The Panasonic Lumix L1 is a catastrophe

Much as I predicted a couple of months back the Panasonic Lumix L1 which has just hit the market is nothing short of a catastrophe as photographic tools go. This is Panasonic’s first attempt at a DSLR with removable lenses so you would think it should be good. For $2,000 you get what sounds like a nice Leica lens and decent manual controls. You also get about the worst viewfinder possible and no image buffer, meaning that shooting in RAW demands a five second pause between pictures while the camera saves the image direct to the card.

A remarkably objective review by Michael Reichmann – remarkable as he admits the camera was a loaner so you would think he would make nice – confirms my earlier conjecture that the use of the lousy viewfinder from the Olympus Evolt E-330 would make the L1 a lousy camera, and adds the killer point about the absence of the RAW buffer. Thank you for your candor, Mr. Reichmann.

Sure, Panasonic seems to have cured the worst of its noise problems in the images, but that’s hardly much use when you can barely see what the devil you are photographing in the first place.

I have not used the L1 and am not about to. Suffice it to say that he compares the viewfinder unfavorably to the one in the Canon Rebel 350. That I have used and must say the viewfinder in the Rebel is underwhelming to the point of mediocrity, as the image is so small. At least it’s bright. The 5D is fine, just like a regular SLR if not Leica bright, so you can see where I am coming from. Then again, at $3,000 the 5D had better be good.

Leave this camera to the Leica fetishists who will buy it because it looks like a Leica M rangefinder which, I suppose, is about as bad a reason to buy a camera as I can think of.

Update as of November 11, 2006: I retract what I wrote about Reichmann’s apparent objectivity, above. Please read the following journal entry.

A fine QR head system that can only have been designed by a photographer.

A few years ago the very idea of a tripod was anathema to this photographer. Sure, I knew about them and tended to regard them with emotions somewhere between pity and contempt. As a Leica using street photographer there was no way on this God’s earth I was going to use a tripod. Lenses longer than 90mm simply did not compute and TriX, pushed if necessary to 800ASA, and those wonderful, fast Leica lenses, all suggested a tripod was – well, just not done.

Then, as my interests graduated to include landscapes and longer lenses, the tripod once more reared its ugly head, so a few years ago I picked up a nice old Linhof for a few dollars. The good thing about this tripod is that the legs are cantilevered, meaning extra bracing with little increase in weight. The bad was that it came with a pan and tilt head which has to be one of the worst designs of all time. The scale markings are never visible when needed, they are not calibrated, and the locking knobs are so small and inaccessible that they represent nothing so much as an accident waiting to happen. A few dollars later and a nice, if well used, Leitz ball and socket head graced the top of the Linhof’s center column.

I came across that genuinely rotten pan and tilt head the other day when first dipping a toe in the waters of Virtual Reality photography. Since that first encouraging experiment, I have decided to invest in a proper panorama head with a rotating base and nodal point correction, so this time it really is curtains for that pan and tilt head. I have yet to find any use for this wretched design in the field of still photography. A ball and socket head is not only easier to use, when it comes to turning the camera through a right angle there’s simply no contest.

Enough grumbling. When I got sort of serious about tripod use I realized all that screwing the camera on and off the tripod was just so much waste of time, not to mention the risk factor of dropping the camera while messing about with the locking knob. So I searched around only to be astounded at the ridiculously high prices asked for most quick release devices, many tailored to a specific manufacturer’s tripod line. Finally I tracked down an importer of Sima products who did a nice resin QR base with small and light plates which attached to the camera’s base. These worked OK, though truth be told they were somewhat overpowered by larger cameras and lenses. After the effort of selling all my medium format gear and replacing it with the Canon EOS 5D, I decided to rethink the QR issue, especially now that the camera body whose life depended on the QR head ran some $3,000! A good used Leica M2 or M3 body at $1,000 is no joke, but we are talking the price of three of these in that full frame digital wonder that is Canon’s claim to the Greatest Camera on Earth.

What finally forced me to get my act together was the enthusisam I feel for Virtual Reality photography. Given that this requires a tripod to be lugged to the venue of choice and much mounting and unmounting of camera, panorama head, etc., I did some serious research and came up with a very reasonably priced range of quick release tripod adjuncts from Manfrotto (imported by Bogen to the US). So while waiting for the three week backlog on the panorama head of choice to clear (more about this later) I procured a handful of Manfrotto’s best and have to say I am delighted with both the quality, the ergonomics and the price. That’s a combination I have yet to encounter in a woman. Whenever the first two factors are just so, you can bet the third is out of sight.

Here’s the #3299 base ($28) with the included camera plate. The base has an ingenious safety lock which has to be released to permit the large lever to move which, in turn, releases the camera plate. The metal used is a light alloy, more than up to the job. It’s the sort of pot metal used in low stress car components like door handles on German cars or just about anywhere in the case Italian automobiles. Manfrotto is, come to think of it, an Italian company.

