I bought a Panasonic DMC-GF1 compact large-sensor camera in a kit with a small 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens on Monday to replace my Sigma DP2 as my everyday pocket (well, jacket pocket) camera. While the 17.3x10mm micro four thirds sensor is nowhere near as large as the full-frame 36x24mm sensors on my Canon 5DmkII or Leica M9, an APS-C sensor like the one on the upcoming Leica X1, or even the 20.7×13.8mm Foveon X3 sensor in the DP2, the big draw in the GF1 is its excellent responsiveness, as the autofocus and autoexposure lag in the DP2 is that otherwise excellent camera’s Achille’s heel.

The GF1 has been extensively reviewed elsewhere, technically by DPReview and hands-on by Craig Mod, and if you are interested in this camera I encourage you to read those very thorough reviews. I will not attempt to duplicate them here. Here are just salient observations from using this camera that I have not seen elsewhere:

• The image preview mode is deceptive. At the maximum 16x magnification, pictures appear far worse on screen than they really are. I can only assume the interpolation algorithms used are terrible. The camera’s review mode is useless for editing images or rejecting poor ones in the field, you have to return to your computer to get an assessment on critical focus.
• The orientation sensor is inexplicably part of the lens, not the body. The 20mm pancake does not include one. Even Canon’s cheapest digital Elphs or Rebels include an orientation sensor, its absence in a $900 camera kit is inexcusable.
• In program mode, the camera seems to always select f/1.7, even when lower apertures with more reasonable depth of field are available.

Leica recently introduced the Monovid monocular. Monoculars are more compact than binoculars, but you lose stereo vision, which is why birdwatchers tend to shun them. I myself have a very strong director eye and correspondingly poor binocular vision, so this is not such a big deal for me.

The Monovid is supplied with an accessory screw-on close-up lens that reduces the minimum focus distance. This is useful for butterfly or hummingbird watchers, but the arrangement is clumsier than the (admittedly much larger) Minox Makroskop.

The Monovid is essentially half of a pair of Ultravid 8×20 BL binoculars. The barrel is 3-4mm longer to accommodate the threads for the close-up lens, and it has a goiter-like knurled protrusion towards the end for focusing. The eyecup is the same, and can be either pulled out for normal viewing, or left in for eyeglass wearers. This is a far better arrangement than fold-up rubber eyecups. The leather case for the Monovid is quite bulky, and features a screw thread to hold the close-up lens as well as an ingenious ribbon that pulls the monocular out of the case when you flip the lid open. It also has a magnetic catch unlike the Ultravids’ snap button.

Unsurprisingly, the performance is nearly identical, that is to say, stellar. The image is bright (most monoculars are in the 12-15mm aperture range). There is no hint of distortion or chromatic aberration across the field. It is quite sensitive to perfectly centered eye placement, specially when you are wearing eyeglasses, otherwise you will black out.

Sadly, the price is not half that of the binoculars, closer to two thirds. Considering that it is not all that much more compact and you lose stereo vision, if you are considering one, I would recommend the more versatile Ultravid 8×20 BL (or the cheaper BR) instead. Another option to consider is the respected line of Zeiss monoculars (most are more compact than the Monovid, but the 8×20 is nearly the same size and not as well built) or the slower but smaller Nikon “high grade” monocular series (unfortunately the 7×15 has been discontinued, but old new stock is still readily available).

Update (2012-11-26):

I purchased a new-old-stock Nikon High Grade 5×15 monocular. It is much lighter than the Monovid, has much closer focusing at 60cm vs 1.80m, no futzing with accessory lenses required (although to be fair the Leica focuses to 25-30cm with the close-up lens).

The fit and finish on the Japanese-made monoculars (vs. Portugal, not Germany, for the Monovid) is superb, with deeply engraved and paint-filled markings (even superior in execution to AI-s Nikkors). The supplied case is made of genuine leather, unfortunately it does not include a belt clip. The aluminium shell is not monocoque like the Monovid, and seems less robust. There is also no mention of the Nikon being nitrogen-purged and waterproof. The finger indents make it quite comfortable to hold and the hexagonal cross-section means it is unlikely to roll off a table. The neck strap on the Nikon is also lighter and far more practical than the bulky hand strap on the Leica. Surprisingly, it is not easier to hand-hold despite the lower magnification – the heft of the Monovid stabilizes it somewhat against shake.

The optics are excellent. It’s hard to compare to the Leica, due to the lower magnification and aperture, but like the Leica, the image is clear across the frame with no color aberrations across the frame. There seems to be some slight chromatic aberration at the very edges that you don’t get with the Leica.

The Nikon 5×15 HG is discontinued, but it appears in their 2012-2013 sports optics catalog, along with the 7×15 HG, so there is a possibility it will be resurrected. It is readily available from Japan on eBay and occasionally Amazon as well.

