Articles (2020)

 

Editor’s Note: This review was updated September 23, 2009. See added text below.

Overview

The very low-cut Australian-made Dunlop KT-26 joggers, which I often wear when out walking, are very light (327 grams or 11.5 ounces each shoe) and have superb friction on rock. But, they have a very thin flexible sole as well, and in some country it is useful to have a shoe with a firmer sole and bigger lugs. For instance, slithering around on muddy farm trails in France (the cows had used the track as well…) proved a bit difficult as the light tread on the KTs just could not grip. The same problem happened on snow-covered granite scree.

Where I run into a problem with so many brands of joggers is the width. I have wide feet – EEEE width in fact, and many brands only go up as far as EE. Actually, many well-known brands don’t even tell you what the width is, which really irritates me. And if anything is going to give you sore feet at the end of the day, it is shoes which are just that bit too narrow for your feet. Yes, there are other factors as well, like the width of the heel and the height of the arch, but the width at the front of the shoe is what concerns me most of all.

Fortunately, the New Balance company not only makes shoes in several different lasts, but also makes them in several different widths, and the company states the available widths on their web site. This is quite unlike so many other well-known shoe companies, which give you no idea at all what the widths are. In addition, their SL1 last in an EEEE width suits me fine. So, I rather like the New Balance shoes. But please note, the last and width which suits me may not suit you; select your shoe fittings carefully.

I recently reviewed the New Balance MT1110GT joggers and found that they may run just slightly larger than some other brands. For the MT1110GT shoes I tested in the winter, I had a US size 11 EEEE, and found that they were big enough for two pairs of socks. This was good in the snow. With another well-known brand, the US 11 was only big enough for one pair of socks, but the width fitting is only an EE on those. For these MT875OR shoes, I dropped back half a size, to US 10.5 EEEE, and wore them with one pair of Darn Tough Vermont ‘Hike Trek Boot Sock Full Cushion’ over a thin Gobi Wigwam nylon liner sock. This is a very reliable and quite popular combination among experienced walkers.

Product Details

The web site specifications for these shoes contains the usual array of fancy marketing buzz word names for the various bits. I’ll skip them. The rubber sole has fairly good lugs: you can see the pattern in the picture here. The lugs are about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) deep over most of the shoe, dropping to about 4 millimeters (0.16 inches) at the front. The rubber is the usual grippy stuff.

The one place where some may find the New Balance shoes a bit light is in the amount of cushioning in the soles. New Balance describes them as ‘A highly responsive lightweight trainer built for the off-road runner,’ and that is what they are. They are not a big heavy trekking boot. The description goes on to mention ‘exceptional cushioning and ground contact,’ which is a contradiction in terms in my opinion. Lots of cushioning usually means not very good ‘ground contact.’

The inner sole is an ‘Ortholite’ – it looks like a standard inner sole. The laces are lumpy, like on the MT1110GTs: New Balance calls them ‘Sure Lace.’ The body is synthetic and mesh: no leather to get wet and heavy, then crack. The top edge comes up at the back of the heel as usual – exactly why I am never sure, because my favourite KTs don’t and suffer no problems from that. But, at least the back edge is well padded and causes no problems.

Where life gets interesting is inside the shoe. The outer surface of the upper is two strong mesh layers, and inside that is a padded layer. The padded layer is different from most other joggers, however. While it is sewn at the bottom to the bed of the shoe, it is free-floating around the top edge. Pull it away, as illustrated here, and you can see in between the mesh layer and the padding. While not visible in this photo, you can actually peer out through the mesh layer if you try. The padding is not going to crumple up either, as it supports one side of the orange tapes which hold the laces. It extends all the way around the front of the shoe as well.

Exactly what benefits this construction are meant to bring are not clear at this stage. But the construction does mean you should hesitate before wearing these shoes while river walking. The potential for getting a heap of sand and gravel in between the mesh and the padding is high. On the other hand, it would be very easy to wash the sand back out again. That said, the side of the tongue does press against the top of the orange padding layer, so there is some resistance to the inflow of debris.

The plastic finish on the outside of the mesh is rather shiny, and this makes the shoes look just a little ‘tacky.’ It would have been better if a matt finish had been used. However, that stuff is mainly just trim and not very structural.

Field Testing

The shoes were worn around home a bit, just to check, and were then taken on a twelve-day walk through the Australian Alpine region. This was a bit of a high speed hoon trip on tracks, rather than a bushwhacking trip through scrub and rivers. We covered 290 kilometers (180 miles) with 4,600 meters (15,000 feet) of major ascents and descents – not counting all the little ups and down. The longest day, when things went just a little wrong late in the day, saw us doing nearly 40 kilometers (24 miles) with full packs. There was no water where we had hoped to camp, so a 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) and 600 meters (2,000 feet) descent had to be made as the sun went down. The next morning started with a savage 400 meters (1,300 feet) ascent straight from the tent site. There were a few creaks.

The point of mentioning these details is that you don’t want big heavy boots or uncomfortable shoes on your feet when you are dragging down the last half hour to camp. These MT875OR joggers were feeling just fine when we hit the river at the bottom of that long descent, and I was able to delicately hop across rocks to cross the river dry-foot. In fact, most evenings in camp, I was still wearing the shoes while cooking dinner: I felt no urgent need to get them off my feet.

In places, we were walking on some very dry dusty dirt on the tracks – no rain for a long time. Inspecting my toes at the end of the day showed that the mesh construction had let some dust through. And if there is that much dust on my toes, through a pair of Darn Tough Vermont Boot Socks and a pair of Gobi Wigwam liner socks, then the socks themselves are going to pick up a bit of dust as well. This happens with the mesh uppers on such joggers. Our standard solution is to carry two sets of socks and to wash one set every two days. However, while some dust did get in, I did not find any build-up of dust or sand between the mesh and the orange padding shown above.

Many of us have read some horror stories about very light joggers collapsing after just a few days wear. The first-generation GoLites quickly became infamous for this. The picture here shows the soles of the MT875OR joggers ‘before’ and after the trip. (The before photo is actually a New Balance marketing photo.) There is a little bit of wear visible in my photo, but not very much. And the uppers came out looking just as good. The insides of the shoes and the footbed also look much the same as when new.

I dislike shoes with very thick cushioning or big air-bags in the soles: I find I lose contact with the ground and this makes it easy to sprain an ankle. On the other hand, light shoe weight usually means a limited amount of cushioning between your foot and the ground. And so it is with these shoes. This does not mean that every stick and stone dug into my soles; far from it, but I did find that I could ‘feel’ the surface I was walking on. I could tell whether I was on a smooth bit of grass or a potentially unstable bit of scree, and this let me control how I drove my feet. I found I could dance across small rocks while crossing a river with some delicacy.

All in all, my legs may have been very tired by the end of the trip, but my feet were relatively happy.

---

September 23, 2009 Update

Six Weeks in Switzerland

Trails in Switzerland.

Starting in the middle of July 2009, my wife and I spent six weeks walking in Switzerland, doing the Chamonix to Zermatt trail and the Via Alpina trail right across Switzerland. Both routes seem to go over an Alpine pass a day, with nights spent in a valley at 500 – 1000 metres (1,600 – 3,200 feet) and the passes typically being from 2,500 to 2,900 metres (8,000 – 9,500 feet). In some cases there were several close passes in one day, but no matter. That meant we were typically climbing and decending over 1,500 metres (4,800 feet) each day, with packs.

Some of the walking was on a smooth track, but rough, stony limestone country and hard snow, shale, and serious boulder scree figured very prominently (left to right in photo above). There was practically no bushwhacking at all, though there was still plenty of abrasion on the soles and the sides of the shoes, especially from the limestone country and the scree.

Wear on the shoes.

