Articles (2020)

Introduction

Like MontBell’s existing Super Stretch System, their new Super Spiral Stretch System is unique. Basically MontBell found an alternative way to create a stretchy sleeping bag and save some weight to boot. The technology is best described in their own words: “New for 2009, MontBell has incorporated a classic tailor’s technique to address sleeping bag comfort issues. By integrating a woven fabric ‘cut on the bias’ and orienting the fabric’s warp and weft threads at 45 degrees to major seam lines, the sleeping bag becomes more fluid or elastic in nature. Additionally, ‘spring like’ crimped fibers are used in the weave of the fabric to capitalize on their inherent stretch properties.” Rather than the traditional horizontal or vertical orientation of the down tubes, they are oriented on a 45 degree angle and appear to spiral around the sleeping bag.

The new Spiral Down Hugger line also introduces MontBell’s new 12 denier Ballistic Airlight sleeping bag fabric. Switching from 15 to 12 denier fabric plus spiral construction reduces the weight of a sleeping bag by about 2 ounces. Apparently MontBell is very satisfied with the new technologies because they intend to extend the Super Spiral Stretch System across their entire sleeping bag line (available March 2010), replacing the current Super Stretch technology.

Description

The main features of Spiral Down Hugger #3, rated at 30 F, are its spiral construction, 12 denier fabric, 800 fill power down, sculptured hood, and three-quarter-length auto-locking zipper. The manufacturer claimed weight is merely 19 ounces for size Regular and 20 ounces for size Long.

My initial reaction to this bag is: “How did they do that?” Frankly, I don’t know, but they did it, and the design works. The 5.5 inch baffled down tubes do not spiral completely around the sleeping bag as the name implies. Rather, the tubes on the top and bottom panels are oriented at a 45 degree angle but run in opposite directions. It would seem like the construction would get complicated at the hood and foot ends of the bag, but MontBell makes it look simple: the spiral construction terminates to a sculptured hood by adding one rounded chamber, and the foot end is neatly finished as well.

I have always been impressed with MontBell’s Ballistic Airlight nylon shell fabrics and Polkatex DWR finish, but the new 12 denier shell on the Spiral Down Hugger is truly remarkable. It’s the softest sleeping bag fabric I have seen, and it sheds water like a duck’s back.

The Spiral Down Hugger has a YKK #5CN two-way auto locking zipper, which is used on most lightweight sleeping bags these days. This zipper has separate pulls on the outside and inside of the bag and automatically locks, so it doesn’t open by pulling the sides of the zipper or expanding the bag during the night. To insure that the zipper stays fully zipped, there is a Velcro tab at the top of the zipper, and the Velcro does not stick to the bag’s fabrics.

Performance

I tested the Down Hugger #3 on a number of summer and early fall backpacking trips, with nighttime temperatures ranging from 26 to 41 F. I slept under the stars and in various single wall shelters.

MontBell’s sizing is a bit different from other manufacturers; size Regular fits to 5 feet 10 inches and size Long fits to 6 feet 4 inches. I needed a size Long to fit my 6 feet/170 pound frame, and found the fit much to my liking. There is plenty of room inside to wear extra clothing to extend the bag’s warmth, but it didn’t feel too roomy. With the bag lying flat, I measured the bag’s relaxed shoulder girth at 61 inches and extended girth at 72 inches.

Another remarkable finding from my testing is the bag’s zipper works almost flawlessly, meaning it doesn’t snag very easily. After recently testing a couple of bags with wretched zipper snagging problems (The North Face Beeline and Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32), it’s a pleasure to sleep in the Spiral Down Hugger. (Have you ever had the problem of having an urgent need to pee in the middle of a pitch black night, and the darn zipper snags on your bag?) As shown in the previous section, MontBell uses a thinly insulated flap over the zipper, rather than a puffy insulated draft tube. Eliminating the draft tube allows the zipper to operate more smoothly, but the zipper is not as insulated as it is in other sleeping bags.

I measured the bag’s double layer loft at 3.75 inches, which gives a single layer loft of 1.9 inches. From our table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings, 1.8 inches of single layer loft translates to about a 30 °F rating, so the Spiral Down Hugger #3 is on target. Please take the time to read the referenced article and note that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors.

The Spiral Down Hugger #3 is not the loftiest bag around with a 30-32 F temperature rating (see comparison table below). I found its warmth to be average. In my field testing, my methodology was to wear my basic sleepwear (dry wool socks and microfleece top, bottom, and cap) inside the bag initially, then add insulated clothing later in the night if I got cold, noting the time and temperature when I got chilly. On nights when the temperature dropped down to freezing just before sunrise, I started getting chilly around 4:00 a.m. when the temperature was around 35 F. After donning my insulated clothing (or better yet putting it on the evening before), I was able to stay warm in the Spiral Down Hugger down to 26 F, and probably could have handled even colder temperatures.

Comparisons

The following table compares the MontBell UL Spiral Down Hugger #3 with some popular 30-32 F rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags. All of the bags have baffled construction, and the data are manufacturer specifications for a size Regular bag.

By the numbers, the MontBell UL Spiral Down Hugger compares favorably with other bags in terms of down quality, weight, and cost. It lags a bit in loft compared to the others, but its loft does meet our minimum expectation of 1.8 inches (single layer) for a 30 F rated sleeping bag. Note that its US$229 cost is a great value compared to the other bags, and its weight matches the Western Mountaineering SummerLite bag.

Assessment

I really like the Spiral Down Hugger’s soft lightweight shell fabric, fit/roominess, non-snagging zipper, hood, and light weight. It’s very easy to fall in love with this bag, and it’s a great value compared to other ultralight 30 F rated sleeping bags. However, it is not quite as warm as the Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32, and definitely not as warm as the Marmot Hydrogen, which I have also tested. I have not personally tested the Western Mountaineering SummerLite. Bag sizing and the Down Hugger’s lack of a down-filled draft tube probably contribute to the differences. That said, the bottom line for me is to wear my camp clothes (wool socks, insulated jacket and pants, fleece cap) in my sleeping bag anyway, and I typically have no problem staying warm down into the mid 20’s F, so the Spiral Down Hugger #3 will do just fine.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	MontBell
Year/Model	2009 UL Spiral Down Hugger #3
Style	Hooded mummy with full length zipper
What’s Included	Sleeping bag, stuff sack, cotton storage bag
Fill	800 fill-power down, 10 oz (283 g) size Regular, 11 oz (312 g) size Long
Construction	Box, 5.5 in (14 cm) baffles
Measured Loft	3.75 in (9.5 cm) average double layer loft, manufacturer specification not available
Claimed Temperature Rating	30 F (-1 C)
Stuffed Size	5.3 x 10 in (13.5 x 25 cm)
Weight	Size Long tested Measured weight: 1 lb 4.9 oz (593 g) Manufacturer specification: 1 lb 4 oz (567 g)
Sizes	Regular fits to 5 ft 10 in (1.52 m), Long fits to 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m)
Fabrics	Shell and lining are 12d Ballistic Airlight nylon 0.86 oz/yd2 (29 g/m2) with Polkatex DWR. Fibers are solid core.
Features	Spiral stretch system, three-quarter-length two-way auto-locking zipper with inside and outside pulls, draft flap on inside of zipper, Velcro tab at top of zipper, sculptured hood, braided drawcord and cordlock closure on hood, tapered stuff sack with two drawcords, heat transfer logos
MSRP	Regular US$229 Long US$249

Introduction

The Pak-Rifle weighs 16 ounces and shoots 0.22LR shells, which weigh less than 0.11 ounces apiece. If one is trekking through areas where upland birds and small game abounds, then adding 20 ounces of rifle and shells can allow you to spend many more days in the backcountry than what might be possible simply by carrying all of your own food. A similar argument can be made for an ultralight fishing kit. Consequently, equipment that can be used for foraging and hunting deserves some consideration for trekkers undergoing longer journeys in remote locations where food weight might become prohibitive and resupply logistics are challenging.

Disclaimer

I am a hunter. Thus, I make no judgment about the ethical use of firearms in the backcountry, and I support the advance of technologies that allow for their legal and responsible use. I see the ultralight rifle as a tool for the hunting enthusiast that desires to reduce their weight carried in the backcountry, or for the long distance trekker interested in reducing their weight of food carried by improving their foraging, hunting, and fishing options. Use of a rifle may not be permitted in all jurisdictions, and I do not condone the breaking of laws that prohibit their use under any circumstance. Further, the purpose of this review is to provide the reader with an understanding of how the rifle may be used in a hunting context, and I make no judgments about its appropriateness, effectiveness, or utility as a weapon for self-defense. I do not carry the Pak-Rifle for self-defense. It is strictly a tool for hunting small game, and its primary purpose in my kit is to allow me to reduce the amount of food weight I have to carry while on a long distance trek.

Performance

Accuracy

My expectation for a small game rifle is to be able to shoot a very small and compact group on a target at 25 yards or less. To put this in context, 25 yards is about the distance I am able to get in proximity to the “larger” end of small game that can be killed with a 0.22LR bullet (porcupine, fawn deer, sage grouse), while most other small game can easily be approached within 10 yards or less (e.g., blue grouse, squirrel, rabbit). Because most 0.22LR rifles are designed with longer barrels and no small amount of weight distributed throughout the gun, their accurate range is often much greater than 25 yards.

Because the Pak-Rifle is so light and subject to movement caused by the user while aiming (unless the rifle is mounted on a bipod, which I deem to be unnecessary for its intended context), its accuracy beyond 25 yards may be less so than a conventional 0.22LR rifle. However, with practice, its accuracy at 25 yards or less appears to be superb (even with its nonadjustable rear peep sight), and I’m easily able to consistently shoot a two-inch grouping in a target while shooting patiently from a sitting position with one elbow braced on my knee. At closer range, that grouping becomes tighter of course (< 1 inch at 10 yards), and affords me the ability to shoot most small game and upland birds in the head to minimize damage to the choicest parts of the animal's meat.

Of course, use my accuracy test with a grain of salt. The only thing it really tells you is how well one particular rifle (my sample), and one particular shooter (me) shoots, from a relatively unstable position (sitting). Maximum accuracy will always be gained on a bipod, or from a bench rest, or from a prone position, and it was outside the scope of this review to provide detailed accuracy data. My experience with the Pak-Rifle is that its light weight makes it a little less accurate (in my hands!) than a conventional .22 rifle at long distances (> 40 yards) when I was standing or sitting, but that at close range (< 25 yards), I found no difference in a Pak-Rifle versus a conventional 0.22 in my ability to shoot accurately (or inaccurately, as the case may be!).

I think the use of peep sights on a rifle this light is entirely appropriate. Other options include both ghost and open sights. Ghost sights, used on combat guns for rapid sighting, would provide faster time-to-fire (and probably greater accuracy) for large game that is moving, but would be unnecessary for small game that is hunted while still (the most common scenario I’ve encountered while small game hunting). I prefer peep sights rather than open sights, although admittedly, peep sights require a little bit of research and training to use most effectively.

Carry

In comparison to a conventional 0.22 rifle (which weighs three to five pounds), the act of carrying the 16-ounce Pak-Rifle in one hand while trekking is simply joyous. When I carried my conventional rifle, I first stowed it along the side of my pack in a side pocket, with the compression straps of the pack securing the rifle to the side. Then, upon encountering game, I would have to unsaddle my pack, retrieve the gun, load the gun, get into position, etc. I eventually made a stock holster that allowed the butt of the stock to be seated into a small holster affixed to my hip belt, with a strap on my shoulder strap that secured the gun while I was hiking, so I could use trekking poles.

However, that was a cumbersome solution, more appropriate for hunting big game with heavier rifles than small game. Consequently, when I am actively hunting when trekking, I simply forgo trekking poles and carry my rifle in hand. With a heavy gun, this is a laborious chore. With the Pak-Rifle, carrying the gun all day in one hand is almost inconsequential with respect to trekking comfort, and doing so keeps it ready at all times. The end result: with the Pak-Rifle I am able to shoot more game and be a more effective hunter.

Stowage

The Pak-Rifle is a breakdown rifle that separates at the chamber by rotating the barrel off the rest of the gun as it disengages a release pin. The result is that the original length of the gun (33 inches) can be collapsed into two parts that are less than 17 inches in length. Consequently, the Pak-Rifle is easily stored inside just about any ultralight pack, which is useful on busy trails where carrying a gun might intimidate others that you encounter on trail. I try to be as sensitive as possible to others while I carry a gun. Many of our local trails close to home are frequented by families with children, and I often find that carrying a gun is a barrier to engaging conversation when I meet them on the trail. Thus, I really like that I can stow the gun and keep it hidden while on the trail, focusing my primary hunting in more remote locations where I don’t expect to encounter other folks.

Usability

The Pak-Rifle offers a few neat usability features. My favorite is that the hand grip is actually a hollow chamber with a screw cap closure for storing shells (I can fit about ten or so 0.22LR shells inside the handgrip). The screw cap is removable and weighs 0.16 oz. A few dozen more rounds can be stowed in the butt stock tube, but accessing it requires a flathead screwdriver to remove the aluminum butt.

The other feature worth noting is an LED barrel light that is sufficient to hunt at night at very short range (< 10 yards). I find it immensely useful for rabbit hunting. The LED light is removable and weighs 0.3 oz.