For a fairly heavy camera like the 5D you really want to avoid torquing sheer hell out of the attaching bolt in the interest of the camera’s safety. Even though the camera plate has a substantial rubber platform, a long heavy lens with no tripod socket of its own (like Canon’s 200mm f/2.8 ‘L’ say), with the camera oriented vertically is going to need more fastening torque than I am comfortable with. Manfrotto thought of that when they designed the #3157NR plate ($12) (11/2008 update: the plate is now named the 200PLARCH-14RC2, is identical and now costs $19 from Amazon – it now comes properly assembled for use with the 5D and no messing with the circlip is required) :

Note the finger hold which precludes the need for a screwdriver when attaching the plate to the base of the camera. The essence of this plate is that it has a small lip which abuts the base of the camera, replacing torque with physical restraint, as shown in the following snap:

Depending on the design of your camera you may have to remove a small retaining circlip (E clip) for the bolt and flip the head around as I had to do this with the 5D which requires the lip abuts the rear of the camera. On others it may have to go towards the front, which is how it is shipped. No big deal, and clearly explained in the excellent instructions. While the camera plate does block access to the small battery compartment for the camera’s clock, in practice that has only to be accessed every five years or so, so it’s hardly an issue.

Here’s the whole thing mounted on my Linhof with its Leitz ball head:

In this underside view, with the camera oriented for portraits, you can see the small brass quick release lever – note the unrestricted access to the main battery compartment:

To attach the camera, you simply place the base plate with camera attached, front tilted slightly forward, into the tripod base. As you level the camera into the tripod base the camera plate depresses a small brass button in the tripod base which in turn releases the lever and locks the camera in place. You then rotate the brass safety lever which has the effect of locking the release lever in place. On one of the two tripod bases I bought the big lever would not click all the way home without manual assistance but after a few mount/dismount cycles all was well. Nonetheless, I would suggest you press the big lever home just in case, to ensure all is tight. Then operate the brass safety lock.

To remove the camera, release the safety lock and pull back on the big lever.

How does it compare size wise with the little Sima? See for yourself:

The overall size of the tripod base is much the same but the surface area of the camera plate is maybe twice the size. And no screwdriver is needed unlike with the Sima. The whole assembly is very rigid, even with a really heavy camera like the Crown Graphic with a heavy telephoto lens extended all the way.

If you are buying one of these, do realize that the tripod base comes with one plate (no lip) so buy additional plates as needed for your equipment. I used the two flat plates for my 4″ x 5″ Crown Graphic where the lip would not work owing to the large flat mounting surfaces involved; the Crown takes one plate either side so it can be switched effortlessly from landscape to portrait mode. One of the tripod plates went on the Linhof tripod, the other on the Manfrotto monopod. And lest you think that small Leitz ball head can’t handle it, let me assure you these things were probably used to raise the Golden Gate Bridge during construction. Doesn’t have to be big to be strong, and you can pick these up for some $100 used, which is a lot less than the going rate for all those exotic ball heads on the market. I mean, really. $750 for a ball head? That is God’s way of telling you that you have too much money.

Panasonic disappoints with the L1.

I should preface this by saying I have not used the newly announced Panasonic L1, so it’s really premature to criticize, but a review of the specificationss underwhelms.

I was really looking forward to this camera, hoping it would be the digital Leica all ex-Leica M users like me are waiting for, at a non-Leica price. They will sell for $2,000 with the Leica zoom lens. Not bad.

The disappointing Panasonic L1.

Now the ergonomics look promising. A real shutter speed dial, a pretty exciting Leica lens (alternatively designed by Leica or Panasonic, depending on where you read on the Panasonic web site) with manual zoom and iris controls, and a nice M-look camera body. Throw in image stabilization, a vibrator to shake off sensor dust and a 16:9 widescreen picture option and what’s not to like?

How about a lousy viewfinder? The L1 shares the prism optics of the Olympus E-330, which uses a side flapping mirror (like their Pen F half-frame film camera did some thrity years earlier) and mirrors in lieu of a pentaprism to turn the image right way round. Result? A very dim image. Don’t believe me. Check out the on line reviews.

How about a lousy sensor? Use it above 400 ISO and all is lost in noise. It’s the same sensor used in the E-330. Don’t believe me. Check out the on line reviews.

How about a very small image in the finder? It’s the same optics used in the E-330. Don’t believe me. Check out the on line reviews. And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, just look through a Canon 5D after trying a Rebel or 20D/30D. I have. Night and day. The L1/E330 is like the Rebel in this regard.

As for all that ‘live preview’ nonsense, why did they waste their time? No one needs this in a professional grade camera. And the E330 does it better, if you must have it, for less.