Of course the shoes suffered some wear – any shoes would! This was compounded by the fact that these NB875OR joggers are definitely lightweight shoes. The depth of the lugs on the soles was significantly reduced under the ball of the foot. I also noticed that the sole was a shade thin for some of the very rough surfaces encountered, and the lug pattern was a bit minimal under the ball of the foot (especially towards the end). Both were adequate, but a bit more thickness and a bit more tread pattern might have been nice. The result would have been a heavier shoe though, and the light weight of these shoes was really appreciated every afternoon.

The mesh at the sides of the shoes suffered towards the end. You can see the rips and wear holes in the photo. Frankly, I think the mesh was a shade light and weak: a stronger version would heve been good. Of course, brushing the sides of the shoes against sharp limestone for days on end can be expected to have some consequences, so maybe the mesh didn’t do too bad a job under the circumstances.

When I first looked at these shoes, I thought that the trim over the top near the front would probably die fairly quickly. It looked like cheap vinyl, and I expected it to crack and tear off. I’m talking here about the thin ribbon sections pointed to by the red arrows, not the toe-cap around the front. Well, the leading corners of the trim did start to peel off fairly soon from abrasion against all that rock, but that was a failure of the sewing, not of the trim material. I solved that by sewing the trim bits back on with some saddlery thread from my repair kit – very strong stuff. You can see my stitching in the photos. The fault here was in the design of the trim: you should never create a leading corner like that. Fortunately, once resewn there were no further problems there.

In fact, the trim material survived very well. Sewing through it and the rest of the shoe with a #100 sewing machine needle required a very high amount of force too: it is not cheap vinyl by any means! I inquired of New Balance about the material, and they replied that it was "a polyurethane based synthetic leather with a non-woven backer." Well, to me it seemed rather like the Hypalon they use on snow shoe decks. A bit glossy, but very, very strong stuff.

These comments have been forwarded to the design group at New Balance. I note that a later model of trail shoe from New Balance (which will be reviewed here in due course) has stronger mesh at the sides and no forward-pointing corners on the trim, while still using the same trim material. It would seem the design guys do take some notice.

In summary, despite being very light, these shoes proved to be strong enough to handle both our Australian and Swiss Alpine trips: almost eight weeks of continuous hard use. That seems a good enough life to me.

---

Specifications

Manufacturer:	New Balance
Year/Model:	MT875OR / Late 2008
Manufacture:	China
Materials:	Synthetic fabrics and rubbers, no leather
Last:	SL-1 (see the New Balance site for further definition on their lasts)
Size:	7 through 15, with half sizes 7 through 12; in D, EE, and EEEE fittings
Weight:	Quoted 340 g (11.9 oz) each Measured 385 g (13.6 oz) for US size 10.5 EEEE (BPL measurement)
Colour:	Grey: what you see is what you get
MSRP:	$100 US

What’s Good

• A low weight
• A wide range of width fittings (including 4E)
• A flat inner sole and footbed (no arch support)
• Good friction and good lugs on the sole
• No leather or suede anywhere
• No air cushioning to destroy ‘ground-feel’

What’s Not So Good

• Dust gets into your socks and onto your feet
• Sand could get inside the shell when river walking (but it will wash out easily)

INTRODUCTION

Ryan’s River Journal (June 2009): As I teach and watch my eleven-year-old son, Chase, to packraft, I can’t help but think that the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle is a godsend. He’s not yet grown into the full sized kayak paddles, and the little Ultralight gives him confidence on the water.

A packrafting paddle is not a particularly special thing. It’s simply a kayak paddle, capable of being broken down into two or four pieces for easy stowage while inside or attached to a pack.

I usually look at three key factors (other than length) when selecting a paddle: weight, durability, and blade surface area.

Weight

The weight of an average four-piece fiberglass packrafting paddle is about 40 ounces (e.g. the Aqua Bound Shred FG), although hybrid paddles with carbon fiber shafts can weigh in the range of 34 to 36 ounces (e.g. the Aqua Bound Splat Hybrid). Full carbon paddles are typically 28 to 32 ounces (e.g. the Sawyer Packraft Paddle). All things being equal, lighter is better, of course, and if you haven’t figured that out by now, then maybe you stumbled onto this website by accident. In that case, trust me when I tell you that yes, lighter really is better (with caveats of course). For the packrafter, a lighter paddle makes both raftpacking easier (less energy is required to haul the pack) and packrafting easier (less energy is required to lift and swing the paddle).

Durability

Durability is impacted primarily by the material used to construct the shaft and the blade. The most common materials are carbon and fiberglass. Paddles with fiberglass shafts and/or blades are generally considered to be more durable than carbon ones, but heavier and cheaper.

Durability is of some importance to me while packrafting (especially in the backcountry where paddles are hard to repair and sort of important for transportation). I use my paddle for all sorts of manufacturer-prohibited activities, including pushing off shorelines and rocks, slapping branches out of the way as I paddle brushy creeks, and pitching my tarp shelter. I have used my paddle as weapon against a grizzly bear (all for show, of course, but I wouldn’t hesitate to whack-a-bear right in the kisser if needed), a snow digging tool, a plate, and a packraft polo stick (using an inflated Aloksak with a little water inside as the ball) on a high mountain lake.

Blade Surface Area

The surface area of the blade is also important. Blades with a higher surface area can push more water, and make paddling stillwater more efficient, and make you more maneuverable on whitewater. The surface area of a kayak paddle blade generally falls into the range of 80 to 100 square inches (for touring paddles used on flatwater) or 110 to 125 square inches (for whitewater paddles). Most packrafters will realize the benefits afforded by a big-bladed whitewater paddle. The added surface area allows for a little forgiveness in bad technique. Since most packrafters come from a trekking background, and haven’t been schooled in efficient paddling techniques, big blade paddles are probably a good thing.

But, as you might suspect, more surface area equals more weight.

The Alpacka Ultralight Paddle

Sometimes, a less durable paddle, and/or one with a smaller blade surface area, may be OK for some types of packrafting. Of course, we’re not really after less durability or a smaller blade surface, we just want a lighter paddle and may be willing to make a few compromises.

And that’s where the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle comes in: a 23-ounce paddle for packrafters. Thus, the purpose of this review, is to let you know what my experiences with the AULP have been over the past several months of paddling, packing, and polo-ing.

FEATURES AND SPECIFICATIONS

A number of characteristics makes the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle unique relative to the packrafting paddles mentioned above. It has what I consider a “small-diameter” shaft (1.0 inch, vs. 1.25 inches for the Aqua Bound Splat), the shaft is made of aluminum, it’s a three-piece instead of a four-piece paddle, the blade surface area is quite small, and the length is pretty short. Whenever I pick it up, I can’t help but think that it’s a miniaturized paddle and not a serious packrafting tool. More on that later.

Specifications

Manufactured by:	Pacific Designs
Distributed by:	Alpacka Raft LLC (http://www.alpackaraft.com/)
Shaft Material:	6061-T6 aluminum
Shaft Diameter:	1.0 in
# Pieces:	3
Collapsed Length:	26.5 in
Assembled Length:	74.5 in (190 cm)
Blade Surface Area:	83 sq. in.
Blade Material:	ABS
Weight:	23 oz

PERFORMANCE

For this review, I will present my findings with the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle in the context of both RAFTPACKING (carrying packrafting gear on your back) and PACKRAFTING (carrying trekking gear on your packraft).

Raftpacking

The raftpacker is most concerned about how the paddle stows on the outside of the pack. Now, when I say “most concerned,” I only mean that it’s the most concerning thing about carrying the paddle. The real level of concern here is rather low: paddles stow easily on most packs. How easily it stows is almost never part of my decision-making framework when selecting a paddle.