The processes of loading, cocking, firing, and discharging the empty shell casing are all incredibly simple affairs and review of such can be found in the following video:

Other features sold as aftermarket accessories offered by the manufacturer include a laser sight and a 4 x 20 scope (both include mounts). I haven’t had the opportunity to test these accessories, but would be quite interested in equipping the Pak-Rifle with a scope for extending my range a little (although it’s important to realize that for a rifle like this, the use of a scope is probably more a matter of personal preference than utility). Then again, there is something to be said about the low bulk, minimal weight, and simplicity of the stock rifle, and therein lies much of its appeal to me as an ultralighter. The laser seems to me to be more of a toy accessory for the non-hunter, or for the weasel hunter interested in attracting the animal to very close range (based on evidence of my use of lasers with my cat). I can’t imagine the laser being useful as any sort of aiming device for the backpacking hunter.

Durability

The Pak-Rifle is manufactured from aluminum, carbon fiber, stainless steel, and cromoly.

The receiver and most accessory parts are manufactured from aluminum, while most fasteners and parts subject to high wear are manufactured from stainless steel. The barrel is made of carbon fiber and has a cromoly liner (that part of the barrel through which the bullet travels). Carbon fiber is also used for the tube that comprises the butt stock of the rifle. The end result is a rifle that is as light as possible, with durable components (stainless steel and cromoly) in the most essential areas. The only reservation I have about durability is the use of a thin-walled carbon fiber tube for the butt stock. The rifle will require some care in handling and stowage to prevent the stock from cracking or breaking. I do not see this as a significant limitation or design flaw, however. The tube can easily be replaced if needed, and the stock weight (which comprises only a remarkable 1.26 oz of the rifle’s weight!) is too appealing to consider heavier materials, given the target context for the Pak-Rifle.

Modification

As is, the Pak-Rifle is a simple, ultralight, and thus rather remarkable incarnation of a small game rifle. However, I can foresee the temptation to make a few modifications to achieve the absolute lightest possible 0.22LR shooter available: removal of the butt stock, shortening the barrel, eliminating the breakapart option, and eliminating the light. The result would be a 0.22LR gun that would be 13 inches in length and quite probably, less than 12 ounces. However, such modification might be illegal in some countries or states, since the gun as modified might then be classified as a pistol. Further, making these changes would reduce its accuracy and possibly limit its most useful range to 15 yards or less.

What’s Good / What’s Not

The advantages of a small game rifle in general are many in terms of its philosophical ability to allow a trekker to extend the length of their expedition by minimizing food carried and hunting game en route. The unique advantages of the Pak-Rifle relative to other small game rifles, and especially, other 0.22LR rifles, include:

• Extremely light weight – 16.0 oz;
• Breakapart ability for stowage length of 17 inches;
• Simple design with few moving parts;
• Useful and accurate peep sights;
• $425 MSRP. It sounds a bit expensive at first glance, but consider that (a) there’s nothing quite like it, and (b) it’s the equivalent of less than 100 freeze dried pre-packaged meals and the long term value of the Pak-Rifle may become more clear.

The limitations of the Pak-Rifle are few. In fact, I think the short list below is a bit of a stretch since these items address issues that would not necessarily be unique to an ultralight rifle:

• Carbon butt stock tube is fragile;
• Aluminum butt cap at the end of the butt stock tube is small and thus, difficult to brace against your shoulder for stability.

Recommendations and Conclusion

I have few recommendations to improve the design of the Pak-Rifle. I do believe that no more than 0.5 oz could be spent on increasing the durability of the carbon butt stock tube, reengineering the shape and size of the aluminum butt stock tube cap, and making the cavity inside the butt stock tube accessible without using a screwdriver. As is, however, the Pak-Rifle is far and away the leading option for the ultralight aficionado interested in hunting small game while trekking.

Introduction

The rapid evolution of digital photography has spawned so many cameras capable of producing technically outstanding images that we have taken it for granted. The result is that we spend more time peeping at pixels, MTF charts, and plots of dynamic range performance with Stouffer Step Wedges than we do learning how to capture presentation-quality photographs, or learning how to digitally develop them in a way that allows the printed or web-based versions to show off the camera’s capabilities and (as importantly) the photographer’s vision.

For me to investigate the technical minutiae about high ISO noise reduction, the sharpness of the veins on a leaf ten yards away from the lens, or whether the sensor can capture 8.5 stops vs. 9.2 stops of dynamic range at its optimum ISO is a bit like delineating whether an alcohol stove on our kitchen counter uses 0.45 oz of fuel per pint of boiled water or, God forbid, a ghastly 0.50 oz of fuel per pint.

To drive this point home, I captured images of several landscape scenes with a Sigma DP2, Olympus E-P1 (with its m.Zuiko 17/2.8 lens), and Panasonic GF1 (with its Lumix 20/1.7 lens), and produced 16 x 20 enlarged prints from each camera¹.

And at first glance, I couldn’t tell the difference between any of them! Not in dynamic range, not in detail resolution, and not in color rendition. In fact, the differences were so minor that I had to spend several minutes investigating the images with a loupe before I was able to make any meaningful conclusions about image quality. At first this surprised me, so I showed a sample set of the images to Sam Haraldson and Addie Bedford, my officemates, and their conclusions were the same as mine.

Here are those conclusions:

1. The sharpest images came from the Sigma DP2 – the lowest resolution camera of the lot (4.7MP), even when these images were not upsampled in Photoshop!
2. The most appealing color came from the Sigma DP2 and the Panasonic GF1. The Olympus E-P1 produced more substantial blue-gray casts on shaded snow, failed to reveal subtle greens in fall foliage that the other two cameras picked up, and had a difficult time resolving color range (and thus, detail) in dense foliage that was predominantly tan or brown in color (resulting in bushes that looked more like muddy blobs than bushes).
3. The most shadow detail was revealed by the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1. This is somewhat expected, since the sensors of these two cameras have been shown to produce wide dynamic range in their RAW files relative to the DP2. Surprisingly, however, this did not result in an image that was necessarily more aesthetically appealing to viewers. See #4 below.
4. The richest (most noise-free) blacks and whitest (not color-casted) whites were produced by the Sigma DP2. Both the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1 produced blacks that were not truly black (and pocked a little with noise), and the whitest whites in images from the E-P1 and GF1 came at the expense of low contrast in bright areas that produced seemingly unnatural “smudginess” that resulted in less definition in bright areas.
5. Pixel peeping of 100% crops of digital images seemed to reveal that the Panasonic GF1 was able to resolve slightly higher levels of detail than the Sigma DP2, which in turn seemed able to resolve significantly higher levels of detail than the Olympus E-P1. However, when print enlargements were produced, images from the Sigma DP2 clearly resolved greater levels of detail than prints produced from E-P1 and GF1 files (with the GF1 having a significant edge over the E-P1).

Producing high-quality 16 x 20 prints from 35mm (or smaller) film cameras with consumer grade lenses, or from digital cameras with small sensors, is nearly impossible. The fact that any of these images (which all come from sensors 5-10X larger than the sensors in compact cameras, but from cameras that weigh a pound or less!) can compete with each other at a 16 x 20 print size is thus a remarkable achievement in digital photography, and one that easily exceeds any expectations that most of us backpackers have for image production. Further, that a 4.7MP image from the Sigma DP2 produced images with more detail and aesthetically pleasing colors than either the E-P1 or GF1 is even more remarkable, and a testament to the fact that Sigma’s gamble on using Foveon sensors in their cameras may continue to have long-term competitive significance.

Thus, it is in this context, especially after comparing large prints between comparable cameras, that I am reviewing the Olympus E-P1. Sure, it’s lighter than its DSLR brethren, but it’s also no small bit heavier and bulkier than its compact cousins. Consequently, for me to upgrade to a camera like this for backpacking purposes, it must offer substantial improvements in areas other than image quality in order to justify carrying its additional weight and bulk. In addition, the fact that the smaller Sigma DP2 and its similarly-positioned Panasonic GF1 produce images that seem to be better than those produced by the Olympus E-P1 means that the E-P1 has a steep hill to climb in order to find its way into my pack, to replace my Sigma DP2, which until now, has sat alone in its ability to produce technically outstanding images among any other camera and lens combination that weighs less than a pound.

Weight Comparison of Compact Cameras with Mid-Sized Sensors

The Olympus E-P1’s unique feature is that it is a member of a very small number of cameras that hold the distinction of being among the lightest interchangeable lens cameras available. They are both lighter and smaller than DSLRs, while appearing to offer the creative flexibility of using interchangeable lenses and offering image sensor sizes similar to those found in DSLRs.

The following table compares the body, lens, and system weights of the few cameras that currently occupy the niche defined by a compact body size and mid-sized sensor (i.e., a sensor that is significantly larger than those found in most compact cameras, while significantly smaller than a full frame (24mm x 36mm) image sensor).

Weight Comparison of Selected Camera Systems (Compact Size, Mid-Sized Sensors)

Image Quality

The controversial Leicaphile Erwin Puts probably has a leg up on digital photography image quality – and more important, image quality context – than most of us:

“…colour reproduction is a science and a complicated one. It is very difficult, at least in my opinion, to make general statements about the colour quality of a specific camera. A reviewer can present as much factual evidence as one can handle, but subjective conclusions should be used very sparingly.” – from Puts’ website, Tao of Leica.

I would say that the same context could be applied not only to color, but also to dynamic range, noise, and detail resolution. Most important, I would use my subjective conclusions about the image quality of the Olympus E-P1, as I conveyed earlier when comparing the character of its image quality to that of the Sigma DP2 and Panasonic GF1, as Puts would say himself, sparingly!

The most important question, then, is one that I must ask myself, and provide an answer from my own perspective only:

Does the Olympus E-P1 provide image quality (with any lens) that is substantially better than my much lighter and more compact Sigma DP2 that would justify me carrying its additional weight and bulk?

Fortunately, my analysis of the E-P1’s images both on screen and in print reveal an answer to that question that is a simple, but not necessarily resounding: probably not.

That’s not to say that the E-P1 is incapable of producing technically outstanding images. Quite the contrary. It’s just that the DP2 can hold its own quite well, and for the type of photography that I am most interested in (landscapes of the places through which I walk, and the activities of the people that I’m walking with, such as camping, cooking, and fire-chatting), I prefer the character of the DP2 images (which feel moodier, with richer color, more dimensionality – like film, but sharper) than the character of the images from the Olympus E-P1 (which feel duller, more digital-looking, flat, and rather sterile – sort of like the images from every other digital camera out there).

Finally, I would like to close this discussion of image quality with two considerations. First, when assessing the image quality of a camera, consider what the out-of-camera JPGs might look like (or, for the RAW aficionado, what the RAW files look like with minimal processing such as white balance, tone curve, and exposure correction). This is the area where I am most critical of the E-P1 relative to the DP2, and why I feel the latter looks more like a high quality film and why the former looks like every other digital image out there.

The second consideration is how a photo developer might feel about the RAW images coming out of the camera. The photo developer is that person who spends hours in a darkroom (either chemical or digital) tinkering with image color, contrast, bypass techniques, or push processing to take what the camera has captured to film (or sensor) and create something that reflects the developer’s unique vision. To that end, I think the Olympus E-P1 will satisfy most developers, even relative to the Sigma DP2. My criticisms with the E-P1 images from a developer’s standpoint is that I believe the sensor inadequately captures the color and detail (relative to the DP2) that gives the developer of E-P1 files less latitude than what is at the disposal of the developer of DP2 files, which is remarkable when you consider that E-P1 files offer nearly three times the pixel resolution of DP2 files.

Accessibility: Size, Weight, Simplicity, and Ease of Use

Other important criteria to assess when reviewing a camera are those things that contribute to a camera’s accessibility: its size, weight, simplicity, and ease of use.

The Olympus E-P1 creates images that seem to be as technically sound as those of a larger compact DSLR, for marginally less size and weight (e.g., the nearly-as-small-and-light Olympus E-450). However, it does not appear to be capable of creating images that are technically superior to the significantly more compact and lighter Sigma DP2. Thus, we’ll have to look elsewhere for justification for the size and weight of the E-P1. Its unique feature (relative to the Sigma DP2, at least) is its ability to use interchangeable lenses (see “Versatility” below). Since the use of interchangeable lenses has virtually no bearing on its “accessibility” (in fact, one could argue that an interchangeable lens camera is less accessible than a fixed lens camera due to added weight and bulk, and most certainly, is more complicated), trying to make the argument that the Olympus E-P1 offers unique “accessibility” features relative to the entire camera market seems a bit of a stretch.

The real question to be asked relative to how the Olympus E-P1 stacks up to other options is this: for the additional size and weight, does it offer benefits in simplicity and ease of use? To answer this question, let’s walk through the mechanics of taking photographs with the E-P1.

The Mechanics of Taking Photographs with the E-P1

The E-P1, like just about every other digital camera out there, offers fully automatic operation (lens focus, exposure metering, and ISO) that simply requires that you turn the camera on and press the shutter button. That’s a good thing, because you’ll appreciate automatic control for certain situations (opportunistic candids and inclement weather), and of course, it’s valuable to the photographic novice while they are learning the technical skills of manual photography.

In addition, the E-P1 offers a plethora of customization options, artistic functions, and creative options that I have no intention of documenting in this review (you can read about them elsewhere), and in fact, I will build a case about why this sort of complexity is inconsistent with my ethos of simplicity that lies at the core of my lightweight backpacking philosophy.