Too bad. I was kind of excited about that Leica lens. Guess we’ll have to wait for the Digital Leica M but, no, I’m not holding my breath. I’m just holding on to my wallet.

Simple, sturdy and with great lenses, you can pick up this behemoth for very little

While classic rangefinder Leicas continue to appreciate as doctors, dentists and investment bankers fill their display cases, fine cameras like the Leicaflex SL, which never really caught on, can be had very inexpensively.

I used one for many years, during the period 1977 though 1990, starting with a 50mm Summicron lens, adding a 21mm, a 90mm Summicron for portraits and the superb 180mm Apo-Telyt R for landscape pictures. As good an optic as I have ever used.

Provided you were in no great hurry and didn’t mind the noise, it was hard to take a bad picture with this camera. The camera was big and rather clunky, the wind lever had way too long an arc but the controls were nice and large meaning use with gloves on was no problem.

What I liked most was the semi-spot meter. The excellent microprism focusing circle also defined the exact area of measurement for the meter and was large enough that you didn’t get all nervy the way you do with a spot meter. It was a match needle design, meaning you had to align two needles, visible only in the viewfinder. Adding or deducting a stop for light correction was very easy with the camera at eye level, as the viewfinder displayed the selected shutter speed and was very easy to see with or without eyeglasses.

This was one of the last of the all mechanical cameras which have now largely disappeared, but proved very reliable in all weather conditions. True, the camera had looks only a mother could love but the lenses were superb regardless of focal length.

As Leica has since added all sorts of electronic gizmo connections in its SLR lenses in a futile attempt to keep up with the times, the earlier two cam mechanical lenses can be had very inexpensively. While the build quality never felt up to early Leica M standards (meaning M2, M3 and M4), I had no reliability problems, and the uncluttered viewfinder was a joy to use. A great starter camera for someone getting serious and willing to put up with the shortcomings of film.

Anchorage, Alaska. 1978. Leicaflex SL, 50mm Summicron R, Kodachrome 64

New York City. 1985. Leicaflex SL, 21mm Super-Angulon R, Kodachrome 64

Lake Elizabeth, California. 1990. Leicaflex SL, 180mm Apo-Telyt R, Kodachrome 64

It takes the Wall Street Journal to surface the issue

Not only is America afflicted with some of the world’s worst television – from situation comedy to news reporting, though it’s often difficult to distinguish the two – it can also lay claim to having the worst newspapers. As often as not, these mistake editorial opinion for news, so you end up reading some leftie’s opinion about put-upon losers as news reporting. Write enough of this sort of thing and you get a Pulitzer Prize.

In the digital photography world, the worst reporting involves avoidance of mention of a near universal problem in modern cameras. Shutter lag. The time it takes between pressing the button to recording the image. Read any number of reviews of digital cameras and chances are you will see no mention of this defect. I can only guess that this is either because of conflicts of interest (journalists accepting bribes in the form of free equipment or pushing advertising in their magazine) or because the reviewer hasn’t the faintest idea how to take a photograph.

So it was welcome news indeed to open the Wall Street Journal this morning – a fine newspaper which keeps its opinions on the editorial page – to see an article on shutter lag, of all things. They quoted some poor schnuck who blew big coin on a digital camera to record the whales on his Mexican vacation, but managed to record only sterile images of the sea, the leaping whale having just departed owing to shutter lag. What’s interesting about the piece is that it takes a business newspaper to disclose a design defect which makes most digital cameras worthless for all except maybe landscape photographers and realtors. Let’s face it, neither is exactly dealing with moving subjects. Earlier reporting by the Journal confirms that the primary use of digital cameras hasn’t changed from that for film cameras, meaning pictures of one’s family. Especially of the kids. Ever tried to catch that fleeting moment on your baby’s face with a modern digital point-and-shoot camera?

The Journal gets it wrong in saying this is a digital camera problem, citing the good old days of fast film cameras. As the latter developed more automation – focus, exposure and so on – shutter lag was already beginning to raise its ugly head. Simple cameras like rangefinder Leicas and better SLRs never had the problem, and it was one of the major causes for concern I had when waiting to go digital. With the Canon EOS 5D there is no shutter lag, but then you should expect no less from a camera that runs close to $5,000 with a decent lens attached. I was more than aware of the issue having used an Olympus C5050Z for three years or so, and learned early on not to use it to photograph anything that moved.

The Olympus C5050Z – a very competent camera for static recording, but useless for moving subjects because of horrid shutter lag

So it’s satisfying to report that Panasonic cured the issue in a point-and-shoot digital in the LX1. Unfortunately, they made two boo-boos. First, they never advertised this ‘feature’ which I discovered after much research. Second, they have just discontinued the camera. So if you want a fast, small digital point-and-shoot, now is the time to get an LX1. Read more by clicking on the ‘Leica DP’ entry on the left.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Wall Street Journal for good reporting.