Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - First serious shoot and some interesting discoveries

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14mm f/2.5 Multi image panoramic stitch

No matter how many tests I run, the only way to assess any gear I use is to take it out to shoot "for real". Yesterday was an interesting December day, warm, sunny and 12 degrees. Last year at the same time, it was cold, covered in snow and about -4 degrees. The wonders of the British weather!

Using the camera was quite revealing. It confirmed some thoughts that were forming in my mind after trying out the camera, and indicates that the GX1 is somewhat more than a G3 in a retro designed GF1 body.

There was a recent Digital Rev review of the camera. In it there was mention of the excellent colour rendition. As I've repeated often, I like m4/3 colour very much. I continully use the word "glossy". Well in using the GX1 for the first time in sunshine, it takes this to new levels. 

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

This is the most "eye-popping" colour I've ever seen from a m4/3 camera. The images are very punchy, with good contrast. It is difficult to show this with images hosted on flickr sometimes, but the images on my screen are very saturated and also very realistic. I got an idea of this from the images I took previously, which were taken under leaden grey skies, but still looked very attractive. I should mention that this is all happening at the default settings. I'm not cranking up the saturation either in raw processing or in Photoshop.

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

There's also something else happening with the files. m4/3 is not known for being particularly good at handling a high dynamic range. However the latest Sony 16MP sensor in cameras like the NEX-5n, Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000 etc. has a reputation for allowing quite a lot of relatively noise free shadow recovery at low ISO settings. 

Much to my surprise the GX1 is pretty good at this too.

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

The jpg. image you see on the bottom of the image above might be considered as typical m4/3. Blocked out shadows and burnt out highlights in a contrasty lighting situation. But you'll have noticed the image on the top which shows neither of those problems. With some work in raw processing and Photoshop, I was able to "recover" both the missing shadow and highlight detail which is missing from the jpg. And no its not as good as the Sony APS-C sensor, but its a lot better than I've ever got from m4/3 before. In particular what is impressive, is that the lightened shadow areas are relatively noise free. Again not as clean as the Sony sensor but a significant improvement on what I've achieved before with a Panasonic 4/3 sensor.

So why the difference? Well I imagine that Panasonic have improved the processing engine. 

Small Diversion!!

One of the problems of all the initial reviews of any new gear is that the review sites work with pre-production cameras. The examples are mostly jpgs. or using the manufacturers often inadequate software. Judgements are made and impressions given, on what is often a pretty cursory look at a piece of equipment. These judgements are also made often by people who don't have a particular interest in getting the best out of what they are reviewing, i.e. they haven't used their own money to buy it!! One of the reasons I review as I do, is I like setting out on this "voyage of discovery". As you will be aware I often change my mind in these reviews, and discover new ways of doing things. This will of course be somewhat confusing to those of you who are reading this backwards!!, as often happens with blog post reviews. 

However back to the plot. It does seem to me that Panasonic have pulled off a very neat trick here, with the GX1. They have managed to create raw files that are punchy, saturated, with excellent colour depth and saturation AND at the same time made those files more "elastic" than before, with the capacity to handle a wider dynamic range. I also discovered that, by adjusting my raw file settings in Adobe Camera Raw, I could eliminate the luminance noise that is often present on these 16MP sensor files, even at low ISO's, without compromising the sharpness. The somewhat radical set of values you see below produces very clean, very sharp results.

Combined with the improvements in high ISO, I think Panasonic have produced a improved sensor here.

I normally treat new camera press releases with a large amount of skepticism. However I dug out the one for the GX1. I guess if I had read it at the time I would have regarded it as the same old BS, but it seems, on this occasion at least, there's actually some substance to it.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I understand most of that, but it sure sounds impressive!! I am however going to revise my opinion that basically stated that the GX1 was more or less a G3 in a GF1 body. The thing is, I don't remember my G3 having this level of saturation or such good highlight / shadow control. I even went back and opened up a few files to check. I was very impressed when I returned home yesterday and got the images up on my screen. I knew something was different and the files were very attractive to view, but it took a while to understand where the improvements were.

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm

A few thoughts on the handling. Again I'm going to change something I thought. I was somewhat underwhelmed by the new handgrip, however in use its actually rather good. Someone mentioned on a forum that it looks very similar to the G3 grip, which I have stated that I found uncomfortable. However in practice it is different. Firstly its slightly larger than the G3 grip, and being rubberised and mottled, its less slippy and flimsy. Consequently what happens with prolonged use is that I don't have to grip it so hard, resulting in less discomfort.

In fact the camera handled very well overall. So much so that I can't think of anything to say about it. The whole trip went so smoothly and I was concentrating on taking the pictures so much. That usually means that I'm happy with the cameras handling and I think that is the case here.