However…

There are a few situations in which I select a “more” stowable paddle versus a “less” stowable paddle. One of them is when I packraft the creeks of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness adjacent to the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park. When I’m traveling through the Red Zone (the NP proper, where river paddling is expressly forbidden by law!) to access a non-Red Zone creek, I like to carry my paddles inside my pack. Meeting up with Park Rangers on a trail with two blades sticking up high is cause for serious job distress for them, and it’s worth simply avoiding any confrontations that may ensue – my experience with them suggests that any paddler inside the park (especially one carrying paddles!) is assumed guilty until time, storytelling, and perhaps a shared beer justifies innocence. Regardless, if you travel through the Park with kayak blades sticking out of your pack, you risk losing an hour or more if a ranger is encountered.

Ryan’s River Journal (June 2007): I’m finding it increasingly unwise to attempt to packraft rivers and creeks that flow across the borders of Yellowstone National Park (which is closed to river boating), not because of my lack of respect for the boundary or the rules, but because it takes such a darn long time to explain to a ranger what’s going on with the kayak paddles sticking out of my backpack. Today, we spent two hours explaining our story and showing digital photos of our descents of Slough, Buffalo, and Hellroaring Creeks from their headwaters to the Park boundary. I guess it didn’t help that we were now heading down to Gardiner, Montana, via the Black Canyon of the Yellowstone, well-known for its underground kayak descents by rogue boaters…

The other time I want a more stowable paddle is when I travel. I want the paddle blades and shaft protected deep inside my pack while the gorillas in air cargo toss it around.

The Alpacka Ultralight Paddle breaks down into only three pieces, instead of four, and its collapsed length is 26.5 inches, which is a few inches longer than typical four- and five-piece packrafting/kayak paddles (which have collapsed lengths ranging from 22 to 24 inches). However, the thinner shaft diameter, fewer number of pieces, and smaller blades actually makes the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle marginally easier to stow both inside, and outside, the pack. Unfortunately, its longer collapsed length (compared to my Sawyer Packraft Paddle, which breaks down into five pieces to a collapsed length of 22 inches) means that it won’t fit into my smaller (shorter) day and overnight packs.

The relatively compact size, low packed volume, and light weight of the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle make it a good raftpacking paddle and one that deserves a hard look when the packraft spends most of its time on your back rather than in the water.

Packrafting

Flatwater

Two characteristics I consider when selecting a paddle for flatwater paddling are paddle length and blade surface area.

I prefer longer paddles (> 220 cm) for flatwater paddling. A longer paddle allows for a wider stroke radius that makes it easier to keep the packraft tracking straight.

Packrafting philosophers like to espouse the smaller surface area of touring blades (which are sort of long and skinny, in contrast to the shorter and wider blades of whitewater paddles). As the packraft is tracking, they say that the little blades are easier to paddle and it seems to take less effort to keep the packraft going. However, this is probably a questionable benefit, since packrafts don’t really track straight. The efficiency differences between using a touring paddle and a whitewater paddle for flatwater packrafting are probably meaningless unless you are an extremely efficient paddler who is adept at keeping a packraft straight and have a lot of time for philosophizing.

For flatwater paddling on still water, because some efficiency is lost in poor tracking, the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle’s little blades are a liability relative to paddles with larger blades, and you’ll expend more energy propelling your boat.

Ryan’s River Journal (May 2009). I can’t compete today. I’m getting my butt kicked playing packraft polo and running the packraft races on the pond because I brought the little Alpacka Ultralight Paddle with me. What was I thinking? Of saving 8 ounces of weight on the long walk from the car to the beach? Sheesh.

However, for flatwater paddling on moving water, where propulsion is less important than ferrying and steering, the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle shines. I think this is the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle’s element, and the type of water that it was created for. I thus heartily recommend the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle on moving water where powerful ferrying is not needed. For a packraft, that typically means Class I and low Class II water (PR1 – PR2).

Ryan’s River Journal (July 2008). I was a little worried about toting this little paddle with me for such a long way, but for this big, flat, remote river (Thorofare River), I’m appreciating its weight while raftpacking and packrafting.

Whitewater

For whitewater paddling (high Class II and above), the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle is an inadequate tool. Short shaft length, small blades, and too much shaft flexibility means that the powerful strokes and ferrying required to avoid obstacles and hit the right current lines are going to be compromised.

Ryan’s River Journal (May 2009). What an idiot. I can’t believe I attempted to descend this river (Madison River, Beartrap Canyon) with this little paddle. I’m walking back to the car. Great little paddle, big honkin’ frothin’ river. I’m cold and wet and all swum out. Major user error.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle outperforms other paddles in a pretty narrow window – Class I/II- moving water where the risk of hitting obstacles and dangerous current lines is low. Its light weight and reasonably short collapsed length make it a solid raftpacking paddle, a suitable backup or spare for long group expeditions, and an excellent choice for young kids learning to packraft. However, its shaft flexibility, low blade surface area, and short overall length make it a poor choice for paddling both stillwater and Class II+ and higher whitewater.

Comments from two fellow packrafters and Backpacking Light staff reflect this conclusion:

"I prefer it to a set of Ping Pong paddles on flat water, but I’d rather spend another eight ounces for a more durable paddle with more surface area on Class II or above." — Mike Martin.

"The Ultralight Paddle from Alpacka is just that – ultralight. Having used it to paddle the Scout packraft on calm water, I would recommend it for similar pursuits. Not having paddled it in whitewater, but imagining the potential for breakage, I would not recommend it for this in any event other than an emergency." — Sam Haraldson.

I think it’s telling from both comments that the issue of durability was raised. I too, get pretty nervous when paddling the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle with any sort of power, or using it to keep my boat from bouncing against a canyon wall, or jamming its blade into the rocks to shove off from shore. I’ve not yet broken mine (I have that ultralighter’s disease whereby my gear gets abused right to the breaking point, but I don’t often exceed it) after many days of hard use, so maybe our lack-of-durability fears are a little inflated.

Finally, a caveat and note for packrafters with exceptional skills and experience. If your paddling technique is solid, you know how to handle a packraft in whitewater, and your boat weight is low (e.g., unloaded), you might consider the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle for remote expeditions where sustained Class II whitewater is possible. Still, even most experienced packrafters will be wishing for larger paddle plades and a stiffer paddle in Class III whitewater and above.

Chris Robertson, one of the winners of the 2009 Alaskan Mountain Wilderness Classic, said this about the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle:

"I think Sheri [Tingey, the founder of Alpacka Raft LLC] has done it again with this paddle. She continues to strive and challenge herself to make lighter weight packrafting gear. However, this paddle, like the Scout [a smaller version of the full-sized Alpacka rafts], is not designed for sustained whitewater. We took both this paddle and the Scout well beyond the lunatic fringe of Alpacka’s intended use [in the Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic in 2009]. Doing so, we earned a few funny stories, but in next year’s race I will have my old standby Alpacka and [Aqua Bound] Splat paddle in my race pack."

With all the caveats, however, I still find myself tempted to grab the Alpacka Ultralight Paddle on more occasions than warrant its niche use. I really like its small size and weight, and that alone makes it a thoroughly enjoyable paddle for lazy days of packrafting down the Big Hole, Jefferson, Madison, Yellowstone, and Missouri Rivers near my home, as well as my two favorite "remote but easy rivers" – the Thorofare and South Fork Flathead.

Scope

This review is quite limited in scope. I had one singular objective in testing this product: to evaluate its utility as a helmet camera while packrafting on a longer expedition, where kit weight, battery life, and ease of use in bad weather matter the most. My intended output for the footage from this camera included projection on a large auditorium screen as supporting material during public speaking engagements, and, well, YouTube!

Thus, the review focuses more on practical use of the camera in a backcountry context rather than the technical merits surrounding its image quality or specifications.

Wide vs. Normal

A wide angle helmet-mountable lens was important to me because I like to maximize the field of view while packrafting. It allows me to capture some of the scenery, it forgives imprecise aim, and it it imparts a crazy curvilinear shape to my packraft paddle (the fisheye effect) that has more than once caused somebody to email me and ask me where I got that cool paddle.

