Don't trade in your Nikon just yet!
We left part 1 with rave reviews and huge expectations, with pro shooters talking about selling their Leicas for a GF1 or mothballing their D700s. One old pro even suggested the Gf1 should be rebadged by Leica as the M9.5, and he shows how to turn the GF1 into a proper poor man’s Leica with a Leica-M-to-m4/3 lens adaptor. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/17/leica-m9-5-the-small-but-excellent-panasonic-gf1-by-david-babsky/
Even in the digital age, manufacturers sometimes hit a design sweet spot, where all the bits work so well together that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. The Nikon D40 is a great example of that. I bought mine after the D60 made it obsolete and it served me better than well for 2 and a half years.
As I read the glowing reviews, I began to think the GF1 was one of those perfect designs. Pulling the GF1 out of its box and fitting it with the pancake lens, I realized that it was a little bigger than I’d expected. It’s quite a bit bigger than the old Olympus XA2 film camera I’ve kept as an early compact camera marvel.
But hey, the GF1 is a great design superbly executed and feels like it’s hewn from a solid block. It just so happens that I’m seeing my daughter and two of my grandchildren this afternoon at Cremorne Point on the harbour opposite the Opera House, so we have some testing opportunities.
Setting up the menus before I go proved tricky because the user guide is a tedious piece of work designed to torture normal minds. Nothing here is intuitive compared to base-level Nikon DSLRs, except for the shooting mode dial on top and the dedicated ISO, AF mode and ISO buttons on the back. There’s also a Q.Menu button that lets you access a few more vital functions.
At least we get the basics sorted out before I meet the family. The AF is fast enough for action shots, unlike most digicams, and the GF1 fits into a small bum bag if not a pocket. Cremorne Point late in the afternoon is a good testing ground for a camera’s dynamic range, the bright light of a hot Sydney summer day contrasting with the heavy afternoon shade cast by mature trees.
RAW DEAL
When I looked at the files on my PC back home, it was clear that the GF1 struggles with these high contrast scenes. That surprised me since the old Nikon D40 used to cope fairly well here. The problem is dynamic range, with highlights blowing out in many shots, and shady areas coming up black. I sat there staring at these images thinking: they’re not a patch on those I routinely got from my old D40.
How could this be? I checked the DxOMark data and found this interesting comparison:
Not a pretty picture. The Leica M8 was the company’s first attempt at a digital M series camera and Nikon’s D40 was an entry-level design. Both saw the light of day in 2006, 3 years before the GF1. Checking online, it turns out that M43 sensors aren’t noted for their dynamic range. Among the incandescent glow of the rave reviews, I must’ve missed that.
Some of the reviews state that the GF1’s RAW files are far superior to its JPEGs, so I decided to shoot RAW for the next session. The results awee enlightening, with big gains possible if you’re prepared to put in the extra work. Here’s a case in point, left image shot in .jpg as is and right shot in RAW optimised:
What really illustrates my point here (or disappointment) is how well my old Canon IXUS 960IS compares with the GF1. Yes, that's it just below. Hard to believe, I know.
I kept shooting RAW for a while but I’m not a great fan of RAW on a walkabout camera, because it’s extra work and slows the editing process on my average spec PC. Post processing takes much longer with RAW, and the GF1’s files take longer again than the D40’s or D5000’s. Yes, the GF1’s RAW files capture more detail but it’s hard work to tease it out.
Badly blown highlights can’t be recovered even with a good RAW converter, and I was getting more than my share of them with the GF1. High contrast shots are clearly not its forte, nor are white clouds in a sunlit sky. And the colours in long distance landscape shots tend to be washed out and hard to rejuvenate even from RAW files.
Lenses
One of the big advantages of the M43 system lies in much smaller lenses, and the lenses made by Panasonic – as opposed to Leica for Panasonic – attract much praise. I’m not so sure they deserve it, but that may be harsh judgement by a standard of carefully selected Nikon lenses.
The 20mm f/1.7 is great for close portraits but good Depth Of Field and a creamy bokeh aren’t that easy to achieve with the small M43’s sensors, regardless of the lens used. Yes, this lens is sharp close up but so are the lenses of most digicams. It doesn’t do so well with distant objects.
The 14-45mm, which translates to 28-90 in 35mm terms, is just as disappointing in that regard. It’s pretty free from distortion or vignetting but sharpness is an issue over a distance, and so is colour. Just look at the issues in this image, from custard-coloured sand to custard -coloured people, and you'll begin to understand what I'm on about.
Click on the image to see more detail
The range is a bit short at 90mm (35mm equivalent) and that leaves room for another lens: the 45-200mm, another Panasonic design. Yes, there are enough lenses now but this camera really makes the most sense with the 20mm f/1.7. In that form, the GF1 looks like the digital rangefinder we’ve all been looking for. Even the 18-45mm, small as it is, sticks out nearly 6cm from the GF1’s compact body and makes it lumpy like a small DSLR.
Summing up
I wanted to like this camera: for one, I’d just bought it. For another, I really liked the M43 concept and the GF1 execution. It handles well, focuses pretty fast and has a snappy shutter. The main controls are easy to work and the 3in screen is sharp. There’s an optional viewfinder if you’re prepared to shell out over $200 for a piece of gear not even the most effusive reviewers could find a good word for.
Is the Lumix GF1 really that bad? No, my expectations were too high, and I expected it to be at least equal to the Nikon D40. I’d probably learn to live with the GF1 if the IQ were as stunning as the reviews suggested. It’s not just the dynamic range but sharpness is lacking in the longer shots and noise rears its ugly head at ISO 800. Even at ISO 400 at times like these:
Yes the GF1 produces good, crisp, well-coloured images when the light is more subdued and the contrasts are softer, but so do most digicams (that comparison with the Canon Ixus really floored me). Then again, the GF1 can take you by surprise.
In two weeks of shooting many different scenes, I couldn’t find the GF1’s sweet spot. I still like the way the camera looks and feels and handles but the IQ isn't able to back up the good looks. I should add that the GF1 is messy to set up because the menus are all over the shop and the manual is virtually useless.
Maybe I used the wrong reference point - an entry-level Nikon DSLR. Maybe I should've picked a Canon G12, which is about the same size and price. Maybe the GF1 would've won that comparison, but the GF1 is also the same price as a Nikon D3100 and promises similar Image Quality in a more compact format.
Problem is: the GF1 doesn’t do anything better than the D3100, and most of what it does isn't as good. And it isn’t compact enough to fit into most pockets, and that leaves us in a no-man’s-land rather than a place that offers the best of both worlds. As things stand, the M43 promise remains largely unfulfilled.
So why did all these people fall over each other to praise a camera with such obvious flaws? No idea. A case of the Emperor's Clothes maybe? We all fell in love with the idea but ... Am I being too critical? No idea. I can only call it as I see it.
My advice is this: If you already have a good SLR, you'd be better off with something like a Lumix LX5 or Canon S95 to pop in your pocket wherever you go. You need to waer clothes to do that, of course.
KIM
Great review. The D40 is also my benchmark. In a few days the GF1 that I just bought arrives...
Posted by: Jotman | 04/09/2011 at 05:16 PM