I took out the kit lens and 14mm f/2.5 that came with the GF3 and the 20mm f/1.7 that arrived yesterday. I ended up using the kit lens most of the time, and again was somewhat surprised by how good the results were. Again proving to me that this is an improved sensor. Having said that, I have got good results from the 14-42mm in the past, as long as I keep it at f/8 and above. Its also much better at 14mm than it is at 42mm. 

I also shot some multi images that I stitched together later to see what I could squeeze out of the GX1 in terms of producing high resolution files.

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm Multi image panoramic stitch

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14mm f/2.5 Multi image panoramic stitch

Panasonic Lumix GX1 14-42mm Multi image panoramic stitch

Again I was pleased with these. After stitching together (usually 3 or 4) the images, I got quite big files, around the 100-120MB mark. My usual practice is to reduce these to take account of the softening effects of all that warping and stretching. I ended up with 60-70MB files. Easily adequate for even the most demanding of my stock libraries. I must say they also compared very well when I looked at a few native 68MB a77 files. In most cases the GX1 stitches looked sharper and also I have to say with better colour. Much as I like the results from my Sony cameras, I am bound to say that Sony's idea of colour saturation is a bit "tame" as far as I'm concerned. I always find myself increasing it in post-production. However thats just my taste, but certainly the GX1 produces files that need very little colour editing work as far as I'm concerned.

So a useful and somewhat surprising excursion with the GX1. I found that I like it, and more particularly the images it produces, more than I thought I would. Does it give me more than the G3 and E-P3 I had? Well yes I think it does. Despite all my efforts I had great trouble getting sharp yet clean files from both of those cameras. It seems much easier with the GX1, at least on this first serious outing with it. 

I will admit that how it looks was a very important factor in my buying it. As you will know I am a complete sucker for the retro rangefinder look, but it seems to be giving me more than that. The improvements I perceive are small, yet significant. If you shoot jpgs. only I doubt you would notice any difference. But as usual working with the raw files shows just what a camera is really capable of, and my experiences with the GX1 raw files shows a steady improvement in Panasonics ability to compete with larger and supposedly more capable sensors. 

This is a long way from the G1 and shows just how far this low key mirrorless / CSC / E.V.I.L revolution has come. This is now the 3rd. camera I've bought and used in recent months that produces quite wonderful images. 

Following on from the Samsung NX200 and the NEX-5n, I believe that these cameras, rather than DSLR's are setting the standards now. There's nothing I've seen in the DSLR's I've bought and used that betters the low ISO image quality from these cameras. That includes Nikon and Canon FF cameras and yes the Sony a77. The manufacturers seem to be able to let the quality of the lenses and the sensor capture come through. All the cameras I mentioned are reputed to have relatively weak anti-aliasing / low-pass filters and it does seem that sensor designers are finding ways to deal with with the issues that these filters seek to address, in different and less image damaging ways. DSLR's still seem to stick a pretty strong AA filter on regardless, probably in some kind of mistaken belief that thats what people want. 

Well I don't think I'm alone in wanting to state quite catergorically that thats not what I want. Indeed the buyers and owner of medium format digital cameras and backs don't seem to want it either, since virtually all MF cameras are AA filter free. There are even rumours that the future 36MP Nikon D800 will have an AA free option. 

 It seems strange that in order to get the image quality I want I have to use cameras that are often targetted at point and shoot upgraders, rather than a DSLR which would obviously appear to be the kind of camera most suited to my situation. However it seems that is the case. In reality it suits me very well, since these cameras are lighter, smaller and in most instances cheaper. Yes, the interchangeable lens camera is changing, and to my mind changing for the better. From what I've seen so far the GX1 is just another example of that.

Panasonic GX1 review and user experience - Whats different?

The first obvious things that are different about the GX1 as compared with the GF1 are:- New grip, New viewfinder, Virtual "spirit level".

BODY

The body doesn't feel quite as "metallic" as the GF1, but its certainly well put together. The silvered retro look is very nice and the grip is OK. Lets just say its better than the G3, but the enthusiasm for it in other reviews I've seen, isn't something I'd share.

Its well endowed with knobs and buttons and seems well laid out, though I haven't used it in the field as yet. Certainly its a different looking and handling camera to the GF3. It will be very familiar to Panasonic GF1 users, and while people may not like the fact that a few things have been moved around, there's certainly nothing that I anticipate as being a real problem. If some operational problems crop up, I will of course report on that.

VIEWFINDER

At last!!! A decent add-on viewfinder for a Panasonic camera. It does work very well, and seems very similar to the G series EVF's and the Olympus VF-2. The usual problems with low light and its not as good as the Sony OLED viewfinder for the NEX-5n. However it has one great feature. It actually locks into its socket properly and doesn't keep working free all the time. This irritates me a lot on the Sony and on the Olympus Pens. Yes it moves into a vertical position, but it has a release knob which moves this from the horizontal position. It is possible to move it upwards without using this, but it takes a fair amount of effort. I'm assuming it wont move by just putting my eye and forehead to it, and certainly that hasn't happened so far. 