My GoPro Packrafting Kit

My GoPro camera kit for backcountry packrafting focuses on the minimally simple, and includes the following:

• Petzl Meteor Climbing Helmet. The helmet is a vented, “bike-style” foam helmet, with perfect spacing between front vents and a stable platform for securing the GoPro camera (weight: 9 oz)
• GoPro Wide Helmet Cam (weight: 2.4 oz with 2xLiAAA batteries)
• Waterproof Housing (weight: 4.0 oz, includes helmet attachment strap and hinge mount)
• Extra Lithium AAA Batteries
• Extra 2G SD Cards

Workflow

I’d like to walk you through the workflow required between the time the camera is retrieved from my pack (in the field) and the time a video is uploaded to YouTube (at home).

In the Field

1. I store the camera, batteries, and SD cards in a 12 x 12 inch Aloksak, which is oversized for the kit, so that the bag can be rolled up a little to protect the contents further while in the pack.
2. Each morning at camp (and time permitting, the night before), I make sure there is an empty SD card loaded into the camera, and if needed, a fresh set of LiAAA batteries. The kit gets stored in my pack, near the top.
3. When it’s time to hit the water, I attach the camera to my packrafting helmet.
4. When I foresee a section of water that I’d like to film, I usually remove the helmet from my head, so I can verify visually that the camera is turned on. While the helmet is off, I press the record button, then return the camera/helmet to my head. I added this step to my workflow (removing the helmet so I could see the camera) because the tactile response of the record button is poor, and I ended up missing some shots when just reaching up to turn it on.
5. When done shooting the clip, I reach up and hit the record button again to stop recording. I usually don’t remove it from my head to stop recording, because the consequences of stopping a recording are less severe than missing a shot. Again, because of the lack of tactile response when pressing the record button, I end up shooting a lot of footage by accident.
6. If I’m camping on the river at night, I’ll leave the camera attached to the helmet and ready to go in the morning. If I’m coming off the river and ready to start a hiking section, I repack the camera into the Aloksak and return to Step 2.

Field Notes:

There is no preview LCD, so unlike most of my digital photography and videography, I do not do any shot previews in the field. Thus I have no idea whether I am being successful or not until I load the clips to my computer after the trip.

The housing lens loses its hydrophobicity quickly, minimizing its ability to bead water droplets and allow them to roll off. Thus, when it’s raining or I’m running water that is particularly splashy, I make a habit of regularly reaching up to the lens and swiping it with my finger. I also found that wiping the lens with an anti-fogging wipe once a day helped immensely.

At the Computer

1. First, I back up all of the original files on the SD cards to my RAID disk. This constitutes my archival copy.
2. Import video directly from the SD card into iMovie.
3. Create a movie within iMovie and publish directly to YouTube from within iMovie.

See, pretty easy.

Video

Play the video below to see some footage from the GoPro camera as part of a story about a packrafting trek in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex from July 2009. I mounted it on my helmet and either wore the helmet, or attached the helmet to my pack, which was lashed to the bow of my boat. The latter configuration was noticeably more wobbly in the rollers, but provides a fun perspective of the packrafter.

Western Mountaineering targeted the 9-ounce (manufacturer specified average weight) Hooded Flash Jacket to provide sufficient warmth in less extreme temperature ranges, like spring and fall backpacking in warmer climates, and summer backpacking in the mountains. Its 0.9 oz/yd² shell is filled with 850+ fill power down, and the jacket has no drawcords, cordlocks, or Velcro. Rather, it’s a minimalist jacket with an essential feature set consisting of an attached hood, two insulated pockets, and a full front zipper. Its quest is to achieve the perfect balance of warmth, light weight, and performance. This review evaluates how well it succeeds on that goal, and how it compares to some other minimalist down jackets.

I like the sizing of the Flash (see measurements below). I am a typical size Large (6 feet tall, 170 pounds, my arms are a bit longer than average), and the Flash fits me perfectly. It has enough room inside to layer over a thick baselayer, sweater, or vest. The sleeves are extra long, and the body extends about six inches below my hips.

The Flash Jacket contains about three ounces of 850+ down fill (the actual amount varies by jacket size) and has sewn-through construction. Chamber size varies in different parts of the jacket, with smaller chambers in the front, and sleeves and larger chambers in the back. The down is uniformly distributed and chambers are uniformly filled and puffy. I neglected to measure the jacket’s loft when I first received it, but the measured double layer loft (mid torso and sleeves) after five months of use is 1.75 inches.

Performance

I tested the Flash Jacket over a five-month period while backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, tent and igloo winter camping, day hiking, and spring backpacking. In cold weather, I wore it as a mid-layer with a shell over it, and on warmer days I wore it on breaks and in camp. I typically wore it in my sleeping bag for extra warmth.

The Flash’s lightweight shell fabric is superb (see specifications). The micro-ripstop fabric is quite durable, very wind and water resistant, fairly breathable (calendering makes it stronger and downproof at the expense of some breathability), and has a soft hand. Western Mountaineering pays extremely close attention to details in the manufacture of the fabrics used in their products.

Overall, I found the Flash Jacket to be warm down to about freezing when inactive, and warm down into the teens when active. It performs equally well as a mid-layer and outer-layer. The jacket’s shell has a good DWR finish that effectively sheds snow and light rain, but it does wet through at the seams with extended exposure. The shell is adequately durable, but not bomber, and requires reasonable care to avoid snags and punctures. It’s also downproof; I experienced very little down leakage, even from the seams.

It’s important to note that I did not test the Flash in temperatures colder than 0 F, and that was only briefly on a cold morning at the igloo while getting ready to go skiing. On another occasion it was 9 F with a 12 mph wind après-ski, and I had to wear another jacket under the Flash to stay warm.

Assessment

Is the WM Flash Jacket the perfect balance of warmth, light weight, and performance? In my opinion, it’s pretty darn close for the applications I have described. For summer backpacking in the mountains and spring/fall backpacking in the desert, where it’s not unusual for nighttime temperatures to drop down to freezing or below, the WM Flash Jacket is just right to provide the needed warmth with minimal weight.

Similar jackets in this category would include the hoodless Montbell Ex-Light Down Jacket (6.3 ounces, $160), Montbell Down Inner Parka (7.4 ounces size M, $160), and the Nunatak SkahaPlus Pullover (9.6 ounces size M, $325). For me, the first two, containing 1.8 and 2.1 ounces of down, respectively, are barely warm enough for mountain backpacking, except in mid-summer. The SkahaPlus, with 5 ounces of down and baffled construction, is plenty warm and very light, but it’s also very pricey. Western Mountaineering seems to have done their homework well; the Flash Jacket is very close to the perfect balance of warmth, light weight, and performance.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Western Mountaineering (http://www.westernmountaineering.com/)
Year/Model	2009 Hooded Flash Jacket
Insulation	850+ fill power down, average fill weight 3 oz (85 g)
Fabrics	Shell is calendared 20d 0.9 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2) tightly woven high tear strength Dot-Ripstop nylon with DWR; lining is breathable downproof plain weave 20d taffeta
Construction	Sewn-through; attached hood; elastic binding on pockets, cuffs, front of hood, and hem
Features	Insulated hood (no adjustors), full height lightweight reversed coil front zipper, down filled draft tube behind zipper, two insulated hand pockets
Measurements	Size L tested. Front neck seam to hem 23.5 in (60 cm), rear body length 27 in (69 cm), tail dropped 2.5 in (6 cm), sleeves 35 in (89 cm)
Weight	Measured weight men’s L 10.5 oz (298 g), manufacturer specified average weight 9 oz (255 g)
Sizes	Unisex XS-XL (women’s specific sizes and colors available in July 2009)
MSRP	US$260

Overview

Garmin touts the addition of a digital camera as the most significant improvement in the Oregon 550t, but I am more excited about number of other improvements. Some the improvements listed below are not even mentioned in Garmin’s list of upgrades in the press release for the Oregon 550t .