Update (2017-02-21):

I seem to be collecting monoculars. Some other models:

• Steiner 8×22 Miniscope: plastic piece of junk, avoid it.
• Minox 8×25 Macroscope: very bulky, decent but not astounding optics, the focusing knob is not very ergonomic. It’s sole saving grace is its very close focusing distance. It’s best to think of it as a loupe with very long clearance, and as such I would expect it to be ideal for naturalists, entomologists, field geologists and the like.
• Nikon HG 7×15: much the same as the 5×15, with narrower field of view, smaller sweet spot for eye placement and shorter eye relief. The 5x is a better monocular in most circumstances, if you really need the higher magnification you are better off getting the Monovid or proper binoculars.

I had the opportunity to handle an Olympus E-P1 camera at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto. There has been quite a bit of excitement on sites like Rangefinder Forum and many were expecting this to be the first pocketable camera that could compete with SLRs in image quality.

The Sigma DP1 and DP2 were actually the first cameras with large sensors and reasonable pixel counts, bucking the marketing-driven trend towards too many pixels squeezed onto too small a sensor chip, with horrible noise as the result. I own both, and their image quality is indeed stunning, but they have one Achilles’ heel — speed, or the lack thereof.

The E-P1 is very compact, almost the same size with the 17mm as the Sigma DP2 (some photos released suggested it was closer to the Leica M8). The build quality is fine, and it is nowhere near as heavy as some early users suggested it was. They probably compared it to a plastic fantastic compact rather than a more substantial camera like a Leica or a DSLR.

I was surprised to find the 17mm AF hunted quite a bit, overshooting and then backtracking. Oddly, it did this even on the next shot when the lens was already in focus. I don’t know if this is specific to the 17mm lens, but it is certainly not encouraging.

From my test shots, I was also distinctly unimpressed by the optical quality of the lens, or the noise performance at ISO 1600. The Four-Thirds and Micro Four Thirds formats are hobbled by sensors one half the size of the APS-C used in most entry-level DSLRs, with predictably higher levels of noise and limited dynamic range. I had to go back to 2003 and my then Canon EOS 10D to find similar levels of noise. The Canon Rebel XT was definitely superior in high-ISO performance, let alone current SLRs. Olympus fanboys seem to be in denial about the limitations of Four-Thirds sensors, but you cannot fight against physics and expect to win.

The other disappointing thing about the 17mm lens is that it is not particularly sharp, specially for a prime lens of relatively modest maximum aperture. The pictures were nowhere near as crisp as the lovely Sigma lenses on the DP1 and DP2. This is all the more a let-down as Olympus was renowned for the quality of its miniaturized prime lenses in the days of the ground-breaking OM system. I wasn’t expecting Pentax SMC Limited pancake lens levels of performance (we are talking of a lens one third the price, after all), but there is no point in having 12 megapixels (at least 6 too far in my book) if the lens can’t actually exploit them.

I had preordered an E-P1 with the 17mm kit lens and viewfinder from Amazon. After handling the E-P1 and taking a few test shots, I canceled my order.

I just received my Fuji GF670 from Dirk Rösler at Japan Exposures. This is a folding medium-format rangefinder camera, an anachronism in many respects, but I regret not getting a G690 when they were still made and since this is a limited edition (apparently quite a popular one at that), I went ahead. I have not yet shot a roll, but here are my first impressions:

• The unfolding mechanism is a bit finnicky. You have to be careful to get the front standard aligned with the film plane. Once deployed it seems fairly stable. Folding it back is also quite tricky.
• The meter indicator LEDs and controls are very reminiscent of the Epson R-D1, not surprising since both are actually made by Cosina.
• The leaf shutter is amazingly quiet. It makes a Leica sound like a clunker in comparison.
• The camera is quite light for MF, it feels lighter than a R-D1 (even though it weighs nearly twice as much) and is not that much larger.
• It does not exude quality like the Fuji-manufactured TX-2 (Hasselblad XPan II).
• The rangefinder patch is bright and clear. The RF base length is very short as in a VC Bessa, and will probably not be as precise as a Leica, XPan or Zeiss Ikon.
• The film loading mechanism is very easy to use, and built as well as other Fuji MF cameras such as the G617.
• You have to remember to reset the lens to infinity focus in order to fold it.
• You get a choice of 6×6 and 6×7, 120 and 220.
• The optional case is a snug fit. I wish it included a belt loop.

In grand old techno-fetishistic tradition, I put up an unboxing gallery.

Update (2009-08-27):

I have finally uploaded a gallery of my first test roll from the camera. The lens’ optical quality is outstanding, unlike most older folders (well, apart from the Plaubel Makina, of course).