Its not OLED, but its just about usable with polaroid sunglasses, as is the screen.

VIRTUAL SPIRIT LEVEL

Very nice. A great feature for us landscape and architecture photographers. Its switchable on and off with a display or function button. Like on my Sony a77, I will probably have it on all the time.

So thats all good.

In terms of image quality change from the GH2 / G3, its pretty similar. Panasonic are constantly tweaking their sensors and there are some small improvements. There is still the incidence of luminance noise at all ISO's, even ISO 160, but there does seem to be a slight imrovement in the upper ISO performance. Unfortunately the jpgs. from 3200 to 12800 are pretty terrible. Smeared and basically quite unpleasant. Somewhat similar to what Samsung have chosen to do with the NX200. Raw however isn't too bad. Here's a couple of examples.

For larger versions click on image > flickr > Actions > View all sizes > Original

Here's one of the ISO 6400 files above with my own noise reduction appplied to a raw file in Photoshop. Somewhat more to my taste than the jpgs.

All in all this isn't that bad, and somewhat astounding to those of us who bought and used a G1. This is not Sony NEX levels of high ISO performance, and of course a long way short of Nikon and Canon full-frame DSLR results, but its now got to a state where its reasonable and the criticisms that could be levelled at m4/3 in this area aren't applicable any more. If you are a heavy duty low light photographer then you'd be using something else anyway, but for those times when its needed, it will produce a viewable image. However I would recommend using raw for this. If you don't have a fast lens that is, which is always my preferred option.

On first impressions it seems a nice upgrade. If you liked the GF1, then I would be surprised if you didn't like the GX1. I've been using m4/3 for so long now that I'm used to the system, how it works and the results it comes up with. 

For my own use, I'm wanting to use this mainly with the 20mm f/1.7 lens. Despite trying most of the m4/3 lenses, including the excellent 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8, the lens I love more than than any other is the little Panasonic pancake lens. These days its not quite the sharpest or the fastest, but there's something about the focal length and the overall look of the files that I really like. I'm definitely in one of my going out with one prime lens phases, and I've always enjoyed my excursions with the 20mm. My new (and fourth!) copy is arriving today, and if and when the sun comes out I'll be out trying the combination. 

I'll post some more thoughts and experiences in the days to come, and certainly if the weather is as dull as it is today, I can see myself doing some comparison tests with the NEX-5n and NX200. 

As far as I'm concerned, the GX1 is easily Panasonics most "stylish" camera, though I'm not sure thats saying much! Its nice to see that they have decided to pander a little to us "retroheads", even though it took a while. With small cameras I'm much happier with this rangefinder style design, and having handled the GF3 this is much more to my taste. Despite all my positive feelings about the NEX-5n, I still get a great sense of enjoyment from using m4/3 cameras, though despite my love of it as an artefact, the Olympus E-P3's 12MP and IQ just wasn't enough, despite my attempts to persuade myself that it was! At low ISO's the GX1 will produce great images, I'm sure, and despite the advantages of the Sony NEX system, this Panasonic sensor has the better colour for what I do. I wanted to like the GX1, and I do, and if you like m4/3 then do have a look at it. If you like the system already, then I don't think you'll be disappointed by the new kid on the block.

Irresistable

I always knew I wouldn't be able to resist the silver Panasonic GX1. As soon as I saw the magic "in stock" on the dealers websites any resistance I might have had crumbled. I always loved the GF1, and the upgraded GX1 with 16MP, decent viewfinder AND retro styling pushes all my buttons.

It is very pretty, very well made, the viewfinder works very well and as usual my latest period of time without a m4/3 camera has lasted a few days only. 

My wife Ann, has also decided to give the GF3 a try, and because of a complicated kit deal with christmas cashback offers we ended up getting a couple of lenses pretty cheaply with the GF3 almost "thrown in" or at least at a "real" price that we should exceed when (and if) its sold on ebay. Certainly not my kind of camera, as its VERY small, and doesn't have a you know what. I'll be giving it a review in the near future as I will with the GX1.

m4/3 does William Shakespeare

Back in those dim distant days when I was still shooting m4/3 (about 2 weeks ago) I was in Stratford-upon-Avon. The centre for all things Shakespearean. Falstaff Kebab House, Cordelia Cabs, Puck Pizzas etc. Its actually quite a feat to take a picture without a connection to the bard. 

Panasonic G3 14-42mm

 

Panasonic G3 45-175mm X lens

 

Panasonic G3 14-42mm

 

Panasonic G3 14-42mm

 

Panasonic G3 45-175mm X lens

 

Panasonic G3 14-42mm

 

Panasonic G3 14-42mm

 

Posted to show that the 3 cameras and 5 lenses I still own and use from Olympus and Panasonic haven't been "retired" just yet.