Ranking of Improvements of the Oregon 550t vs. Oregon 400t (and in some instances the Colorado 400t):

Field Performance

Garmin released the Oregon 550 series GPS units just prior to ORSM 2009. I had a chance to test drive the new unit on a five-day backpacking trip after the show. The most touted upgrade from the 400 to 550 series is the addition of a camera, but I found another upgrade (which Garmin barely mentions) is more significant: its display.

Display

The touch screen introduced in the Oregon 400 series was a significant improvement in ease of use and speed of use over the Colorado series. The Oregon was smaller, lighter and a much more appealing and pocketable shape. But the touch screen display had a slightly matte finish that made it difficult to read in broad daylight. We had already dinged the Colorado series for being hard to read and the Oregon units were even a bit harder read*.

When I turned the Oregon 550t on, I the first thing noticed that it was easier to view than the Oregon 400 units. It is at least as readable as the non-touchscreen Colorado 400t display, if not a smidge better. I double-checked with Jake Jacobson of Garmin at the OR Show, and he confirmed that the display had changed for the Oregon 550t. “We thought the display was a lot more readable for the 550 but were hesitant to make a big deal of it for fear that end users might think it wasn’t that significant an improvement.” Is the Oregon 550t as easy to view as a GPS Map or e-Trex? No. But the new display turns the Oregon 550t into what may be Garmin’s most field-useable GPS unit.

Note: Turning off the Shaded Relief (in the Map Setup, Advanced menu) makes topographic maps a lot more readable on the 550t. In this mode, the map screen looks much more like the higher contrast, easier to read e-Trex units of the past.

*To be fair, it seems that most of the new high-resolution GPS displays, the Garmin Colorado and Oregon series and the Magellan Triton 1500 and 2000, touch screen or not, are not as bright, high contrast, or as easily viewed as their lower resolution predecessors, e.g. Garmin eTrex, or GPS Map series. After an initial disappointment with the new high-resolution GPS displays, I have learned to live with them as a necessary inconvenience to gain significant improvements in other areas. Even though I may have to tilt the display or use a backlight now and then to make it more viewable, I still prefer the new GPS units (especially the touch screen models) higher resolution maps, faster processors, and improved usability over the older GPS units. That being said, I am still looking forward to the next generation high-resolution of touch screen displays that will hopefully be brighter and higher contrast.

Battery Life – Rechargeable Batteries

One of our complaints about the Colorado was that it had about half the battery life of the previous e-Trex series units. The Oregon 500t has improved power management and has better battery life.

On our five-day trip, the 550t never dropped below indicating a full charge. This is probably due to the unit powering down the screen completely when timing-out and the reinstatement of a “battery saver” mode for the GPS receiver. We welcome back this function, which worked well for the e-Trex series.

The Oregon 550t ships with the newest technology, low discharge, AA NiMH, rechargeable batteries and a very nice four-cell charger. In our testing, the 550t made its sixteen specified hours using these batteries.

Low discharge batteries retain their capacity even after twelve months of storage (90% plus capacity after six months, and 85% capacity after twelve months). This is a great convenience and means that you do not have charge your batteries all the time keep their capacity up to spec. The Garmin supplied batteries are rated at a nominal 2,000 mAh, and a minimum of 1,900 mAh. We tested them at 1,925 mAh.

Higher capacity NiMH AA batteries can run up to 2,700 mAh, true tested capacity. These batteries are not low self-discharge and typically lose around 5% of their capacity the first day and 1% per day thereafter. Thus, they need to be re-charged frequently, even if they are not used. To get the full usable capacity, you need to use the batteries in a short period after charging. If you did so, one might expect a run time of 20 to 22+ hours for the 550t. This would put the runtime of the 550t in the same range as the old e-Trex series.

We welcome the green advantages of rechargeable batteries. But rechargeable batteries have another advantage. No more wondering if you should take partially used batteries into the field for your next trip (I usually do, and carry a backup for when they run down). Now, you can just top off the NiMHs in the charger and you have fully charged batteries for each trip. Not carrying spare batteries would save you about 50 g (1.8 oz).

Operation/User Interface

The Oregon User Interface is a significant improvement over the Colorado, solving many of our gripes. The touch screen is just a better tool than the Rock-n-Roll Wheel. Menus, functions and capabilities have also improved. Text input is the easiest of any GPS I’ve used. In just a few minutes in the field, I constructed a couple of 12-20 waypoint routes on the 550t, including creating all new waypoints using the GPS unit’s maps. (The inability to easily build routes using the GPS unit’s maps was a big complaint about the Colorado.) On the Oregon a seven-year-old could do it. And no longer does the GPS “vexingly jump back to your current physical location on the map,” a big complaint when we tested the Colorado 400t.

Customizable user profiles and menus keep the “riff raff” and “fluff” features (and there are many) hidden and out of the way. It is fairly simple to configure a streamlined first menu screen with the essential navigation functions you use most often. In this mode the unit is very fast and very easy to use. Many screens have multiple display fields that can be quickly customized in a dizzying array of options.

GPS Performance

GPS performance is excellent. Without tree cover, we got a GPS fix as soon as the 550t booted and loaded maps. In a deep canyon with heavy tree cover, it took between one and two minutes to get a fix. This is no surprise. The Colorado 400t had excellent GPS performance when we tested it, and we assume that the Oregon 550t has an equal or better GPS reception chipset (Garmin considers its GPS unit processors and reception chipsets proprietary information and will not release details on them).

Water Resistance

We had a very wet trip with lots of light rain and showers during the day with some torrential afternoon to early evening thunderstorms. We used the 550t in the rain and stored it in a none-too-dry hipbelt pocket that had water pooling in the bottom. We had no problems with usability or water entry into the GPS.

Unlike the Colorado with the Rock-n-Roll Wheel interface, the 550t and its touchscreen interface is completely compatible with a flexible waterproof case. All functions can easily be used though the case cover – great for saltwater use and other harsh environments.

The Camera

The Garmin Press Release for the 550t states: “There’s no need to tote a separate camera in your pack or pocket, as Oregon 550’s 3.2 megapixel autofocus digital camera with 4x digital zoom…”

Well maybe not. The camera is certainly useful for basic documentation of your trip, and especially useful for capturing a visual record of critical navigation points, geotagged with their locations. If you are happy with cell phone quality pictures, you are in luck. The Oregon 550t can do double duty as a GPS/Camera for your trip. If you want a “photographic quality” camera for a trip, you’ll need to look elsewhere. Even an inexpensive point and shoot camera has a lot more features and produces better pictures.

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Things to Know

The included US topographic maps are still only viewable on the Oregon 550t, not on a personal computer. To view the topographic maps and use them to enhance route planning on your PC, you need to purchase Garmin Mapsource Topo U.S. software.