For now, however, I’d like to explore the Olympus E-P1’s ability to be responsive and intuitive for a discriminating photographer who desires manual control of key operations (focus, exposure control, and ISO), as well as access to key functions of particular importance that might be employed intermittently but not infrequently, including the toggling of shooting modes, the adjustment of exposure compensation, the separation of autoexposure lock (AEL) from autofocus lock (AFL), and use of the self-timer.

Manual Focus

Most digicam users are baffled by having manual focus as a benefit. With the speed of autofocusing lenses ever increasing, and the accuracy of autofocus becoming more successful with each new generation of autofocus sensors and motors, it might seem that the utility of manual focus is fading.

Most DSLR users gave up manual focus (for the most part) long ago and seem rather happy to have done so. To promote manual focus as a benefit of a contemporary digital camera may seem a little akin to either photosnobbery or marketing suicide. But on a camera that touts manual control as a benefit (e.g., the Ricoh GRD and its successors, the Sigma DP1/DP2, and the Olympus E-P1), the mechanism by which a lens is manually focused is an important one. Here’s why.

One important reason to be able to manually focus a camera is that it decreases the time you have to hold your camera up to your eye and disrupt the actions (and reactions to the camera) of human subjects while zone focusing. This is important to me in backpacking photography, because I like to hike with people (not just myself!) and I enjoy capturing their candid reactions to wilderness travel.

Zone focusing is the act of setting your focus manually (often while the camera hangs down at your hip) to an approximate distance between your camera and the desired subject, then lifting the camera to your eye, snapping the photo, and immediately dropping it. One modification of zone focusing that requires a little extra time (depending on the quality of your camera’s autofocus vs. your skill at manual focus) is that of making microadjustments to the focus while the camera is held to your eye. Zone manual focusing is the fastest technique for shooting, is an essential one to learn for capturing the candid mood of a scene with human subjects at close range, and is commonly used in photojournalism, documentary, and street photography.

But is zone focusing important in “backpacking photography”? If your primary subjects are static mountain vistas and posed photos of your trail partner by mileage signs, then the answer is a resounding “no.” However, if part of your photographic style depends on capturing candid moments of those you are hiking with, I’d encourage you to master the technique of zone focusing and use a camera with a manual focus process that allows for it.

So, back to the E-P1. Let’s discuss how the E-P1’s manual focus process works.

Built into the camera’s firmware is an option called “MF Assist,” or “manual focus assist.” MF Assist is a process by which turning the manual focus ring of the lens sends a signal to the camera body to “do something.” That “something” on the E-P1 is the triggering of an enlarged (e.g., 7X or 10X) view on the LCD of the part of the image that you are trying to focus on. The idea is that at 1X magnification, the LCD screen cannot resolve enough detail to provide you with accurate focus, but at 7X or 10X magnification, the pixel resolution provides sufficient resolving power that allows you to manually focus the lens with accuracy. The process is simple and works well.

In addition to having MF Assist triggered by the movement of the focus ring on the lens, the E-P1 can also enter (and exit) the MF Assist mode through a series of button pushing (this is the only way you can manually focus third party manual focus lenses with the E-P1, including Leica M-mount lenses, since their manual focus rings cannot communicate to the E-P1 body), but this particular process severely interrupts the normal workflow of image capture, and I can’t recommend it for anything other than landscapes and other still subjects².

Having used both Leica and Voigtlander rangefinders since the 1980s, I found the manual focus of the E-P1 to be vastly inferior in both usability and speed, and I cringe whenever the comparison is made between a rangefinder and the Olympus E-P1. I even pulled out my old Canon AE-1, my first manual focus SLR (and quite inferior to my Leica M6 in terms of manual focus ability), and found myself yearning for even its poorly lit viewfinder and through-the-lens focus view.

In spite of these limitations to MF usability and speed, the E-P1 relies on centering the focus subject when using MF Assist³, much like a rangefinder. So, the process of taking a photo is similar: center the subject you want in focus, manually focus the lens, reframe the composition, and take the shot. The effectiveness of the process is limited primarily by the poor quality of the LCD (low resolution and dim screen in bright light). Other reviewers universally criticize the limitations of the E-P1’s LCD screen. Manual focus is not currently coupled to any external viewfinder that Olympus offers, so for now, it remains a crippled and tedious process that relies on the photographer viewing the LCD.

Regardless of these limitations, accuracy is quite good using MF Assist. Consequently, while its complicated usability (entering a zoomed screen, finding the subject, focusing on it, zooming out, reframing, and then snapping the photo) and slow speed (accurate focus requires, sometimes, several iterations through the desired focal plane) disqualifies the E-P1 as a reasonable camera for manually focusing candid photographs of moving subjects (especially since there is no feedback on either the lens or the viewfinder for zone focusing distances, like there is on the Sigma DP1/DP2), it does not disqualify the use of manual focus when you have the time and patience to fiddle with it, as in the case when shooting static scenes. I still find the feature useful, but only for more creative shots at wider apertures where complicated foregrounds or mid-range subjects fool the autofocus sensors and algorithms of the E-P1, as in the image below.

When comparing the Olympus E-P1’s manual focus ability to that of the Sigma DP2, notable differences exist:

1. Because the DP2 offers a dedicated focusing thumbwheel with precise stop and start points (0.28m and infinity), and the E-P1 offers a continuously turning manual focus dial on the lens, coarse focusing is much easier and faster on the DP2.
2. MF Assist with the magnified focus display on the Olympus E-P1’s higher quality LCD make fine manual focus with the E-P1 more accurate than on the DP2. As much as other reviewers have criticized the “low-resolution” and “dim” screen of the E-P1, it would be a significant and welcome improvement for the DP1/DP2 user, offering a larger size, more pixels, and a lot brighter screen than on the Sigma cameras.
3. Because the DP2 offers a zone focusing ruler on both a dedicated focusing thumbwheel (which can be seen from above the camera for discreet hip shooting) and its LCD screen (which can be seen from the rear of the camera), it is a more capable zone focusing camera than the E-P1.

In general, manual focus is a more enjoyable experience on the Sigma DP2, requires very little fiddling, and is intuitively operated by a dedicated thumbwheel. Unfortunately, the low quality LCD screen of the DP2 makes fine focusing less accurate at wide apertures and close subjects than with the E-P1. While the E-P1 can be fine focused to a high degree of accuracy, the process is more practical for slow photographers who have the patience to fiddle with it. Both fine and coarse focusing seem faster with the Sigma DP2.

Toggling Shooting Modes

In addition to full auto (iAUTO), program shift (P), scene (SCN), artistic (ART), and video modes, the E-P1 offers, most importantly, aperture priority (A), shutter priority (S), and manual (M) modes. These modes are toggled by a thumbdial that sits on the top left of the camera. The dial is recessed into the top plate of the camera (which some will say contributes to the E-P1’s aesthetic appeal and pocketability, perhaps) and thus is adjustable by sliding the knurled dial with your thumb. It’s more difficult to use with cold fingers than traditional protruding mode dials because you can only operate it with the thumb, instead of a thumb and forefinger.

In contrast to the E-P1’s eight shooting mode dial positions, the Sigma DP2’s seven positions are a little different. In addition to P, A, S, M, and video modes (modes that also exist on the E-P1), the Sigma DP2 offers an audio capture mode and a setup mode. My suspicion is that few of us are interested in a dedicated audio capture mode as a core camera feature, and I wish Sigma would drop it in favor of a more capable video mode. However, that’s a small thing. A much bigger thing is Sigma’s brilliant SETUP mode. The SETUP mode is engaged for activating the camera’s setup menu – those functions that are rarely used (fourteen menu items are allocated in this mode). The benefit to this is that the resulting main camera menu that is engaged upon pressing the menu key while in a shooting mode is limited to essential functions related to shooting. The result is a vastly simpler menu system that gets big points for ease of use, something that seems completely foreign to Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, and Nikon these days. The E-P1 is no exception, and we’ll address its menu system later on in the review.

Exposure Control

I long for the days when cameras were cameras instead of computers with lenses. Exposure control was managed by dials with tactile feedback and easily readable visual labels rather than by complicated configurations of nested button presses that lacked intuitive use and are nigh impossible to operate in the dark or with the LCD screen turned off (to save batteries while in the backcountry).

Manufacturers like to think they are appeasing us by offering so-called “multi-function” dials that spin and click and are capable of doing many different things. This does not seem to me to be a step in the right direction, but rather quite a lot more than a stone’s throw in the wrong direction from the simplicity, speed, and visual and tactile feedback of the dedicated shutter speed dials and lens aperture rings of yesterday. Well, yesteryear.

Adjusting aperture in either A or M modes on the Olympus E-P1 is a simple affair. A very usable thumbdial (with, thankfully, no button press option!) on the back of the camera allows one to easily change apertures. The dial is difficult to use with gloves, but easy to use with cold fingers. Unfortunately, visual feedback of the aperture value is limited to viewing on the LCD screen, but the poor quality of the LCD screen in bright light makes determination via visual feedback difficult.

Adjusting shutter speed in S mode is exactly the same as adjusting the aperture in A mode – you simply use the upper thumbdial. However, setting the shutter speed in M mode is a less simple and more aggravating affair, since the upper thumbdial is allocated to the aperture setting. Instead, a lower thumbwheel is used. Unlike the upper thumbdial, the lower thumbwheel has four clickable buttons embedded underneath it (up, down, right, and left), and these buttons are easily pressed accidentally while rotating the dial, thus opening the door to accidentally (and often, unknowingly) adjusting the ISO, AF mode, WB, or frame advance/self-timer. This lower dial provides poor tactile feedback due to a very small contact surface area and low relief knurlings and is thus nearly impossible to operate correctly with cold fingers. This was the single most maddening control that I experienced on the E-P1.

Adjusting ISO on the E-P1 is as simple as Olympus wants you to make it, or as complicated as you would like to choose to make it (sic). It requires that the ISO button be pressed once (note: the ISO button is the “up” button underneath the lower thumbwheel) to enter the ISO selection mode, followed by one of three ways to actually adjust the ISO (yes, three – no kidding – either the upper thumbdial, the lower thumbwheel, or the left/right buttons), and finally, pressing either the OK, Fn, playback, menu, info, exposure compensation, on/off, or half-pressed shutter buttons to confirm your selection⁴.

In addition (hang with me, we’re almost done), you can change ISO by pressing the menu button, scrolling down to the custom setup menu (which you have to activate elsewhere through more button pushes, since it’s not a default menu), button down to one of nine menu choices, then button down to one of another ten menu choices, and then select your ISO setting. Be careful, though, because the same buttons that allow you to confirm your ISO selection as described previously don’t work the same in this menu!

Oh, wait! There’s one more option for changing ISO. Pressing the OK button while in shooting mode activates so-called “Quicksets” or “Quick Menus.” Using this method, the selection, setting, and confirmation of ISO is only as little as four to ten clicks away!

What choices we have for selecting something so simple as ISO! It’s like being able to take one of ten different but intersecting (and unsigned) trails to the same destination!

This technical “brilliance” (sic) in usability is not limited to the setting of ISO, of course. Similar paths can be chosen for AF mode, white balance, frame advance/self timer, and a host of other functions. Manufacturers will tout all of this as a usability feature, while the plethora of options and configurations and paths confuse beginners (“Why do we need to do this so many different ways?”), confound the pros (“Why do we need to do this so many different ways?”), and baffle those of us that place an extremely high priority upon simplicity and elegance of operation and design (“Why do we need to do this so many different ways?”). It makes me think that the usability engineers that designed these functions first selected one way of doing it, found that their focus groups couldn’t figure it out, so they added another dozen ways in the hopes that random and chaotic button clicking might eventually reach the desired result⁵.

And herein lies the primary problem with today’s digital camera design philosophy, which is almost universal among Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Sony, and Nikon: feature vomit. And let me tell you, the E-P1 is bathed in it from head to toe, and it stinks.

Thankfully, there is a dedicated and clearly labeled ISO button, so the process is not too painful once you familiarize yourself with the camera. But the real pain is in knowing that there are at least three other ways to set the ISO, and these other ways complicate the menus and operation of the camera because they compete with your intelligence when you are searching for other functions buried in the menus that are not deserving of their own buttons.

Adjusting exposure compensation is thankfully, a great deal simpler than adjusting ISO, and there are only two ways to do it (which is one too many, ahem). Next to the shutter button sits a small exposure compensation button (+/-). To set exposure compensation, you simply press this little button with your index (shutter) finger, and while holding it down, scroll the upper thumbdial left (to underexpose the image) or right (to overexpose it). As soon as you select the setting you want, you simply release the shutter finger from the exposure compensation button, and you’re ready to shoot.

The only disadvantage to this method is that pressing, and then releasing, the exposure compensation button without adjusting the exposure compensation value, toggles the use of the upper dial between aperture adjustment (in A mode) or shutter speed adjustment (in S mode) and exposure compensation. So, you may think you are in A or S mode and are able to adjust either the aperture or shutter speed with the upper dial, but you may accidentally find yourself only able to adjust the exposure compensation. A click of the exposure compensation button toggles you back into either A or S adjustment mode for the upper dial. Confused? Just wait until you accidentally do this in the field under bright light when you can’t see the feedback of what’s going on in the LCD screen and you’re baffled at your camera’s behavior! Here’s another classic example where multiple possible behaviors from alternative uses of the same buttons can lead to confusion and unnecessary complexity. The potential secondary side effect is inciting wrath in a user seeking peace in the wilderness.

