, or paperback books separately and securely. There's even a keychain leash inside. The side bottle pockets are tall enough to securely hold an 800ml steel water bottle or 710ml plastic soft drink bottle, and strong enough that I'll never worry about losing what I carry. Considering that Penny's MEC Book Bag will dump her travel mug onto the sidewalk with regularity, this ability isn't something to take for granted.

An iPad-like tablet, or the svelte 11" Macbook Air, will fit in the padded slot in the Hatchback's front organizer panel. I really prefer this to the customary back-panel laptop slot because it stops the weight of the bag's contents from squeezing and damaging the laptop screen. There's also an unpadded front compartment to the organizer panel, and it has a triangular profile that makes it substantially wider at the bottom, making it very useful for longer objects that otherwise wouldn't fit inside the bag.

My day-job load is to have a camera or two, like my GA645zi, V1 system, or Ricoh GRD4 tucked into the camera compartment. My laptop, audio recorder, and its shock-mount go in the front panel, where they can be reached easily. A water bottle fits in one side pocket, and an umbrella or beverage – depending on the weather forecast – rides in the other. The top compartment can hold a light jacket when it's cold or a change of clothes when its hot, and a brown-bag lunch will fit in either the top or bottom of the bag depending on my priorities for the day.

For more serious outings this little bag will hold my D800 with 60/2.8G (or 50/1.4 if I expect it to be dark out) and Nikon V1 system, with its two zooms and fast normal lens, in the camera compartment. There's still room in there for their mutual charger or a compact camera. My audio recorder's shock mount assembly and Joby Gorillapod Focus, with its Manfrotto 484RC2 head, fit side-by-side down the front panel. Then I can either put the audio recorder and headphones into the top compartment loose – which is great for recording when I may need to move along promptly, like under a highway overpass – or use a Crumpler Haven insert to keep them organized, along with another small camera, alternative windscreen, multitool, and other bits and pieces that make up my audio kit.

Like the Flipside Sport bag that I previously reviewed, the padded camera compartment is removable, and has a built-in draw-stringed cover and handles for the occasion. (Protip: this is a great place to stash a few runs of gaffer tape.) The interior panel that divides the bag is held in place with velcro, so it can be tucked out of the way to create a single full-height compartment should the need ever arise.

As one of Lowepro's "AW" bags the Hatchback includes a cover for poor weather. I'm normally not too diligent about deploying these, but because this is a lighter-weight bag I do use it when I'm carrying my laptop. I really like the outward-facing, top-loading tablet-slash-Macbook-Air compartment, but it closes with a standard YKK zipper and has only a modest storm flap to cover it. Life's a barter.

The good news is that the AW cover is well-designed, and has loops that secure it around the shoulder straps at the top of the bag. The cut is roomy enough to fit over water bottles or similarly-sized items in the side pockets, as well. It's also handy for keeping the front of the bag clean when it's set down, as the camera compartment remains accessible. And of course when the cover's not needed it tucks into its spacious compartment at the bottom of the bag, where it provides a little extra cushion to the contents.

The fit on the 22L model is wider than I'm used to, with the straps resting toward the outside of my not-overly-broad shoulders. The sternum strap, which is removable, becomes very useful if I'm carrying a lot of weight. Otherwise I just see it as an opportunity to improve my posture, and it's a fairly easy trait to live with. There is also a removable webbing waist strap, which I immediately removed and haven't missed. While this bag can carry a lot of weight when it needs to, other bags, like as my Flipside Sport 20L, will still be filling the heavy overland hauler role for me.

Even with the large and stylishly-distressed 'LOWEPRO' running up the front of it, this bag looks like nothing. In my neighbourhood, which is on the edge of a large university, wearing this bag is the next best thing to being invisible. It's also worth pointing out that that the Hatchback is the least expensive of all of the camera backpacks I've ever owned, which makes this next bit especially telling: it and my Billingham Hadley Pro are the only camera-centric bags that I'll use even when I'm not carrying a camera.

I don't drive, so having the right bag matters a lot – I walk, at least part of the way, for everything I do. If I'm moving it means that I'm carrying everything that I need. I've spent hours sitting with the Hatchback on my lap during inter-city bus trips, have walked a couple hundred kilometres with it in the city centre, and I may have even taken it around fences and into places that I might need to depart from unexpectedly. After all that I've had no problems and no complaints. It doesn't look like much, but the Hatchback is a pretty awesome little bag.

last updated 21 may 2013

Toronto Coach Terminal

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: Like Opus said, "Well maybe not THAT bad, but Lord, it wasn't good."