Specifications

(as stated by Manufacturer)

Unit Dimensions, WxHxD:	2.3" x 4.5" x 1.4" (5.8 x 11.4 x 3.5 cm)
Display Size, WxH:	1.53"W x 2.55"H (3.8 x 6.3 cm); 3" diag (7.6 cm)
Display Resolution, WxH:	240 x 400 pixels
Display Type:	Transflective color TFT touchscreen
Weight:	6.8 oz (192.7 g) with batteries
Battery:	2 AA NiMH batteries included
Battery Life:	16 hours
Waterproof:	yes (IPX7)
Floats:	no
High-Sensitivity Receiver:	yes
Interface:	high-speed USB and NMEA 0183 compatible
RoHS Version Available:	yes
Maps & Memory:
Basemap:	yes
Preloaded Maps:	yes (topographic)
Ability to Add Maps:	yes
Built-in Memory:	850 MB
Accepts Data Cards:	microSD™ card (not included)
Waypoints/Favorites/Locations:	2000
Routes:	200
Track Log:	10,000 points, 200 saved tracks
Features:
Automatic Routing (turn by turn routing on roads):	yes (with optional mapping for detailed roads)
Electronic Compass:	yes (tilt-compensated, 3-axis)
Touchscreen:	yes
Barometric Altimeter:	yes
Geocaching-Friendly:	yes (paperless)
Camera:	yes (3.2 megapixel with autofocus; 4x digital zoom)
Outdoor GPS Games:	yes (Wherigo only)
Hunt/Fish Calendar:	yes
Sun and Moon Information:	yes
Tide Tables:	yes
Area Calculation:	yes
Custom POIs (ability to add additional points of interest):	yes
Unit-to-Unit Transfer (shares data wirelessly with similar units):	yes
Picture Viewer:	yes
What’s Included:	Oregon 550t AA battery charger 2 AA NiMH batteries Carabiner clip USB cable Owner’s manual on disk Quick start manual

Introduction

Digital camera development continues apace, shabby economy or no. Hundreds of compact models tempt backpacking photographers (or photo-taking backpackers) from store shelves and internet ads. Folks who want a compact that’s a legitimate substitute for a dslr quickly narrow down this supposed field of riches to a relative handful of ambitious compacts. Introduced mid-2008, the Panasonic Lumix LX3 (and its Leica D-LUX-4 twin) deserves serious consideration for membership in this tiny group.

The LX3 is a high-end compact digicam, part of a small but hopefully growing market segment of lightweight cameras that deliver very high quality point-and-shoot results and still give the shooter significant control over most camera settings. The metal-skinned LX3 has an especially fast f:2.0 wide-angle Leica DC Vario-Summicron lens of modest 2.5x zoom range – a range that must seem particularly loony to anyone impressed with the new twenty-something-times zooms recently dropped on the market. In another notable countercurrent to pretty much every other camera maker, Panasonic retained the approximate pixel count from the previous LX2. Rather than raising the count they chose to enlarge both the chip itself and the size of its photosites. These moves decreased image noise and kept image file sizes small.

The LX3 doesn’t share the Sigma DP1‘s big-chip ambitions, despite being effectively the same size (if half the price). Its closest true competition is the Ricoh GX200. The Canon G10 is another obvious and popular competitor, but is much larger (half again as heavy and more than twice the bulk) and lacks the LX3’s lens speed and wide angle of view, though it reaches much further at the telephoto end. The G10 also has an optical viewfinder. The two are very different creatures, each offering some distinct advantages over the other.

Specifications

Lens:	F2.0-2.8, 5.1-12.8 mm, 2.5x zoom (35 mm equivalent 24-60 mm)
Megapixels:	10.1 effective (maximum available is 10.0 at 4:3 aspect ratio)
Sensor Size:	1/1.63-inch (approx. 6×8 mm) CCD
Screen:	460k dots, 3.0 inches diagonal, 3:2 aspect ratio
Shutter:	60 seconds to 1/2000 second
Aperture:	f:2.0-2.8 to f:8
ISO:	80 to 3,200
Exposure Modes:	Program AE, Auto, Aperture Priority AE, Shutter AE, Manual, Custom (2), Video, Scene
Metering:	multiple zone, spot, center-weighted
Focusing:	Normal, macro, quick, continuous, manual, one shot AF, AF area select, AF tracking, face detection
Image File Formats:	RAW, JPEG, RAW+JPEG
Still Image Aspect Ratios:	4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Video Modes:	Standard 4:3-640 x 480 pixels 30 fps, 320 x 240 pixels 30 fps, 10 fps; 16:9-848 x 480 pixels 30 fps
HD (16:9 Aspect Ratio):	1,280 x 720 pixels 24 fps 16:9 Aspect Ratio: 848 x 480 pixels 30 fps
Image Stabilization:	optical
Drive Modes:	single, continuous, self-timer, multiple exposure
Flash:	popup plus hotshoe
Low-light Focusing Illumination:	LED
Storage:	SD/SDHC card, maximum capacity 4 GB/32 GB, respectively
Cache Memory:	50 MB
Audio Recording:	5-sec audio clips with still images
Battery:	Li-ion, Panasonic CGA-S005 (no AAA option)
Battery Life (CIPA standard):	380 frames/190 minutes video
Dimensions (W, H, D):	108.7 x 59.5 x 27.1 mm (4.28 x 2.34 x 1.07 in.)
Weight:	265 g/0.58 lb with battery and memory card
BPL Weight:	255 g/9.0 oz with battery, wrist strap and storage card
Colors:	black or silver
Cost:	$499
Weatherproof?	No
Shockproof?	No
Firmware Version:	1.3
Notable Optional Accessories:	DMW VF1 24mm optical viewfinder: $230 DMW-LA4 Accessory adapter/lens hood DMW-LW46 0.75x wide angle adapter lens

Description

The LX3 body is roughly a pack o’ cards in size, but the parked and capped lens extends nearly an inch from the body. The lens keeps the LX3 from stowing into a standard pant or shirt pocket, but jacket and cargo-type pant pockets are fine. The zoom control is a tabbed ring around the shutter button, operated from the front. Also on the top deck are a focus lock, the power switch (a slider, not a push button), the flash release switch and the mode dial.

While the big three-inch LCD display dominates the back, it thankfully hasn’t driven off all the controls, leaving space enough for several buttons, a slider switch, and a clever and tiny joystick. These are arrayed on the right-hand side.

The front is blank, save for the lens, the self-timer/autofocus LED, and a small grip. The lens barrel hosts a pair of three-position slider switches for focus mode and aspect ratio. The combo battery and SD card hatch is on the bottom, and the covered I/O ports are on the right side. In sum, the LX3’s layout and appearance is quite clean compared to most contemporaries.

The buttons are small and many require thumbnail operation – no surprise on a camera this wee. While miniscule, the joystick is still a boon for several quick access menu functions. It also operates manual focus.

The Lens

The 5.1-12.8 mm/f:2.0-2.8 lens is a small wonder. For many years, my favorite backpacking lens was a 25/2.8, so this is like a visit back in time. The 24-millimeter (equivalent) wide angle, especially paired with the 16:9 aspect ratio, renders wonderful panoramic scenery. At the other 60 millimeter end, it’s not much longer than a “normal” lens – good for portraiture, but not foreshortening distant peaks or snagging wildlife.

Very wide angle lenses this fast are almost unheard of, and they even allow handholding in very low light. Coupled with the LX3’s effective optical image stabilization (“Mega O.I.S.”) the ISO can be kept relatively low in poor light, which reduces image noise while minimizing or eliminating camera motion. Note: subject motion can only be managed by high shutter speed or flash.

On startup, the lens opens to its widest setting, which, ironically, is the longest extension. This explains the camera’s relatively poky start-to-first-shot time. Zooming long brings the lens inward. (If the camera were to leave the lens at the long zoom setting on startup, the first shot could be taken more quickly.) Zoom adjustment is slower than I prefer and while it’s not truly continuous, it has enough individual zoom steps to not be a limitation. Note: zoom does not function while shooting video. You have to stop recording to change the zoom setting.

Macro

The closest macro focus is achieved at full wide (24 millimeter), and puts the lens a scant one centimeter away from the subject. It’s challenging to do without creating a shadow, but using the onboard flash that close is out of the question. Nearest focus of the tele end is thirty centimeters, which isn’t macro at all.

(Note: unlike proper cameras, compact digicams measure their subject-to-camera distances from the front lens element, rather than the chip/film-plane-to-subject distance that God and Ernst Leitz intended. A one-centimeter subject-to-chip distance would place the subject well inside the LX3 itself.) I find macro focusing faster with auto focus than manual focus, but you can set it on manual and move the camera to get sharp focus. A small magnified image appears mid-screen as a focus assist; this can also be changed to full-screen magnification.