Apart from two dedicated +/- buttons (which some argue will be more complicated than this setup, especially since those buttons may be accidentally pressed), the hold-and-spin ergo may be the best system for adjusting exposure compensation that I’ve used in any camera, film or digital. Unfortunately, the fact that simply clicking the exposure compensation button toggles the upper dial function ranks this process right up there with the worst I’ve seen. Having more than one way of doing things is not necessarily the best and provides a strong argument for simplicity. Oh! How I yearn for a digital camera that will simply get out of my way so I can focus more on taking the photo than operating the instrument.

The only other manual function (in addition to exposure control, manual focus, and ISO setting) that I find essential in precise digital photography is that of separating autoexposure lock from autofocus lock. Fortunately, the Olympus E-P1 offers a dedicated AEL button for the thumb that can be held down (and, thankfully, unlike exposure compensation, not locked when clicked once!) to lock exposure while the scene is reframed for autofocus (activated with the half press of the shutter button), and then reframed again for composition. The process of separating AEL, AFL, and releasing the shutter is fluid, simple, and perfect on the E-P1.

Self-Timer Use

For me, access to the self-timer function and the ability to adjust between its short-timer mode (2 seconds) and long-timer mode (10 seconds) easily are critical. I use short-timer modes for capturing scenes using slow shutter speeds on a tripod, I use long-timer modes for self-portraits, and I use both of them often – every day on every expedition I take.

To capture a photograph with the self timer, five or six presses involving three different buttons are required: first, press the bottom of the lower thumbwheel to enter the frame advance mode, then press the right side of the lower thumbwheel (or the upper thumbdial – with Canolypanasonikon, we have to have options, you know!) either three or four times to enter the 12s or 2s self timer modes, respectively, then press the OK button to confirm your selection. The process is repeated to exit the self timer mode, but instead requires only four or five presses of the same three buttons. Whew!

A similarly complicated button pushing fiasco is required to engage the self timer on the Sigma DP2. Apparently, progress comes slow. A-hem.

However, this is one area where the new Panasonic GF1 really shines. The frame advance mode is toggled by a real, live switch, located on the top of the camera. One control. It’s beautiful. But we’ll reserve assessing that in more detail until that review is published.

Reliability: Environmental Robustness

I know photographers that have never had a camera fail in the field, and I envy them.

I have not enjoyed the same experience. Perhaps I’m a little careless, or a little lazy, or a little hasty in my processes. Or maybe I’m just not lucky. I’ve fallen in a river and destroyed a Contax T3, I tripped over a tripod and cracked a Leica lens, and I’ve sent at least three compact digital cameras to the paperweight graveyard by exposing them to continuous rain and snow.

That’s why when I went to the Arctic in 2006, I left my Leica M, my DSLR, and even my Contax at home, in favor of a Pentax Optio W60i, a tiny and rugged waterproof camera. Reliability and battery life (which I calculated upon my return home to be more than 500 shots per ounce of spare batteries!) were absolutely the most important features when selecting a camera for that expedition. And while the images I captured there couldn’t compete on a technical level with a high-res scan from my Leica M3 shooting Velvia 50, or my DSLR, or the E-P1, I was still able to shoot a full page magazine spread for The Great Outdoors and record the sound of a howling wolf that aired on National Public Radio, in addition to the scores of photographs that effectively documented my expedition.

Therefore, when I evaluate a camera for environmental robustness, I look at moisture resistance (especially for winter trips, when snow seems to find its way into everything), dust resistance (especially for windy or desert environments), ruggedness and build quality (when I expect to hang the camera from a piece of AirCore around my neck while I bushwhack or scramble through desert canyons or mountain talus), and battery life (for long expeditions).

The Olympus E-P1 offers no unique resistance mechanisms to dirt and moisture, although it does have an ultrasonic mechanism for keeping the sensor clear of fine dust particles that may attach themselves while exchanging lenses in the field.

However, what does seem to be unique to the E-P1 that I’ve not found to be the case with any other camera (film or digital) other than perhaps a Leica M6-M8, is its solid build quality. There are no jiggly or moving parts, and the body seems to be meticulously engineered. What is immediately noticeable is its density. You really have the feeling that the internal parts inside the camera are well-protected, and that the metal body can protect the camera from bouncing around. The body of the E-P1 truly feels like a working man’s camera that is going to last a long time.

I can’t say the same for the two kit lenses that ship with the E-P1: the m.Zuiko 17/2.8 and the m.Zuiko 14-42/3.5-5.6. They have the plasticky feel of cheap goods that don’t inspire confidence when they are sticking out from the body of the camera while swinging on a neck strap.

Battery life on the E-P1 leaves a lot to be desired. Cold weather performance is abysmal and warm weather performance is marginal. This is worth serious consideration for long trips, because the E-P1 is not a pocketable camera, so batteries can’t be kept warm in the camera in a pocket like they can with a pocketable compact. Under my normal use, I’m getting around 100 to 200 shots (depending on temperatures, ranging from 20 F to 50 F) per ounce, and far less than that when shooting video. In comparison, I can get 200 to 400 shots per ounce of battery with the DP2 and 150 to 300 shots per ounce with the Panasonic GF1.

Versatility: Zoom, Creativity, and Video

I’m a prime lens kind of guy, and I’ve always adhered to the purist, if antiquated view, of allowing my own two legs to serve as the lens zoom. I was also borne into film photography with a Leica rangefinder, and it’s hard to let go of the perception that prime (non-zoom) lenses always afforded one with the ability to produce the best possible images.

However, I have to admit that there are situations where a modest zoom lens is awfully nice. I think it’s more important for compact cameras with small sensors (from which images cannot be aggressively cropped due to low image detail) than for cameras with larger sensors, but the ability to use small zoom ranges and effective scene framing saves some post processing time back home, and a little walking time in the field.

Therefore, when assessing the capabilities of the Olympus E-P1 in the context of producing images at different focal lengths, then it must be compared not only to compact cameras (with small sensors) with built in zoom lenses, but also to larger DSLRs.

When comparing the E-P1, and say, its m.Zuiko 14-42/3.5-5.6 kit lens, to a compact zoom camera, it’s clear that the E-P1 offers a substantial gain in image quality over most compact zooms. In fact, the difference in image quality between the E-P1 with a zoom lens attached and a compact zoom at an equivalent zoomed focal length may be more dramatic than the difference in image quality between the two cameras at short focal lengths: the larger lens will deliver more image information to the larger sensor and produce a better image. In most cases, the image quality will be noticeable in both high-res files online (1200-1600 pixels) and in modestly enlarged prints (8 x 10 and larger).

Therefore, it will be up to the individual user to decide for themselves whether or not the added weight and bulk of the Olympus E-P1 and a zoom lens will be worth the potential increase in image quality. If one shoots primarily landscapes, then I would argue that the benefit is small. If one shoots primarily portraits and desires the shallower depth of field that a mid-range zoom provides, then the advantage may be more significant. Likewise, if one shoots primarily wildlife, then the tradeoffs between weight and image quality become very significant, and the E-P1 starts to look like an attractive alternative to the DSLR, while offering much higher image quality than compacts.

One aspect of photographic imaging that is often lost on compact camera users is that of the creativity afforded to the photographer through various combinations of lenses and image controllers (camera bodies). The three most important controllable features, for which extremes do not exist in compact cameras, are aperture, shutter speed, and focal length.

Larger sensors combined with wide aperture lenses can create shallow depths of field that offer significant creative opportunities for the photographer, because of (a) the ability to shoot hand held in low light, and (b) the ability to isolate an in-focus subject from an out-of-focus background. Likewise, ultra-fast shutter speeds can be used to minimize the depth of field in bright light, and ultra-slow shutter speeds can open up options for starlight photography, or impart those silky looks to waterfalls we find on the trail. In addition, compact cameras often struggle with image quality in both macro, extreme wide angle, and telephoto photography, both of which can be strengths of the interchangeable lens camera, with the right lens.

To me, this is the single most important feature of cameras like the Olympus E-P1. The ability to combine the E-P1 with one of its four native lenses (two of which are on the market now, two more of which will be available in early 2010), or with an adapter, a wide variety of fast primes from Leica, Voigtlander, Olympus, and others, affords significant creative opportunities that are simply not available to compact camera users. For example, the m.Zuiko 9-18mm lens offers a very wide angle of view for dramatic landscapes, while the m.Zuiko 14-150mm lens offers a longish telephoto for wildlife photography. Unfortunately, Olympus has not fully convinced me that this type of creativity will happen soon for the E-P1. Missing from the lens line are lenses with very fast apertures (none exist that are less than f/2.8), and specifically, fast prime lenses. One promise of the Micro Four Thirds standard was to be the availability of fast, shorter focal length prime lenses that were lightweight and tiny. While the m.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 gives us light and tiny, it fails to give us fast, and its image quality leaves a lot to be desired.

In addition to still image creativity, many of us are looking to replace two cameras in our kit (a still camera and a video camera) with a single camera capable of producing quality video as well. Long gone are the days where 640 x 480 video is acceptable, and we certainly want HD! The Olympus E-P1 doesn’t fail to deliver in this regard. It produces terrific HD video, and combined with the variety of creative lens options available for it, it can deliver cinematographic results that are nothing short of stunning. Missing from the E-P1’s video package, however, is the ability to capture more than ten minutes of video at a time (as a result of antiquated encoding standards), and the ability to capture audio via an external microphone.

Value

I used to place a very low priority on gear value, demanding technical performance above all else. The current recession has changed my view. I keep more gear for a longer period of time, will elect to repair gear today that I would have replaced two years ago, and I no longer feel compelled to simply upgrade to the latest new thing simply because one exists.

Thus, my expectations for a digital camera are that it should last a pretty long time. Heck, I still love shooting my now-obsolete Ricoh GRD, which in spite of its shortcomings remains one of my favorite compact cameras. In addition – brace yourself now – it still produces images for online viewing and 8 x 10 prints that neither you, nor anyone else, could distinguish from my images taken with the larger and heavier E-P1! So, to me at least, my GRD has been a very high value camera.

The real value of the Olympus E-P1 is not in its ability to produce technically superior images when compared to existing cameras on the market. Nor is it in its ability to make photography easier or simpler (quite the contrary, in fact!). Nor is it in its ability to compete technically and aesthetically with a DSLR (it has no viewfinder, no built in flash, and is slower to use). The real value of the E-P1 is in its ability to offer creative imaging options, like a DSLR, for less weight and bulk. Unfortunately, because this is its primary selling point, and it lacks the simplicity, environmental robustness, and image superiority of smaller cameras like the Sigma DP2, its value proposition is questionable. A small and light DSLR can be purchased for less money while offering similar imaging performance for a weight penalty of less than a quarter of a pound, and a compact mid-size sensor camera can be purchase for less money while offering a package that is significantly smaller and lighter than the E-P1. In addition, the introduction of more compact mid-size sensor cameras, including the Pansonic GF1, the Leica X1, the Ricoh GXR, and the Samsung NX will muddy the waters further and will more than likely make the value proposition of the Olympus E-P1 an even tougher sell.

Conclusion

I used the Olympus E-P1 nearly every day for three months. I desperately wanted to fall in love with it. However, when the day was done, I listed the following things about the camera that absolutely drove me crazy:

1. Disappointing image performance relative to my own personal baseline, the Sigma DP2. I was particularly disappointed by the E-P1’s 17mm f/2.8 kit lens, and its sensor/image processing performance when I combined it with my existing Leica and Voigtlander M-mount lenses.
2. Insane levels of complexity in the menus, operations, and imaging gimmicks for JPG shooters. I sure do miss the dials of film cameras, the SETUP menu of the Sigma DP series cameras, and the utter simplicity of the Ricoh GRD series.
3. Lack of water resistance. I currently carry two cameras on every trip. One of them is a Panasonic TS1, which offers full water resistance and decent image quality for it. I’m patiently waiting for the day where I can carry one camera with the assurance of exceptional image quality and reliability while I shoot in severely inclement weather.
4. Lack of an external microphone jack. In a camera that shoots HD video, is this big, and is this heavy, I want an external mic jack!
5. Less-than-effective manual focusing in bright light due to the dim LCD screen.

However, I’m not completely critical of the E-P1, and the things that I loved the most about the camera while shooting with it were:

1. Exceptional build quality and ruggedness of the body.
2. Very comfortable ergonomics in the hand.
3. The option to carry camera and lenses with creative imaging options that weigh less than an equivalent DSLR kit.

In conclusion, I think the Olympus E-P1 is going to be a tough sell to the lightweight backpacking community accustomed to carrying compact cameras. If you carry a mid-size sensor compact, like the Sigma DP2, you probably do so for one reason: image quality. If you were to upgrade to the Olympus E-P1 and expected to achieve technical image quality significantly higher than the DP2, I think you’d be disappointed. On the other hand, if you carry a small sensor compact, you probably do so because the image quality it produces might be acceptable enough for your end uses: publishing photos online, or printing small enlargements, perhaps. For you, the Olympus E-P1 will simply be nothing more than a heavier, more expensive, and bulkier brick.