Lens "correction" on m4/3

There was a comment on a forum about how m4/3 kit lenses perform better because they have in-camera lens corrections performed on them. This was in response to my recent posts on "Kit lenses - are they any good?"

I decided to look at this.

Knowing that Nikon lenses also do the same thing I compared the Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens on a G3 with the 16-85mm zoom on a Nikon D7000.

I compared the in-camera jpg. with a raw file processed in Rawker, a dcraw based programme, which includes none of the manufacturers "corrections"

Here is a file from the Nikon D7000 and 16-85mm zoom, with the file processed in raw from Rawker overlaid on top of the in-camera jpg. The two small inset boxes show the differences.

Here they are enlarged.

In terms of in-camera correction for CA here is the same file.

The white border shows the area I selected.

Here is the raw file processed in Rawker.

 Here is the in-camera jpg.

So the CA reduced, but not the purple fringing.

It can be seen then that Nikon, via their in-camera jpg (and in programmes like Photoshop) do some "correcting".

So what of the 14-42mm lens on the Panasonic G3?

Well I would show you what the in-camera jpg. has corrected in terms of distortion, except for the fact that there wasn't any!! The in-camera jpg and the raw file processed in Rawker were identical.

In terms of CA - heres a blow up from the Rawker raw file (remember no manufacturers corrections)

And here's the in-camera jpg.

A very slight improvement in the purple fringing here.

So the next time somebody tells you that m4/3 lenses only produce such good results because they are "software corrected" (lets be polite here!) you can suggest that may be somewhat exaggerated.

m4/3 is still the most useful format for what I do

Olympus E-P3 12mm f/2 Panasonic G3 Leica 25mm f/1.4

Despite using a lot of different cameras and enjoying the results, m4/3 is still the format that works best for what I do.

Olympus E-PL1 Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4

Created from 15 separate images (three rows of 5) stitched together in Photomerge in Photoshop. Original is a 135MB file, (the equivalent of a 47MP sensor)

Olympus E-P3 Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4

Created from 5 separate images stitched together in Photomerge in Photoshop. Original is a 87MB file, (the equivalent of a 30MP sensor)

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2

Created from 3 separate images stitched together in Photomerge in Photoshop. Original is a 68MB file, (the equivalent of a 24MP sensor)

Olympus E-P3 14-42mm zoom

Created from 4 separate images stitched together in Photomerge in Photoshop. Original is a 76MB file, (the equivalent of a 26MP sensor)

Because I shoot mostly static subjects, I have no problem creating large files from my m4/3 cameras, using the stitching function in Photoshop to create huge files from several images. As can be seen from the above samples, for the majority of these I create "conventional" image shapes. I do often put together panoramic images, but this is the exception rather than the rule. 

I also like the depth of field "advantage" that m4/3 gives me. 

Olympus E-P3 14-150mm zoom

This flower was blowing about in the wind. I needed a fast shutter speed to "freeze" it. The settings for this shot were 1/400th. sec. at f/5.6 at the 150mm end of an Oympus 14-150mm zoom. This allowed me to get a reasonable amount of DOF. APS-C or full-frame would have made this more difficult.

Thinking about this I was reminded of when Ansel Adams was producing his wonderful landscapes with a 10x8 plate camera. At the time he was part of Group f/64 which was dedicated to sharp focus and maximum depth of field. Working with these large format cameras and lenses makes it very difficult to do this. Moderately wide to standard lenses on 10 x 8 are around the 200-350mm range and we all know how much DOF those lenses provide, so it becomes clear why f/64 was the aperture needed. A 28mm view on 35mm / full frame requires 14mm on m4/3 but 180mm on 10 x 8. So to get that f/64 equivalent on m4/3 is much easier to achieve. It doesn't quite work like this, as the lens used produces a different perspective, but you get the idea.

Consequently I can produce images like this.

Panasonic G3 14-42mm zoom

1/500th. sec. f/8 ISO 160.

Hand held, with a fast shutter speed, lots of DOF and what is these days a low ISO gives me a sharp image with very deep focus.

So, add in the fact that m4/3 sensors produce rich "glossy" colour, have fairly weak AA filters, and a wide range of lenses to work with, including some with real quality, such as the 12mm f/2 and 25mm f/1.4 and it becomes a very attractive system as far as I'm concerned. 

m4/3 covers the vast majority of what I do. Its not particularly useful for low light, high ISO work, though the fast lenses help there. As I've said often enough, the restricted dynamic range is a problem I've found ways to work round and it doesn't really negatively influence what I shoot. So all in all, a very useful format. It is my most used system, and as far as I can see likely to remain that way for some time to come.


Olympus E-P3 12mm f/2 Panasonic G3 Leica 25mm f/1.4