Of Caps and Straps

The LX3’s uncommon (for a compact) tethered lens cap garners interesting responses on photo forums, causing some to thunder that the humble plastic-and-metal disc immediately disqualifies the camera from purchase consideration. I’ll confess it’s not the handiest system and once removed, it dangles a bit annoyingly alongside the camera, but since nearly every camera I’ve owned has a lens cap and because they’re still the most robust way to, you know, protect the lens, I’ve learned to deal with this little issue. To see the LX3’s unprotected front lens element is to appreciate the need for the stout cap. It’s very close to the lens surround and the typical digicam shutter-style cover wouldn’t fend off a direct blow. Video buffs may want to de-tether and pocket the cap so it doesn’t bang on the camera while filming and show up on the soundtrack. (Clever customizing can adapt an accessory automatic cap from the Ricoh GX series to the LX3, eliminating the stock cap entirely.)

The LX3 ships with a neck strap, which seems silly on a camera this small. Instead, I cobbled a wrist strap from a neck lanyard and attached it to the right-hand strap lug. This setup gives me confidence that the little camera should be safe if it squirts from my grip. The vertical grip on the front is helpful for, well, gripping (and, oddly missing from the Leica D-LUX-4) but the camera’s otherwise smooth metal skin can be a challenge to hold with cold or wet hands. With a long enough wrist strap, the camera can also hang from my neck, where it’s light enough to be barely noticeable.

LCD display

‘Til now, I’ve avoided cameras lacking some sort of view finder – optical or electronic – and I’m still adjusting to its absence on the LX3, especially in the sunlight. This LCD is gratifying sharp and bright (dramatically more so than my other digicams) with a resolution of nearly half a million dots. It’s visible well off axis – also a help. But, its high-gloss surface causes some problems (see below). The clever display can automatically ramp up illumination in seven steps in response to ambient light, and also has full brightness and power-saving settings.

Among the many display information options is a histogram (metering display). There’s also a playback mode that flags blown highlights (overexposure). Optional display gridlines help keep level horizons when shooting wide angle, especially held overhead. The LCD is a 3:2 rectangle, meaning that aspect ratio setting fills the screen completely while 4:3 masks out the left and right outer edges and 16:9 masks the top and bottom edges.

An ironic struggle I’ve had with the LX3’s display is evaluating my shots during review to see whether I need to adjust exposure and reshoot. The screen compensates so well for underexposure errors, I often don’t know there are errors until reviewing them on a computer display (the histogram helps here). I have to evaluate shots differently on the LX3 than I do on my other cameras, with their dimmer, lower-resolution screens.

To assist composing, especially outdoors, I sometimes use an optical 21-millimeter hotshoe viewfinder from another camera, pressing it into service as a crude but helpful framing aid. I keep the viewfinder in a small padded bag, clipped to the rest of the kit, when not on the camera. Panasonic offers a 24-millimeter optical hotshoe finder as an expensive accessory, but it only has a single set of framelines, limiting its usefulness with the zoom. A power-saving optical viewfinder setting shuts off the display except for focus and flash indicators and shot review. Focus confirmation beeps tell me the camera has focused on something, but without a look at the display, there’s no telling what.

Controls

Commonly used controls are fairly easy to identify and operate by touch alone, but it’s not always easy on a camera this small. Some competing cameras have dedicated dials for functions like manual focus, aperture/shutter speed or ISO, and I could argue for one or more being an improvement here (focus and exposure compensation would be my top choices).

Luckily, many key functions are accessed by a single press, then either pressing a button or operating the joystick to make the adjustment. But, other features are well buried in the menu system and aren’t easy to find, or even remember they exist. After half a year, I’m still discovering “new” features.

Aspect Ratio

I didn’t think I’d use the variable aspect ratio at all, but from day one I’ve been hooked. Kudos to Panasonic for placing the switch atop the lens where it’s easy to use and to quickly see the of effect varied framing on a scene. Had they buried this control deep in the menu, I might not use it at all, but as designed, it’s quite handy. The LX3 doesn’t use a simple masking scheme that just cuts out part of the image to simulate a wide (or narrow) view, as with the old LX2. The three settings – 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 – all access a unique portion of the imager while cropping out other parts. (The CCD totals 11.3 million pixels while the maximum image size is 10.1 million.) The way Panasonic executed the cropping scheme maintains the angle of view when switching among them. Complicated to describe, easy to use.

Image sizes at maximum quality are as follows:

Can’t decide which aspect to use? An aspect burst mode records all three with a single shutter press.

Focus Modes

Also on the lens barrel is a fast and helpful focus switch with manual, macro, and AF modes. This control is easily dislodged into an accidental setting – usually macro. I’ve learned that if autofocus is really hunting, I need to check and make sure I’ve not knocked it to macro. When manual is selected, it’s operated via the back panel joystick, and the display even presents depth-of-field calculations. Brilliant.

Other Items

This review could easily become a massive recapitulation of the owner’s manual. Luckily for the curious, the manual can be downloaded. Between it and the myriad on-line reviews, anybody should be able to get a very detailed rundown of each and every bell and whistle (I found the pdf on the Panasonic Australia Web site). Still, a few more features warrant note.

The sturdy metal tripod mount is placed far off-center to allow battery and storage card access without first removing camera from tripod. This thoughtfulness unfortunately renders the LX3 quite off-balance on a tripod, and it shouldn’t be used with very small models such as the Ultrapod 1. It just tips over.

The popup flash is adequate, nothing more. It covers the widest lens setting reasonably, but with some dropoff towards the edges. I use it mostly for daytime fill, and there are settings to force the flash to fire in bright ambient light and for variable output. The open flash doesn’t collide with my optical finder, which is handy. The hotshoe provides fully automatic through-the-lens flash metering via several Panasonic and Olympus-brand flashes. My Olympus FL36R works quite well on the LX3, even controlling the zooming flash head, but it’s as big as the camera itself and needs to be handled with care.

Storage and Mobility

I keep the LX3 in a Lowepro Ridge 30 case, which has spaces for an extra card and battery. The case attaches to a belt or pack strap; I usually slide it onto the right-hand shoulder strap to keep the camera close at hand.

Modes & Such

There are far too many LX3 modes, menus and options to describe and explain comprehensively. My hunch is most camera owners use a small fraction of the tools and options available and, living up to my own theory, I’ve skipped a host of the LX3’s. Let me acknowledge Panasonic for providing a usable make-all-my-decisions-for-me mode called “intelligent auto mode” to set it apart from those uneducated auto modes – clever enough to have not just face detection but SCENE detection.

Anybody who just wants the LX3 for the unique lens can leave it on this “iA” mode and the camera will consistently deliver very good results in a vast array of settings. It’s uncanny. Point and shoot… and it delivers. Some LX3 fans bristle at its being called a point-and-shoot, but that’s exactly what it is. It’s just one of the best ever made, and one that also offers manual overrides of nearly every decision that all the clever programming will otherwise faithfully do for us. To wrap up the point, any backpacking photographer can appreciate a camera that can reliably do our thinking for us when we’re too exhausted (cold, wet, verklempt) to do it ourselves. Nothing wrong with that!

But pointing and pressing the button doesn’t describe everything camera enthusiasts want from their camera. We like to adapt to our setting and situation, and the LX3 provides adaptability aplenty. Most of my shooting is in P, A and S modes, with the occasional foray into M. Settings are “sticky” in P, and there are two custom modes for special setting combinations worth committing to memory.

Ninety percent of my interventions are to exposure value, and there are two ways to access it quickly: the +/- button and the joystick. EV adjustments are as much as two stops in third-stop increments, and the histogram helps verify the screen image. I often shoot, review the highlights, adjust and reshoot. Auto-exposure bracketing greatly speeds up this process and also fills the storage card faster.