And so, I think the Olympus E-P1 might make sense to two groups of users: those who currently carry DSLRs, and those who carry compacts but want to increase the creativity of their image capturing. The Olympus E-P1 will certainly aggravate most avid DSLR users because of its lack of a viewfinder, lack of a built in flash, and slow operation (especially autofocus). However, I think you can get used to all of these things, and you’ll find yourself rather pleased that you’ll be able to have a “DSLR-like kit” in the backcountry for less weight and bulk.

Finally, I think those of you who carry compacts but want to increase the creativity of your image capturing will be thrilled by what the E-P1 and similar cameras have to offer. However, I’d caution you to wait and let the market mature. My next review will be detailing the E-P1’s primary direct competitor: the Panasonic GF1, and there’s more on the horizon, including the next upgrade from Olympus, the long awaited E-P2 (which includes an electronic viewfinder and an option for an external microphone).

Recommendations

It is difficult to identify strengths and weaknesses for cameras because the strength of one camera for one photographer might present itself as a weakness to another. Consequently, the recommendations I make herein for “improving” the E-P1 are based primarily on how they might serve my needs first, and possibly, the needs of others who adhere (perhaps too rigidly!) more to an ethos of lightweight backpacking and less to an ethos of photography. In that context, then, I make the following recommendations for improving the E-P1:

1. 1. Simplify the functions, menus, options, button pressing, and customizability – dramatically!
2. Focus on the development of wide, fast prime lenses in a pancake format. The 17mm m.Zuiko lens is a perfect complement to the E-P1, but its quality and slow speed (f/2.8) leave a lot to be desired.
3. Improve bright light performance by including a higher quality LCD and an optical viewfinder (OVF) in the camera, not as an external accessory (with focus coupling for MFT lenses, like a rangefinder!). This combination might be more useful than a low-resolution electronic viewfinder (EVF).
4. Improve focusing speed.
5. Create manual switches and controls for the most used exposure control parameters (aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, and frame advance) and simplify access to often used parameters such as ISO.
6. Add a 1/8” microphone jack so higher quality audio can be coupled with HD video.
7. Create a weather-sealed camera that can at least accommodate use in sustained rain and snow.
8. Put a sensor in this camera that focuses on detail resolution and more robust color tonality, perhaps at the expense of high ISO noise and dynamic range.

A camera with the endearing and rugged form factor of the Olympus E-P1 that addressed items #1-6 above would result in a camera for which I’d give a Recommended rating. A camera that addressed these items in addition to #7 and #8 would certainly stand on its own and be unique enough to warrant a Highly Recommended rating, and one for which I’d happily trade my Sigma DP2 for the added weight and bulk.

Gallery of Images

I think it’s important to close with something positive about the E-P1. As I write this review, I have a dozen cameras in front of me. The one that feels the best in my hand is the Olympus E-P1. Its form really is beautiful, and that aesthetic has been a redeeming quality of the camera that, in the field, allows it to overcome some of its shortcomings. For creative snapshooting, when I want the creative qualities of certain lenses, without worrying too much about the finest details of imaging performance or the lack of simplicity in the underlying menu structure, I really do enjoy photographing with the E-P1. That in and of itself is a very important quality to a camera. The tactile feedback you get from holding a camera, framing a scene, focusing the lens, adjusting the shutter speed, and releasing the shutter – this is as important to my photographic experience as developing the images in Photoshop upon my return home. To that end, the E-P1 does not disappoint, and it is that feature alone that distinguishes the E-P1 from the vast majority of digital cameras on the market today.

So, I hope that the following gallery of images leaves you with some confidence at the E-P1’s ability to capture beautiful photographs – ones that I will enjoy looking at for a very long time.

These photographs have been processed in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop to my tastes based on how I wanted to convey the look of the scene to the viewer. If you are looking for out of camera images, they are available elsewhere on the Web, en masse, and publishing more of those here would do little to enhance the conclusions in this review. I never look at a single camera as an island technology in my overall digital workflow, but rather, as an integrated component of a larger whole out of which I demand what is most important to me in the end: an image that I’m proud to have framed, captured, and developed on my own.

Click an image below to view the image gallery.

¹ To produce the image, I captured the photograph (with the camera on a tripod) at ISO 200 and f/5.6 as a RAW file (with shutter speed set to an EV value as low as possible without clipping highlights). It’s worth noting that all images were captured at an aspect ratio of 3:2, and because I was shooting with prime lenses that had slight differences in 35mm equivalent fields of view, I usually engaged my legs a little bit for zooming in and out so each camera captured the same scene, to avoid focal length artifacts that would have biased the capture of scene details. Images were imported into Photoshop CS4 through Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 with no sharpening or other preset adjustments (other than normalization of white balance). Once in CS4, I applied curve correction to distribute luminance across the entire dynamic range. I exported the images as 8-bit TIFF files (without upsampling the Sigma DP2’s 4.7MP image size to produce the same resolution as the 12MP E-P1 and GF1), and sent it to a professional lab for printing, with no modifications performed by the lab.

² Or for anyone possessing unusual amounts of patience.

³ There are exceptions to this, but they require so much button pushing and fiddling that it’s not worth using, let alone discussing.

⁴ Don’t press the AEL/AFL, frame advance/self-timer, or delete buttons, however, because they will not confirm your selection!

⁵ Or not!

Introduction

I haul myself out of my packraft and onto the rocky shore, wet from the tops of my farmer johns down to the GoLite shoes on my feet. Grasping my paddle with one tired arm, I reach down with the other and grab the pack, strapped to the bow of my packraft, and pull both it and the raft out of the water and onto the rocks. Looking down the river at the souse hole I narrowly avoided (by arresting myself on the shore), I wonder if I’m up to rafting Bear Trap Canyon, which is running at 4000 cfs. Time for some portage.

Mounting the pack and packraft onto my back, I join the other Backpacking Light instructors moving downriver over wet stones and up steep banks. As I move along, I’m impressed by how well my soaked shoes grip the rocks and dirt – I feel very stable on my feet and am able to move securely down to the next put-in site.

Brief History of GoLite Footwear

A couple of months earlier, I called GoLite Footwear and asked to test the two lightest models from their latest line of shoes. GoLite Footwear, whose name is licensed from GoLite, LLC in Colorado, was founded by Doug Clark, who had worked at Timberland as the chief innovation officer. While there, he and his team developed a line of shoes that were designed to stabilize the foot during off-pavement travel by combining a hard footbed with an outsole consisting of soft lugs made to absorb the uneven surfaces of the ground. They called this "Soft Against the Ground" technology. In 2008, Clark bought the rights to GoLite Footwear from Timberland and formed New England Footwear, which now manufactures GoLite Footwear shoes.

In 2007, GoLite Footwear introduced its first line of shoes. The lightest in the lineup, at 10.9 ounces, was the Sun Dragon.

Its Trail Speed outsole consisted of fourteen widely spaced lugs in a symmetrical pattern. Initial reviews of the shoes were very positive: Carol Cooker said, “My favorite shoe for backpacking is the GoLite Sun Dragon. When I wear Sun Dragons, my feet don’t get that hamburger feel after a long day of hiking up and down uneven, rocky trails.” Andrew Skurka used them exclusively on his Great Western Loop hike and said, “These shoes are really great, truly revolutionary. For a backpacker, it means less pointy stuff to give you foot bruises, better traction on snow, and better traction on dirt and rocks.” After a backpacking trip to the Olympic Coast, Doug Johnson said, “While I was skeptical at first, this system has won me over. The shoe conforms to trail irregularities when running and hiking, keeping the foot level and providing better shock absorption. The large lugs also provided excellent traction in mud and sand – a difference that was obvious.” Everyone also seemed very pleased with the shoes’ large toe box design.

Then things began to fall apart – literally. Due to a problem in the manufacturing process, the fabric on the vamp of the shoe began deteriorating after about sixty miles of use.

The company corrected the manufacturing problem, and the 2008 shoes showed increased durability. However, with both the 2007 and 2008 models, users found that the soles of the shoes wore down more quickly than other brands.

The Sun Dragon on the left has three months of wear, compared to the new sole on the right.

The Shoes

After great anticipation, my shoes from the 2009 line finally arrived in the mail. The lightest shoe in this year’s product line is called the Competition, or Comp for short. A men’s size 9.5 US weighs 12.96 ounces per shoe (367 grams) by my scale.

The Comp features what GoLite Footwear calls a TPU Cage, which is the web of thermoplastic glued to the shoe’s mesh upper. It is designed to offer protection and stability to the upper shoe.

The mesh upper, dubbed the NeoForm Seamless Upper, is a seamless loose mesh. The shoe also has GoLite Footwear’s Debris Shield, which is the thermoplastic and leather toe cap that protects the front of the shoe. The back portion of the shoe is protected by a sewn-in leather strip.

One of the more interesting features on the shoe is the Interlock Lacing System, a piece of material that is sewn into the inner sole, wraps around the side of the foot inside the shoe, goes through eyelets, over the top of the tongue, and finally through the shoe laces. It is designed to keep the foot from sliding forward and hitting the front of the shoe. 

GoLite Footwear has changed the design of its uniquely lugged sole. It seems that people either really liked the idea of the big lugs or found them too aggressive looking and wouldn’t buy them. Responding to this feedback, GoLite Footwear has replaced the symmetrical lugged sole with what it calls Trailclaws and Paw Pads. The Trailclaws are lower profile lugs around the outside of the sole and the Paw Pads are smaller tread on the center of the sole.

By making these changes, the company hopes to maintain the Soft Against the Ground effect while providing a more versatile shoe that will work well on hard-packed trails.

As mentioned earlier, their Soft Against the Ground technology is designed to keep the foot stable and cushioned on rough and uneven surfaces. They achieve this through a rigid last with a rigid polyurethane layer under that, which protects the bottom of the foot. Between the rigid polyurethane layer and the rubber outsole is a very soft polyurethane layer that absorbs the irregularities of uneven terrain.

The second lightest shoe in the 2009 lineup is called the Fire. It weighs 13.04 ounces per shoe (369 grams) by my scale for a men’s size 9.5 US.

The Fire’s insole, midsole, and outsole are identical to the Comps’.

The difference between the two shoes is in the upper half: the Fire is designed to be more rugged and durable than the Comp. The Cage is made of EVA and is thicker and more protective of the shoe’s seamless mesh upper. The mesh is tighter and has a higher thread count than the Comps’.

Instead of leather, the debris shield and the hill are covered with a rubberized fabric.

Another interesting difference between the two shoes is the Fire’s Interlock Lacing System: instead of one strip of material linked to the laces, the Fire has two. More on this later.

The Testing

I wanted to compare the two models side-by-side, so for my first trips I wore a Comp on one foot and a Fire on the other. I switched the feet the shoes were on so the soles of each pair would wear evenly. I used the shoes for snowshoeing, backpacking, trail running, packrafting, bushwhacking, and even for some short races on asphalt. I took pictures of the wear on each model as the testing progressed.

The Review

First Impressions

Of course, the first thing I did when the shoes arrived was put them on. They were both very comfortable with no pressure points and with plenty of room in the toe box. The laces ran smoothly through each eyelet and were easy to cinch up. My heel tended to slip up and down a little as I walked, so I laced up the second eyelet at the top of the tongue, adding enough tension to secure my heel nicely.

Footbeds

The second thing I did was take out the manufacture’s footbeds and put in a pair of Superfeet. In doing so, I discovered a virtually unadvertised GoLite Footwear feature. Their footbeds have a system where, by adding or removing attachments to the footbed, one can adjust the fit of the shoe from wide to medium to narrow. At first I thought this was a completely wasted idea, seeing as I never use the footbeds that come with the shoe. In this criticism, however, I was wholly unjustified.

As my sock needs went from heavy winter socks to thin running socks, I was able to add or remove these footbed attachments under my Superfeet so that my shoes always felt like they were the perfect width. This made the shoes far more versatile than any other trail running shoes I had owned before. I usually need a wide pair for winter trips and a narrow pair for warmer trips. Now I had two shoes in one.

Snowshoeing

It was then time to take the shoes outdoors. My first outings were snowshoe trips in the mountains of southern Oregon. The snow in the Cascades is either completely frozen or sopping wet. On these trips, the shoes performed like any others I had used snowshoeing: soaked during the day and frozen solid at night. But, as described above, the shoes were wide enough that I could wear my trekking socks and Gore-Tex oversocks in them without losing the blood flow to my feet. Between the two models, I found that the Comps, with the more open mesh, were a little colder and less protected from the snow than the Fires.

Backpacking and Trail Running

I began backpacking and trail running early in the season, which meant a mix of muddy ground and snow mounds. The shoes’ grip was phenomenal. While my trip partners were sliding around on the slippery terrain, my shoes were staying put pretty well. It felt like the lugs around the edge of the sole were grabbing the ground and keeping my feet where I had placed them.

I found that I turned my ankles less than I normally do. That is one of the intended features of the Soft Against the Ground concept. The shoe sole compresses on uneven ground and minimizes the impact of the feet and legs. Of course, this can only provide stability to a certain extent – when I moved on side hills or over rocks or in a washed-out trail, I still turned an ankle from time to time.

The shoes provided plenty of cushion against the ground overall, but not in a way that was noticeably superior to other trail runners I’ve used. After hiking in them for several days, the bottoms of my feet were sore (especially my heels), which is similar to my experience with other shoes. Perhaps my feet were less sore then they would have been in other shoes, but not so much that I could perceive a measurable difference.