The Long Version: The Toronto Coach Terminal, which is home to Greyhound, Megabus, and Ontario Northland, among other bus lines, is an excellent example of how not to do things.

First, the good points: Inside the main doors is a large ticketing area, as well as a traveller's information kiosk that's occasionally staffed by (presumably) friendly, patient, and helpful people. There's a considerable amount of seating, which is eclectically arranged and cosy, even though much of it is roped off as an 'express' area. There are information screens that show which platform each bus will be departing from, and there are even storage lockers available, which is quite a luxury these days.

And that concludes the summation of the good points of Toronto's Bay Street bus terminal.

It's not glamorous, but restrooms are one of the most important consideration for travellers. These are absurdly small and in terrible repair – if there was any doubt that this building is owned and run by the TTC, this will remove it. Accommodating four people will make the Men's uncomfortably crowded, and the Women's is rumoured to be worse. For bonus points they're in the basement, far away and out of sight of the bus platforms. The up and down escalators are in different places, so you don't return to where you started, and neither one is convenient to the bus loading platforms. I'm trying to imagine a worse implementation of such a fundamental amenity, and keep coming up blank.

Also downstairs is a small convenience store selling touristy things and a poolhall to help pass the time. There are no food-equipped vending machines in the building, though, so when those are closed it's time to explore the neighbourhood. The basement does have a pedestrian passageway to the Atrium On Bay shopping complex, which mostly keeps office hours, but has a food court with much better washrooms and a McDonalds. That seems to be the best we can offer visitors with two kids, three suitcases, and half an hour left before they need to go stand outside in a garage.

Yes, dear reader, the best is yet to come.

The bus platforms don't deserve the term. Civilized bus stations have indoor waiting areas with seats and heat, and the people walk up to the bus when it's ready for them. Toronto does it backwards. People here are expected to line up – at least half an hour early, because buying a ticket doesn't guarantee a seat – and stand waiting in an outdoor garage. Metal railings mark the places for the queues, but a bus that can hold fifty or eighty people can create quite the line.

Did I mention that this is in Toronto? There is a roof that keeps most of the rain and snow out, but our weather is lousy for most of the year, being either too hot or too cold. And even on a pleasant day, spending it standing squished between buses with their engines running is nobody's idea of fun.

When a bus wants to reach the loading area it needs to drive through the lines of queueing people, who now need to shuffle themselves and their luggage out of the way. Did I mention that these massive vehicles need to turn to reach the correct positions, often with just a few feet of clearance? I can't imagine the stress this must put on long-distance drivers as they try to navigate a moving obstacle course of tired people pulling toddlers and wheeled suitcases.

And the crowning glory of the whole endeavour is just how busy the whole thing is. I've been waiting at a platform for the suggested half-hour prior to departure only to have two other buses depart from the same platform in that time. This leaves the bus drivers walking up and down the line calling out their destination. "Peterborough? Peterborough? Niagara Falls? Owen Sound?" I think the term I'm looking for is 'cluster farce', but I could be mixing up two expressions.

And once the bus is ready to go the experience still isn't quite over. The buses get to pull out onto a nice and wide public roadway, but it's also used for bus parking, which narrows it considerably. Having your bus need to do a three-point-turn is just the crowning touch on a congested and absurd experience.

This station needs to be torn down. It can't handle the passenger volume, which is increasing, but its replacement hasn't been a priority for the city planners. GO Transit has a more sensibly designed station farther south to serve its regional buses, but there's no way to add on significantly more service there, and the main inter-city bus station really needs to be in the city's core.

The fact is that a city will make the room, and find the money, for the things that it wants. Improving the TTC-owned Toronto Coach Terminal just doesn't rank highly enough to happen. The commercial district that houses the existing bus station has had massive redevelopment over the past decade, including a huge parking and shopping complex on an ideally-located prime intersection. It should have been an automatic choice for a transportation hub, but even with that opportunity missed, other block-scale development projects are not hard to find.

I can only hope that our next mayor can see beyond the suburbs.

last updated 15 may 2013