Image Performance

“How’sl she do?” is the obvious question about any camera and I have to say, “She does purty good.”

The lens is sharp shooting wide or tele, wide open or stopped down. From what I’ve read, Panasonic manages wide angle barrel distortion electronically in the camera, and since I don’t notice barrel distortion shooting architecture I certainly don’t see evidence shooting scenery. Chromatic aberration is likewise well controlled (another challenge with very wide angle lenses) and I don’t notice vignetting (light falloff) in the corners.

Like any digicam I’ve used (and like slide film), it’s best to expose the LX3 for the highlights and work with underexposed areas in post-processing. Shadow noise is well controlled. Flare can intrude shooting towards the sun, especially just off frame. Its presence is another vote for the optional hood. Bright lights and reflections don’t often create flare, implying effective control.

Camera output demonstrates further good design. Through ISO 400, noise is very well controlled indeed and even at 800, the results are quite workable. I don’t typically shoot above that rating and the auto-ISO controls let me set 800 as my upper limit.

Dynamic range – perhaps the biggest headache presented by scenic photography – is surprisingly good. Few scenes are more challenging than sunlit snowy woods, and the LX3 manages to deliver usable detail in these conditions. It’s demonstrably better in this regard than my circa 2007 dslr, while giving up some range to my more clever circa 2009 dslr. Again, great performance from a small-chip camera.

The lens is sharp out to the edges, with minor softening at maximum aperture when shooting wide. The best lenses are sharp wide open and the Summicron seems to at least approach this ideal. Put another way, finding evidence of LX3 sharpness problems requires “pixel-peeping” that most would never bother to pursue. Let it also be said that one advantage of a fast lens is the ability to shoot it at “sweet spot” apertures much of the time. One to two stops from wide open seems to yield best results.

Color and Contrast

Each camera maker emphasizes different parameters dialing in their “look,” and Panasonic seems to have parked in the “neutral color” camp compared to, say, Kodak and Olympus – two makers I have the most experience with. I always adjust levels when post-processing JPGs and don’t often find much to working with LX3 images. Natural light JPG white balance has always been good but artificial white balance performance was initially spotty – weak with pure tungsten or fluorescent, better with mixed sources. However, with firmware update 1.3 (June 2009), white balance performance is much better across the spectrum (literally). White balance can also be set and adjusted manually.

“Mega O.I.S.” Steady as She Goes

Related to the ISO and noise discussion is controlling camera motion blur via the two-fisted approach of fast lens plus optical image stabilization. The LX3 f:2.0 lens and O.I.S. keep the ISO setting as low as possible and enable hand-holding at low shutter speeds. When pixel-peeping against the competition, keep in mind that the LX3 is at a minimum one stop faster than the others (two stops faster than the DP1). Of course, the 24-millimeter equivalent wide angle inherently means you can handhold at lower shutter speeds. Bottom line: I can get the shot handholding the LX3 in a wide variety of circumstances without extra camera support. A further incentive to use an optical finder is it allows the camera to be held close, which is more stable than holding it at arm’s length.

Note: small, light cameras are considered more affected by unsteady hands, and even our pulse, than larger ones. You might not normally consider this an issue but the day will come when you top a brutal mountain pass to unparalled views, and you’ll be quivering like an aspen leaf, holding your digicam at arm’s length in the wind. All this technology will work like mad to keep your pictures as sharp as possible.

LX3 in the Field

Carry and access: It’s nice to get back to stowing my camera in a handy pouch and not slinging it across my shoulder or worse – stuffing it into a backpack. This encourages shooting on the go, and also means I won’t be leaving the camera at home due to packweight slashing. The LX3 is a bit slow on power-up because the lens always extends fully, to the widest setting. The power switch is easy to use, even with gloves, and the zoom control is likewise easy to use.

The display is visible off-axis and allows composition when held overhead or at ground level. It’s not as good as a flippy screen, but that may not be possible on a camera this thin with a screen this large. The optional gridlines are great for leveling the horizon when holding the camera at arm’s length, or keeping the shot level when shooting video.

Composing on the big, sharp, and bright LX3 screen is easier than with other digital cameras I’ve used, but even so, has the inherent problems of a viewfinderless design. Even on the brightest screen setting, the sun effectively washes out the image and, because of its glossy surface, it acts as a terrific mirror when I’m composing facing the sun. I know what I look like or what my shirt looks like; I’m trying to see the scene. Here, an optical finder proves better than nothing, which is exactly what I can get from the LCD at times.

Focus response is fairly fast, partly depending on the focus mode and partly on how contrasty or complex the scene is. Either a shutter button half-press or the focus lock button allows the scene to be recomposed after focus lock. Manual focus mode turns the little joystick into a focus control and the display showing focus distance. I’ve found manual focus useful for setting to infinity, as autofocus systems often conspire against finding focus when shooting objects in the sky or very flat scenes (e.g., a foggy, snowy slope). Manual focus assist has two magnified viewing modes to help precise focus. They’re especially nice for macro work, when depth of field is scant millimeters. There’s also a dedicated low-light focus assist red LED.

I was dubious of the LX3’s macro potential, but have had decent success. In addition to watching for my shadow, I sometimes accidentally touch my subject with the lens. An unexpected benefit: the wide angle macro and very small camera also allow me to shoot upwards from ground level at certain small subjects in a way that no dslr can.

Are there times I’d prefer a longer zoom range? Certainly. Would I surrender the 24-millimeter wide end to get it? No.

Video mode is not something I’m drawn to, but in the interest of educating myself, I’ve tried it out. Video works in 4:3 and 16:9 modes only, and at only one focal length per shot. It’s simple to use: turn the mode dial to video and press the shutter button to record, pressing it again to stop. The display shows elapsed and remaining time. When panning, it acts as though it has automatic gain, which is a plus. You can also extract video frames as still images, in-camera. Sound is recorded in mono and to my knowledge there’s no provision for an auxiliary mike.

I don’t like using the LX3 in the rain, and I won’t if it’s more than a drizzle. The good news is, a long-brimmed cap can shield it (provided your eyes can focus that close). The bad news, beyond the lack of waterproofing, is that the exposed front element collects drops easily and must be wiped off frequently. The adapter/hood will help here.

Battery and card replacement is quick and easy, taking all of ten seconds. The official Lumix battery is a fairly expensive accessory, but aftermarket equivalents are available for a little more than ten bucks, which makes carrying a spare or three a painless proposition. That the battery is tiny and light will surely warm the lightweight backpacker’s heart, and because it’s Li-ion, it holds a charge. The spec shows 380 frames or 190 minutes of video from a charge. I can verify the 380 shot spec and have no reason to doubt the video figure.

If you’re trekking, the charger is very small and light. In the States, the supplied charger is of the plug-directly-into-the-wall variety; overseas, LX3s likely ship with an IEC cable charger (both are pictured in the manual). The camera will not charge via USB connection.

Trekkers might likewise be interested in the extensive in-camera editing features, should they want to print or send photos directly from the camera.

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Assessment

Does the LX3 deserve to tag along on your backpacking excursions? Yes. Is it a complete replacement for a dslr or the big-chip DP1&2 compacts? No, but it’s closer than I thought possible. Will it deliver useful pictures of difficult scenes? It can.

The LX3’s goodness begins with the wonderful Leica zoom and closes the deal with the features and controls needed to wring out its performance potential. Fast lens+effective OIS+good high-ISO performance produces sharp images in surprisingly poor light. Vast user control means tailoring the camera to your exacting needs. That it delivers the goods at nine ounces means it warrants consideration. Value delivered for the money depends on whether you’re bothered by the fact that an entry-level dslr and lens can be had for the same price. Take slrs out of the equation and there is no better camera available today for the money.