The shoes fit me well. Using the variable width footbeds, my foot didn’t slip around, nor were they too tight, and by snugging down the laces, my heel stayed in place. I did, however, run into a problem with the Fires: before running or backpacking, I would tighten down the laces to secure my foot in the shoes. After a few miles, my fifth metatarsal (the bone just down the foot from the pinky toe) would hurt to the point that it became debilitating. Afterwards, I inspected the sides of my feet and found them swollen in the area of the fifth metatarsal.

The problem came from the Interlocking Lacing System (the straps inside the shoe that wrap around the foot and connect to the laces). Cinching down the laces put too much pressure on that part of my foot. I didn’t experience that with the Comps and concluded that the second strip of material in the Fire was the cause. I removed the laces from the front loops, in effect making them like the Comps. This eliminated the problem.

Packrafting

I took the shoes packrafting; the Comp on one foot and the Fire on the other. As I stated at the beginning of the article, I was impressed with how well the shoes gripped the wet rocks along the shore. They were no match for the slippery, moss-covered rocks in the river, but I think the only solution to that problem would be crampons. The shoes transitioned well from the wet river to the dirty side hills. Both shoes drained equally well and stayed equally wet. The leather on the front and back of the Comps got pretty dirty, but this was an aesthetic, not functional, issue.

At the end of this instructor training rafting and packing trip, I noted something very interesting about the soles of the shoes: the soft polyurethane part of the sole, that was not covered by rubber, puffed out and lost its definition.

It didn’t affect the feel of the cushioning, but it did have an impact on the sole’s durability.

Wilderness Trekking Course

I chose to take the Comps on the 2009 Wilderness Trekking I course to see if the mesh and leather on the lighter shoe could stand up to a lot of abuse. I took the one shoe that had been packrafting and one that had not. We hiked from early in the morning to late in the evening every day, most of this off trail on aggressive terrain. The results were fascinating. 

As you can see from the pictures above, the upper part of the shoe held up very well. I wore ankle gaiters and, apart from dirt, there was not much difference between the protected and unprotected upper. Although the mesh had relatively large holes, particles did not get in my shoes. The surprise was on the underside of the shoe.

The sole of the shoe that I had taken backpacking and running, but not packrafting, had obvious wear and tear compared to before the trip and one of the lugs had come unglued.

The sole of the shoe that had been on the rafting trip, however, lost all of the rubber on the lugs and a significant portion on the heel. Clearly, the extended time being wet had a substantial impact on the adhesive material between the polyurethane and rubber.

Conclusion

GoLite Footwear has developed a unique underfoot suspension system that largely accomplishes their intentions. The shoes are comfortable and the uppers are durable. I would like to give them a Recommended rating; however, because of the lack of resiliency on the soles of the shoes, I can only rate them Below Average for the suggested retail price. If GoLite Footwear can fix this durability issue, these will be great shoes. I would definitely wear them again, but with the understanding that they will only last me one season.

Specifications

Manufacturer:	GoLite Footwear
Year/Model:	2009 Competition 2009 Fire
Materials:	Competition – Upper: Ballistic Mesh and TPU Cage; Outsole/Midsole: Rubber, TPU and PU Fire – Upper: Mesh and EVA Cage; Outsole/Midsole: Rubber, TPU and PU
Last:	Competition – Anatomically Contoured Fire – Anatomically Contoured
Size:	Competition – Mens 9.5 with medium width footbed Fire – Mens 9.5 with medium width footbed
Weight:	Competition – 12.96 oz (367 g) Fire – 13.04 oz (369 g)
Colour:	Competition – Skyway and Rifle Green Fire – Navy and Black
MSRP:	Competition – $120 Fire – $130

What’s Good

Lightweight

Comfortable

Ample toebox

Adjustable width

Durable uppers

Drains water well

What’s Not So Good

Speedy delamination of the sole

Description

A three-season down sleeping bag is a core item for ultralight backpacking because it offers the best combination of warmth, light weight, and seasonal versatility. I prefer a mummy style bag rated at around 30 F for mountain backpacking. The mummy design eliminates drafts, I can wear extra clothes inside and “mummy up” to extend the bag’s warmth on cold nights, and I can open it up and use it as a quilt on warm nights.

The popular Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32 sleeping bag (with a temperature rating of 32 F) has been around a few years. Its main features are 15 denier (0.85 oz/yd²) shell fabric with DWR, 800 fill power down, a full length side zipper, and a six chamber sculptured hood.

It has received a few refinements along the way, and Mountain Hardwear deserves kudos for keeping the upgrades nearly weight neutral. The original Phantom 32 had a 2/3-length side zipper and weight of 22.7 ounces, while the current bag has a full side zipper and weighs 23.1 ounces. Weight saving refinements throughout the bag nearly offset the added weight of a longer zipper.

The Phantom’s lightweight shell fabric has a very soft hand, and its taffeta lining is very durable. The #5CN YKK zipper auto locks, so it doesn’t open when you expand the bag, and it operates from outside or inside the bag.

Performance

I measured the bag’s average double layer loft to be 4 inches (single layer 2 inches), which agrees with the manufacturer’s specification and is similar to other bags with the same temperature rating. From our table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings), 1.8 inches of single layer loft translates to about a 30 F rating, so the Phantom 32 has a little extra loft. Please take the time to read the referenced article and note that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors.

Mountain Hardware describes the Phantom’s sizing as a “snug mummy fit.” Size Regular fits a person up to 6 feet tall; that’s my height, and it fits me perfectly. When looking at sleeping bag dimensions, I look for adequate shoulder girth. A snug bag is good for staying warm (no excess volume inside to warm up), but it also has to be roomy enough inside to wear extra clothing without being too tight. I found the Phantom 32, with 60 inches of shoulder girth, to be just right for me.

Although the Phantom 32 is not the loftiest bag around with a 30-32 F temperature rating (see comparison table below), I found it to be quite warm. In my field testing, my methodology was to wear my basic sleepwear (dry wool socks and microfleece top, bottom, and cap) inside the bag initially, then add insulated clothing later in the night if I got cold, noting the time and temperature when I got chilly. On most nights down to freezing, I stayed adequately warm in my basic sleepwear, although I got a little chilly when the “4:00 a.m. freeze” occurred. I noticed that the temperature when I felt chilly varied somewhat, from 30 to 35 F, depending on weather, shelter, and metabolic activity. I felt the coldest when I was hungry during the night.

On three really cold nights – down to 19, 18, and 15 F – I wore my insulated camp clothing plus my rain jacket and pants inside the bag all night, and managed to stay warm. On the 15 F night I was camped at 12,500 feet following the passage of a cold front that produced 45 mph winds the night before that had me hanging onto my Tarptent. I knew it was going to be a cold one, so I wore everything in my pack at bedtime, and ate some nuts to generate metabolic heat. It worked and I managed to stay warm at 15 degrees in a 32 F rated sleeping bag. On warmer nights I unzipped the bag and used it as a quilt. That’s the versatility of a three-season down mummy bag – with a little resourcefulness I can use the same bag to comfortably sleep with nighttime temperatures ranging from 50 down to 20 F, and occasionally colder than that when you have to.

The Phantom’s shell is quite downproof; I observed very little down coming through the shell fabric or stitching during my testing.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32 with some popular 30-32 F rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags. All of the bags have baffled construction. Data are manufacturer information for a size Regular bag.

As you can see from the table, the Phantom 32 compares favorably to similar sleeping bags in loft, weight, and cost. The Western Mountaineering SummerLite bag is three ounces lighter, but it costs a bit more too. The MontBell Spiral Down Hugger #3 appears to be the best value.

Assessment

Overall, the Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32 is a highly refined sleeping bag. It’s filled with 800 fill power down and has good loft, but it’s not the loftiest among its peers. It has a number of important factors on the positive side of the ledger: snug sizing (but has adequate room to wear clothing inside), down filled draft collar, two-way locking zipper that operates from the outside and inside, excellent hood, lightweight downproof shell, durable lining, and no Velcro damage to fabrics. However, there is a negative side too: the zipper snags badly, and the stuff sack is over-engineered.

From an ultralight point of view, its full length zipper may be a drawback too. Personally, I am content with a one-third or one-half length zipper, or none at all. A short zipper still allows easy entry and exit, and allows the bag to be unzipped and used as a quilt on warm nights. However, manufacturers seem to perceive that consumers want a full length zipper; even Western Mountaineering puts a full length zipper in most of their bags. What do you think? Post your opinions in the attached forum.

Specifications

Manufacturer	Mountain Hardwear
Year/Model	2009 Phantom 32
Style	Hooded mummy with full length zipper
What’s Included	Sleeping bag, stuff sack, mesh storage bag
Fill	800 fill-power down, 10 oz (283 g) size Regular, 11 oz (312 g) size Long
Construction	5-inch baffles
Measured Loft	4.0 in (10 cm) average double-layer loft, manufacturer specification 4.0 in (10 cm)
Manufacturer Claimed Temperature Rating	32 F (0 C)
Stuffed Size	7 x 10 in (18 x 25 cm)
Weight	Size Regular tested BPL Measured Weight: 1 lb 7.1 oz (655 g) Manufacturer Specification 1 lb 6 oz (624 g)
Sizes	Regular fits to 6 ft (1.83 m) Long fits to 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)
Fabrics	Shell is 15d Superlight 0.85 oz/yd2 (29 g/m2) high tenacity nylon with DWR, lining is 20d 1.2 oz/yd2 (41 g/m2) nylon taffeta
Features	Full length two-way auto-locking zipper with anti-snag panel and down filled draft collar, zipper pull operates from inside or outside, small Velcro tab at top of zipper, six chamber sculptured hood with down filled face gasket, single handed elastic/grosgrain drawcord on hood, comfort footbox
MSRP	Regular US$290 Long US$305

Introduction

An ultralight three-season down insulated jacket with high loft down, very light shell fabric, a minimal feature set, and weight under 14 ounces is an essential part of an ultralight or lightweight backpacking kit for summertime backpacking in the mountains or shoulder season camping most anywhere. Down insulation provides the most warmth for its weight, so it’s the insulation preferred by backpackers and mountaineers in all but very wet conditions. An array of jackets is available – differing in fabrics, features, and amount of down insulation – so there’s a jacket to fit most hiker’s needs and preferences. Look for a Backpacking Light State of the Market article on ultralight three-season down insulated jackets in Spring 2010 that will present the options and assist with the selection process.

Description

The Rab Microlight Jacket, as the name implies, utilizes Pertex Microlight fabric for the shell. Microlight, like other Pertex fabrics, is made of microfine filament yarns with an extremely close weave, and they are calendared to make them windproof and downproof. The fabric’s high density weave also enhances insulation by trapping more air inside. However, Microlight at 1.3 oz/yd² is a bit heavier than Pertex Quantum at 0.9 oz/yd². Microlight features DWR+, which is a unique durable water-repellent treatment which encapsulates each filament of the fabric with a hydrophobic polymer. This treatment gives excellent water shedding, and since it is not a continuous coating, breathability is not impaired. Another unique property of Pertex fabrics is their ability to disperse water. Where most nylon fabrics wick moisture directly through the weave, Pertex spreads it over a broad area by capillary action, so it evaporates more rapidly.

The Rab Microlight Jacket shares several design elements with its siblings, the Microlight Alpine Jacket (hooded), and Microlight Vest. All have sewn-through 1.5-inch horizontal quilting to hold the down in place, two hand pockets, one zippered chest pocket, and elastic piping on the cuffs and hem.

The down insulation in the Microlight Jacket is 750+. I asked Rab why they don’t use 800 fill power down to keep up with the competition, and their response emphasized the "+" sign after the "750," meaning their down has a minimum of 750 fill power, and is closer to 800 on average. Rab prefers to use a very conservative rating rather than inflate it for marketing purposes (not that others do…) so they call it what it is at the very minimum. From a consumer point of view, it still begs the question: "Is it, or isn’t it, comparable to ‘800 fill’ used by other manufacturers?"

Performance

I tested the Rab Microlight Jacket on several summer and early fall backpacking trips in the southern Colorado mountains, where I camped at elevations up to 12,500 feet (3,810 m) and encountered snow, wind, rain, cold nights, and lots of beautiful scenery. I wore the Microlight Jacket as an outer layer on cold days, as a midlayer with a shell over it for extra warmth and wind protection, and in my 30 F (-1 C) sleeping bag to extend its warmth on below freezing nights.

The jacket has a trim fit, both in the body and sleeves, so it will only layer over a base layer and a thin sweater. Sleeves are set-in at the shoulders and are plenty long.

I really like the jacket’s roomy hand pockets, which will hold a bunch of smaller items in camp and keep them handy. The side pockets are not zippered and the elastic band in the binding has minimal stretch, so items can fall out if the pockets are overloaded. I found the zippered chest pocket handy for holding my digital camera to keep it dry and secure.

The Microlight Jacket is warm down to about freezing at a low activity level, and warm down to colder temperatures when worn as a midlayer while hiking or skiing. From past experience with a Pertex Microlight windshirt, I find the fabric not very breathable (because it’s calendered), but breathability is less important in an insulated jacket shell. Overall, the Microlight Jacket is extremely versatile (as are all ultralight three-season down jackets) and it saw a lot of use. I wore it during the day as needed, every evening and morning in camp, and inside my sleeping bag.

Comparisons and Assessment

Two jackets closest to the Rab Microlight are the Patagonia Down Sweater and Mountain Hardwear Nitrous Jacket. The following table compares their specifications; manufacturer data for size medium are shown.

Compared to the closest competition, the Rab Microlight Jacket holds up well. Its Pertex Microlight shell is a plus, the down insulation seems to be comparable (see explanation above), and it’s a better value. Of course, this is a limited comparison; there are numerous other jackets on the market with different constructions and feature sets.

Overall, the Rab Microlight Jacket is perhaps a little more versatile than many of its brethren because of its medium level of insulation, trim fit, lack of a hood, and its pockets. This combination allows the jacket to more easily be worn as either an outer layer or midlayer, in a variety of outdoor sports, as well as for sport-casual dress. However, its numerous horizontal seams allow down fragments to exit. Also, the binding on the hand pockets does little to keep items from falling out; I would prefer to see an elastic piping like that used on the jacket’s cuffs and hem.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer:	Rab (http://www.rab.uk.com/)
Year/Model:	2009 Microlight Jacket
Style:	Full zip hoodless jacket
Fabrics:	Outer shell 30d 1.3 oz/yd2 (43 g/m2) Pertex Microlight with DWR finish, lining is a generic 30d downproof nylon
Insulation:	4.4 oz (125 g) of 750+ fill power down
Loft:	Measured two layer loft is 1.5 in (4 cm)
Features:	Sewn through construction with 1.5-inch horizontal quilting, down filled stand up collar, full front #45C YKK zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, two hand pockets, one zippered chest pocket, elastic cuffs and hem, 1.25-inch dropped tail, jacket stuffs into its chest pocket
Weight:	Size Large tested, measured weight 11 oz (312 g), manufacturer specified average weight 11.3 oz (320 g)
MSRP:	US$190

Comparison of Mid-size Sensor Digital Cameras
Class	Camera	grams	ounces
Midsize Sensor	Olympus E-620, 25mm f/2.8 ED Zuiko "pancake" lens	615	21.7
	Olympus E-620, 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko ED Zoom	710	25.0
	Canon EOS Rebel T1i, EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS	730	25.7
	Nikon D5000, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX	895	31.6
µ4/3	Olympus E-P1 with 14-42 lens	560	19.8
	Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens	630	22.2
Compact	Sigma DP1 with fixed 16.6mm lens	285	10.1

Field Performance

Controls and Operation

I found the E-620 quick and easy to use. Almost every function/adjustment is one or two button presses away. Many direct access external controls (buttons, control knob, and Super Control Panel) give zippy access to all commonly used functions. There is little need to get buried deep in the complex menus that sometime plague sophisticated DSLRs, though the camera is also extremely customizable if you want. The camera controls are so intuitive that my wife, who rarely uses a DSLR, came rapidly up to speed using the E-620. She mastered its basic adjustments and was taking good pictures after just a few hours in the field.

The E-620 has fast, effective, multi-point autofocus, and I found the exposure quite accurate. When it was off, the E-620 tended to underexpose and preserve highlights, which is what you want the camera to do.

Optical Viewfinder

An optical viewfinder allows you to focus and compose your image in a way that an LCD display cannot match, especially in low light or bright daylight. LCD displays are lower resolution; it is difficult to see fine detail for precise shot composition or sharp focus (especially for P&S and compact cameras without optical viewfinders). LCD displays are also quite hard to see in bright daylight and, in low light, are grainy with skewed colors. Finally, they often have slow refresh rates and difficulty tracking and focusing on moving subjects. These cons are often also true for LCD-driven viewfinders (EVFs) like on the µ4/3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 (although the viewfinder version of the LCD display does solve daylight readability issues). Finally, it is easier to hold a camera steady when it is pressed against your face with an optical viewfinder. LCD-screen-only cameras, usually held out at arms’ length, introduce more camera shake.

In an improvement over the E-520, the E-620 has the largest and brightest viewfinder for a small Olympus DSLR (excluding the E-3 and E-30). While a bit smaller than some other manufacturers’ mid-size DSLR viewfinders, I found the E-620’s viewfinder more than adequate to focus and compose shots, even in the low light of early morning or late evening.

Dynamic Range

The E-620 has made a significant improvement in dynamic range over its predecessors, especially in the ability to capture highlights. In fact, at ISO 200, it has one of the largest dynamic ranges of a lightweight DSLR. A high dynamic range, or the ability to capture both shadow and highlight detail in high contrast scenes, is one of my most important criteria for a backcountry camera. It can make the difference between a superb photograph and a throwaway.

Shadow Adjustment Technology

High Quality JPEG Images

The excellent JPEG output from the E-620 is time- and hassle-saving. In the past, I would usually only process the RAW images from my DSLRs. The JPEG output was so disappointing that it was usually faster to go to the source (RAW) and reprocess the photo from there. While giving me excellent final photographs, shooting RAW had a couple of disadvantages:

1. Large RAW files ate up memory cards and filled up my computer hard drive at an alarming rate – a significant expense and inconvenience.
2. All that processing of RAW files takes time, which slows throughput. This is a major disincentive to get started on the project at all. For me, photographs are much less likely to end up posted to the web or printed out and hung on the wall if I have to process RAW.

After shooting for almost three months with the E-620, I have learned to trust and appreciate its JPEG output to the point that I usually do not shoot RAW except for artificial light situations (or a few special circumstances outdoors). The JPEG files have a dynamic range large enough that I do not have to go back to RAW files to try and recover blown highlights (the E-620’s excellent exposure helps as well). Shooting JPEG only, my memory cards last a long time. And with only light processing of the JPEG files required, my actual output of pictures to the web or photographic prints has increased. And really, isn’t that the point of taking photos in the first place?

Low Light, High ISO Performance / Image Stabilization

To be truthful, with a base ISO of 200 and in-camera image stabilization and seldom shooting at focal lengths longer than 25mm (50mm; 35mm equivalent), I rarely find it necessary to go to a higher ISO for my field shots – even handheld at dawn or dusk. The Zuiko lenses are usually quite sharp at larger apertures, which also helps. That being said, the Olympus E-620 does quite well up to ISO 800, with little noise or loss in detail. I would not shoot higher than ISO 800 unless there was absolutely no other way to get a photo.

The only time I recently needed to move to an ISO higher than 200 was at the SPOT Press Conference at the OR Summer Market. The indoor light did not support shooting at longer focal lengths, and I needed to shoot from a distance. Combined with the E-620’s in-camera image stabilization, I was able to get reasonably sharp images without a lot of ambient light.

Available (High Quality) Lightweight Lenses

One of the best assets of the Olympus 4/3 system is the depth of high quality lightweight lenses that are a perfect fit for backcountry photography. Obviously, these lenses contribute to overall image quality, but because they are smaller and lighter than many competing manufacturers’ lenses, they lighten your total weight of camera gear .

My favorite lens is the new Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6. Only 275 g (9.7 oz), it takes excellent panoramic shots. I don’t think anybody else sells an ultra wide angle zoom at anywhere near the 9-18’s weight/pricepoint. The environmentally sealed Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD, while heavier than the 9-18, is regarded as one of the best digital zoom lenses on the market. Another highly regarded lens is the exceptionally sharp Zuiko Digital ED 50mm F2.0 Macro.

Note: 4/3 format has a 2x crop factor, meaning that the 35mm format equivalent focal length is twice the 4/3 format focal length listed above. Thus, the 9-18 mm Olympus 4/3 lens is the equivalent of a 18-36mm lens in 35mm format.

Small Infrared Remote

The E-620 works with a small 11-gram (0.4-oz) RM-1 infrared remote unit that came with one of my Olympus P/S cameras about five years ago. It is great for self-portraits and as a "cable release." I love that Olympus has retained compatibility for this small and light remote, especially after I ended up paying $80 for a heavier cable release for a Nikon D300.

Carrying the E-620 in the Backcountry

The E-620 with stock 14-42 lens or 9-18 fits into a 170-g (6-oz) Lowepro Mini-Zoom case, which is easily carried with the strap over my shoulder and the camera resting on my chest. The whole setup, case included, weighs less than most mid-size sensor DSLRs.

My first thought at carrying a DSLR, even a small one like the E-620, on my chest while backpacking was "Not gonna happen, no way, nuh-uh." Still, tempted by the image quality improvements of the larger camera, I decided to give it a try. I was surprised how little it impacted my backpacking. Carrying the camera on trail is a cinch, but it usually stays on my chest for much of my time canyoneering and during cross-country mountain travel. At around Class III climbing, the camera goes into the top of my pack. Even so, I end up taking the camera out of the pack for more photos than I thought I would. The results are so good, I’m inspired to keep taking more pictures.

What’s Good

• First-rate out-of-camera JPEGs (a significant increase in highlight capture vs. the E-520). Little incentive to shoot or process RAW files for much of your photography. A big savings in time and hassle, plus far more images on each storage card and better burst speed response.
• Excellent dynamic range at ISO 200 – Set it there. Leave it there!
• Many superb, lightweight Olympus 4/3 lenses available. In particular for backpacking use:
  
  • Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD, environmentally sealed (regarded as one of the best digital zooms)
  • Zuiko Digital ED14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II
  • Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
  • Zuiko Digital ED 50mm F2.0 Macro
  • Zuiko 76.5g (2.7 oz) 25mm pancake lens (only decent optics, but extremely light)
  • Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6. (stock, kit lens; solid, if not superb, optical performance, light – only 6.7 oz – and compact)
  • Zuiko 40-150 kit zoom (honorable mention)
  • Zuiko 35mm macro (cheapo but amazing)
  • Zuiko EC14 teleconverter (honorable mention)
• Effective in-camera image stabilization. Works for any 4/3 lens, regardless of manufacturer, also works for legacy manual-focus prime lenses.
• Good multi-sensor auto focus.
• Consistent metering system.
• Good performance in low light (viewfinder, focus, image stabilization and ISO performance).
• Extremely fast and easy to use. Many direct access external controls: buttons, control knob, and Super Control Panel to quickly access all commonly used functions, plus customizable controls.
• Large, bright, swivel LCD display.
• Shadow Adjustment Technology works to capture shadow detail in high contrast situations.
• Compact enough to fit into the smallest Lowepro-Zoom case.

What’s Not So Good

• No video recording capability.
• Viewfinder is a bit tunnel like compared to heavier APS-C cameras (although it’s an improvement over the E-520, and perfectly usable in the field). It is far superior to LCD-only cameras, and even EVF (electronic viewfinder) cameras.
• LCD display not as high resolution as some of the heavier APS-C cameras.
• Not quite the high ISO performance as the best (but heavier) APS-C cameras. The E-620 is solidly competitive to ISO 800/1600, and with in-body image stabilization, I have yet to go higher than ISO 400 in the field.
• Adopting the smaller capacity and lighter battery from the E-4xx series rather than the larger battery used in most Olympus DSLRs yields decent, but not the longest, battery life. My battery life is in the range of five to seven days in the field. (Extra batteries are small and light. It’s easy to carry one or two more.)

Conclusion

In the end it is a matter of personal choice where you draw the line on image quality versus weight and bulk. Some are happy taking pictures with a cell phone; others will never part with their 3.5-pound, full-frame Canon 5d mk II. I’ve even run into view camera photographers lugging ten to twenty pounds of camera gear deep in the canyons of southern Utah.

For me the E-620 hits the sweet spot of weight to performance for a backpacking camera. It comes very close to image quality of the best DSLRs at a fraction of the weight, bulk, and cost. It is light enough that it does not impact my hiking or wilderness experience. Thus, I take the camera on more trips and produce more high quality photographs. At the sizes I print, the E-620 yields large, sharp photographic prints, with excellent color and dynamic range – photographs that I am proud to have hanging on my wall. In summary, carrying the E-620 has reignited my enthusiasm and love for serious backcountry photography.

My only regret is that Olympus did not see fit to add HD video to the camera. With 1080p, 24 fps HD video with a decent codec and a jack for an external stereo microphone, this would be close to the perfect lightweight tool for professional quality still photography, and near professional quality backcountry videography. I can only hope the E-630 will add this feature. (If they do, I would expect a significant increase in price.)

Specifications

MSRP:	$599.99 (body only) $699.99 (with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Lens)
Dimensions (W x H x D):	5.11 x 3.7 x 2.36 inches (excluding protrusions)
Weight:	Manufacturer Claimed Weight: 1.04 lb (body only) BPL Measured Weight: 1.05 lb (body only) BPL Measured Weight: 1.15 lb .52 kg (body, memory card, battery)
Memory:	CompactFlash Type III (UDMA), Microdrive, xD-Picture Card
Sensor size:	17.3 mm (H) x 13.0 mm (V)
Lens mount:	Four Thirds Mount
Megapixels:	12.3 effective (maximum available is 13.1 at 4:3 aspect ratio)
Screen:	Hypercrystal LCD, 2.7 inches diagonal, 230K dots
ISO sensitivity:	Auto: ISO 200 – 3200 (customizable, default is 200 – 800) Manual ISO 100 – 3200, 1/3 or 1 EV steps
Exposure modes:	Auto, Program AE, Aperture Priority AE, Shutter Priority AE, Manual, Scene Program AE, Scene Select AE
Metering:	EV 1-20, digital ESP, center weighted average, spot
Focusing:	Single AF, Continuous AF, Manual Focus
File format:	RAW (12-bit lossless compression), JPEG, RAW+JPEG
Recording image size:	RAW 4032 x 3024 pixels JPEG 4032 x 3024 pixels – 640 x 480 pixels
Image Stabilizer System:	Built in (Imager shift image stabilizer)
Drive modes:	Single-frame shooting, Sequential shooting H, Sequential shooting L, Self-timer, Remote control
Flash:	Pop-up, plus hot shoe
Viewfinder	Eye-level single-lens reflex viewfinder
Dust reduction:	Supersonic Wave Filter (dust reduction system for image sensor)
Shutter speed:	P(Ps), S, A, M mode- 60, 14000 sec.
Anti shock mode:	Available (1 to 30 sec. selectable)
PC interface:	USB 2.0 High Speed for storage and camera control (MTP mode is available)
USB/Video connector: –	Dedicated multi-connector (Video NTSCPAL selectable, Optional Remote cable RM-UC1 is available)
Battery:	BLS-1 Li-ion battery (included)
Included:	Camera Body, Li-ion battery BLS-1, Li-ion battery charger BCS-1, USB/Video Multi cable, Eye piece cover EPC-1, Shoulder strap, OLYMPUS Master CD-ROM, Instruction manual, Warranty card

Introduction

I still have my original Gossamer Gear G4 frameless backpack. It has a few holes in the bottom from scraping over rocks, but it’s still a perfectly good pack. Fast forward to the new Gossamer Gorilla pack, and you will notice some familiar features – front and side mesh pockets, rolltop closure, wide shoulder straps, sleeping pad sleeve, and you can still stuff socks for padding in the shoulder straps and hipbelt if you want. Conceptually, Gossamer Gear packs have not changed, but there are huge improvements in the details that make them a whole lot better. The new Gorilla backpack, with its durable fabrics and removable curved aluminum frame, is state-of-the-art Gossamer Gear. (And you can still purchase a new G4 if you need a replacement.)

Gossamer Gear introduced an ultralight removable frame in their Mariposa backpack back in 2004, consisting of two straight carbon fiber stays (0.9 ounce/pair) inserted into sleeves on the backpanel. The Mariposa could be used either as a frameless backpack or with the stays inserted to increase its load carrying capacity. The concept was a big advancement at the time (an ultralight frameless or internal frame backpack ALL IN ONE!), but the straight stays were less than ideal for pack fit and load-carrying comfort. After experimenting with several prototypes, they developed a curved aluminum stay (3.4 ounces) that fits into the same sleeves on the backpanel. I have tested both versions and can unequivocally say that the curved stay, along with other improvements incorporated into the Gorilla pack, are a big improvement. This pack is near perfection!

Description

The new Gossamer Gear Gorilla is designed to be as versatile as possible. The pack comes in three sizes (S, M, L) and three hipbelt sizes are available. The pack body is the same for all pack sizes; the shoulder straps are simply sewn on at different heights to create different pack torso lengths. Many components (frame, hipbelt, sternum strap, shoulder strap and hipbelt padding, bungie system) of the pack are removable, so the user can choose the components he/she wants to use. Accessory hipbelt pockets are available for hikers who want to add them.

The Gorilla (2800 cubic inches, 23.2 ounces size Medium) is the second lightest internal frame backpack available. The lightest is the Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus (3600 cubic inches, 22.3 ounces size Medium), which is constructed of lighter fabrics and has the same stay (yes, the stay is interchangeable, and older Mariposas can be easily retrofitted).

The key factors that differentiate the Gorilla (besides its lower volume) are more durable fabrics (210 denier PU coated ripstop body and durable stretch nylon pockets) and removable curved stay. The revised Miniposa (14.5 ounces size Medium) has the same dimensions and feature set, but it is constructed of silnylon and does not have a stay. The difference in weight between the two packs is 7.8 ounces, which is the weight added to the Gorilla by the removable frame and durable fabrics.

Suspension System and Features

Note that the Gorilla pack does not have a torso length adjustment, so it’s important to measure your torso length and choose the correct pack size. Hipbelt sizes are based on hiker girth. The only pack fit adjustment on the Gorilla is the shoulder strap length; the pack does not have load lifter straps or hipbelt stabilizer straps.

Field Testing

I tested the Gorilla on a number of on-trail and off-trail summer backpacking trips in the southern Rockies, carrying weights ranging from 10 to 25 pounds. For one quick overnight trip, I stripped the Gorilla down to a 15.6 ounce minimalist frameless backpack (I did leave the 0.4 ounce shoulder strap pads in) and carried 12.5 pounds. I also tested the pack fully equipped on walks near home with weights ranging from 25 to 35 pounds to determine its comfortable weight carrying capacity.

My immediate (and continuing) impressions of the Gorilla are as follows:

• For me, the pack volume is perfect for ultralight backpacking (same for the Miniposa). It has the right amount of room for my ultralight gear kit, plus room for food, water, and fuel for up to eight days.
• The construction is excellent. Stitching is close and tight, and there are adequate reinforcements in stress areas.
• The new curved aluminum stay is golden! I really like the pack’s fit.
• I love the pack’s wide shoulder straps for distributing weight, and the 3D mesh backing resists sliding on my shoulders.
• The new stretch nylon exterior pockets really stretch out and will hold a lot of gear, and they’re very durable. Outside pockets on some packs are tight and hard to get items in and out, but not so on the Gorilla.
• The backpanel sleeping pad sleeve is much improved; it has stretch nylon panels on the side and 3D wicking fabric face, and it doesn’t stretch out of shape and bleed dye like the mesh used on the old Miniposa.
• The side pockets are shorter and angled to make a water bottle reachable with the pack on, but I use a hydration system, so I would prefer taller side pockets that would hold more (can’t satisfy everyone!).
• It’s easy to access the hydration sleeve, and it’s very easy to pass a drink tube through a port and down a shoulder strap.
• The Gorilla functions well as a daypack for going on a day hike from a base camp
• I really like the durable fabrics; this pack is built to last. The added weight is about 4.3 ounces.
• The hipbelt requires some effort to remove because it has a Velcro patch on both sides. It’s much easier to put back on.
• Likewise, the sternum requires some effort to remove and replace. A screw driver helps.
• The stay is very easy to remove and replace. The curvature can be changed by bending it over something round, but I found the pre-bent curvature just fine.

The heavier loads I carried with the Gorilla were 21 pounds on a base camping trip with my wife, and 25 pounds on another trip where I carried a friend’s ridiculous 7-pound tent to help reduce his 40-pound-plus load (we talked a lot about how to reduce his pack weight!). I found the Gorilla, with all of its components, surprisingly comfortable carrying these weights. The wide shoulder straps really function well to distribute weight, so I did not have any shoulder strap pain at all, and tightening the hipbelt worked as expected to transfer weight to my hips.

From my weighted pack tests I conclude that the maximum weight carrying capacity (for me) for the Gorilla is about 30 pounds, and the comfortable weight carrying capacity is around 25 pounds. The stay in the Gorilla pack simply resides in sleeves on the backpanel. It is not anchored to the hipbelt at all, so there is no structural connection to support the weight. My opinion is that 25 pounds is a comfortable maximum weight for this pack, but it can easily carry up to 30 pounds when needed.

The Gorilla can be stripped down to a frameless backpack weighing 15.6 ounces (with 0.4 ounce shoulder strap padding left in). It requires some effort to remove the hipbelt and sternum strap, but once it’s accomplished, pack weight can be reduced by half a pound. The Gorilla is delightful to carry frameless with a light load; the wide shoulder straps distribute weight very well, and the 3D mesh backing minimizes sliding on the shoulders.

Comparisons

The following table compares packs currently available that have removable stays, allowing the pack to be used either frameless or with an internal frame. Note: information is manufacturer data for a size Medium pack.

Note that all comparable backpacks have a much larger volume than the Gorilla, so the Gorilla is in a class by itself. If you are looking for a smaller volume backpack with removable stays, the Gorilla is the only one available. If you need more volume for lightweight backpacking or bulkier loads, you have a choice of three pack models that have removable stays. Of those, the Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus is the lightest by 8 ounces, but it does not have an adjustable torso.

Assessment

Some readers may wonder why a 2800 cubic inch backpack needs a frame at all. The general rule of thumb is that a frameless backpack is comfortable to carry with loads less than 20 pounds. Of course that number will vary a bit up or down depending on hiker size and strength. For carrying more than 20 pounds, an internal frame backpack is recommended, and the sturdiness (and weight) of the pack will increase as the load increases. The Gossamer Gear Gorilla pack is extremely versatile because it can be used as a frameless backpack up to about 20 pounds, and the lightweight stay can be added to comfortably carry loads up to 25 pounds, or more. With food, water, and fuel, my pack weight is usually in the 17- to 21-pound range, occasionally higher for longer trips, so I find the frame to be a benefit on most of my trips.

Another potential issue may be the need for heavier, more durable fabrics in an ultralight backpack. There are definitely lighter packs available for ultralight backpacking, but they are strictly frameless backpacks. A removable frame backpack requires stronger fabrics to avoid damage from the stays wearing through or seams blowing out when the pack is under stress from heavier loads.

More durable fabrics also extend the life of the backpack considerably. The initial trend in ultralight frameless backpacks was to make them as light as possible, which meant really light fabrics like spinnaker and cuben fiber. And, yes, it is nice to have a super light pack for the times you want to backpack as light as possible. However, the current trend is to balance lightweight and durability, as evidenced by many of the current backpack models offered by Gossamer Gear, Six Moon Designs, Ultralight Adventure Equipment, and Mountain Laurel Designs. Pack designers and users have realized that incorporating durable fabrics into a pack does not increase weight that much, but it vastly increases durability and longevity. If you subscribe to that rationale, the Gossamer Gear Gorilla pack is an excellent choice.

Since I most frequently carry loads in the 17- to 21-pound range, I was inclined to use the Gorilla with all of its components because they simply work well together to provide a very comfortable pack that carries a moderate load very well. I personally found all of the features on the Gorilla worth their weight, except the bungie system, which I don’t find very useful, but it’s easily added when it’s needed. The 1.6-ounce SitLight pad provided with the pack is also very useful as a backpanel pad, if you don’t use a sleeping pad that is compatible with the pad sleeve (like the Big Agnes Clearview pad or Therm-a-Rest NeoAir pad). The bottom line is the Gorilla comes with a full complement of features, and most of them are removable, so you can set up the pack to match the trip and your personal preferences to your heart’s content. Or, if you simply use the pack the way it comes out of the box, it’s still very light and very comfortable to carry with moderate loads.

Specifications

Year/Model	2009 Gossamer Gear Gorilla (www.gossamergear.com/)
Style	Removable internal frame, top loading, roll down top with top compression strap
Volume	2800 cu in (46 L) total 2,400 cu in (39 L) in main pack body and extension collar 400 cu in (6.5 L) in front and side pockets
Weight	Size L tested, includes pack, frame, shoulder and hipbelt pads, bungie attachment system. Measured weight: 24.5 oz (695 g) Manufacturer specification: 24.2 oz (686 g)
Sizes Available	Unisex S, M, L; 3 hipbelt sizes
Torso Fit Range	Small: fits torsos 13-17 in (33-43 cm) Medium: fits torsos 16-20 in (41-51 cm) Large: fits torsos 20-24 in (51-61 cm)
Fabrics	210d PU coated ripstop nylon, 30d silnylon, 4.5 oz/yd2 stretch nylon
Frame Material	6061 aluminum tubing
Features	Durable fabrics, removable curved aluminum stay, removable hipbelt available in 3 sizes, removable/adjustable sternum strap with whistle buckle, removable padding in shoulder straps and hipbelt, removable front bungie system, sleeping pad sleeve on backpanel, one front and two side stretch nylon pockets with 210d ripstop nylon on bottom, twp side compression straps, Y-top compression strap, extension collar, drawcord closure, 3D wicking fabric on inside of shoulder straps and hipbelt and on the backpanel, hydration sleeve with two hose ports, ice axe loop, haul loop
Volume To Weight Ratio	114.3 cu in/oz (based on 2800 cu in and measured weight of 24.5 oz)
Maximum Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity	25 lb estimated comfortable load for an average person carrying the pack all day
Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio	16.3 (based on 25 lb and a measured weight of 1.53 lb)
MSRP	US$165
Included	Pack with curved aluminum stay and hipbelt, closed cell foam pads for hipbelt and shoulder straps, bungie system, SitLight pad for backpanel

What’s Good

• Lightest lower volume removable frame backpack available.
• Pack volume is just right for ultralight backpacking.
• Three pack sizes and three hipbelt sizes to fit most hikers.
• Removable stays allow use as a frameless or internal frame pack.
• Many components are removable, allowing the user to set up the pack for individual trips or personal preference.
• Durable fabrics and mesh.
• Contoured tubular frame is very lightweight and fits well.
• Stretch nylon pockets are very durable and stretch easily to hold a lot of gear.
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size).
• Comfortably carries moderate loads.

What’s Not So Good

• No backpanel ventilation.
• Frame not anchored to hipbelt.
• Shoulder straps may be too wide for some hikers.
• Grosgrain loop on frontpanel interferes with tightening the top strap.

Recommendations For Improvement

• None, the Gorilla pack is as ideal as it gets.