The Online Photographer

Thom Hogan wrote, in response to yesterday's post about the new OM-3 (and I admit I did kind of provoke him, because he was one of the people complaining that the new OM-3 has no built-in handgrip):

"I'm sorry, but if 'the aftermarket will take care of the handgrip' is a thing, then what's that say about the actual design process in the first place?

"The Japanese are culturally driven. They often value 'smaller' over 'functional.' This is why we got soap bar cameras in the first place. Thing is, the Japanese market is not a sustainable niche all by itself, particularly if you look at the price points at which the Japanese public is actually buying (way below the OM-3 price).

"There's a reason why grips evolved on cameras, and the reason hasn't gone away. But the designers seem to think it has."

We differ on this. There were plenty of "soap bar cameras" before the Japanese had much to say about anything. They practically all were. Look at any of the Leica rangefinders—or even the Leica film SLRs up till the R5 (1987), which had a very gentle ridge on the back for the thumb. The famous Argus C3 "brick." The Voigtländer Vito. Folders. The Exaktas. None of them had built-in grips. The list goes on. In fact, most of us would be hard pressed to name 10 cameras with a built-in handgrip (the Linhof 220 being one) before molded polycarbonate construction became a big thing. A handy milepost for that happening might have been the Canon T-90 of 1986, the last Canon to use the old FD mount and the harbinger of Canons to come.

Earlier-era Japanese cameras made of metal seldom had built-in grips. Compact rangefinders of the '70s didn't (see Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest classic cameras pages). The Nikon FE and FM series didn't have them. Neither did the Canon AE-1 and its siblings. The Canon A-1 is almost the exception that proves the rule: it had a protrusion on the battery door, well away from the side of the camera and much less tall than the camera, that Canon, in the instruction book, called a "finger grip." It also had a factory-provided but removeable "Action Grip" which seems a bit twee today:

Action Grip
The A-1 has a handy, built-in finger grip, but to make camera holding all the easier, it comes with a detachable action grip as well. Before attaching the grip, load the battery into the camera. Then, using a coin, screw the grip into the action grip mounting socket guided by the positioning pin on the front of the camera body. (From the manual, courtesy Joe Chan Manuals.)

For those who demanded to be ready for action!  :-).

There are plenty of smaller digital cameras today or recently that don't have built-in grips, like the Fuji X-E series, Sony RX100 series, or Leica Q series. Maybe that does betray a "smaller is better" bias—or maybe on tiny cameras there just isn't room for a grip. Many "retro" cameras today dispense with much more than a tiny bump or ridge that can hardly be called a "hand" grip. And sometimes those are only on the back, as with the Lumix S9. My Sigma FP doesn't have a built-in grip, and I even gathered some of the grip options and wrote a post about it.

The reason the new OM-3 doesn't have a built-in grip, in my opinion, is that it's meant to appeal to fans of retro, and its designers were clearly inspired by the look/form of the original 1970s–80s OM-1 through 4Ti cameras...none of which had built-in grips. The OM-4[x] had a tiny threaded hole on the right side of the camera that you could use to screw in a tiny plastic protrusion that could be called a grip, although it's so tiny it makes the Canon's Action Grip look stout. [UPDATE: Bill Shannon says the old OM-3 had it too.] But you didn't have to use it. The others didn't have grips unless you added an accessory motor-winder or -drive.

The downside of getting a grip
I actually like grips. I love the deep, beefy grip on the Sony A6700, for example. (Why are grips on smaller cameras smaller, and on bigger cameras bigger? That never made any sense to me. Your hand is the same size no matter what size camera you're using.)

UPDATE: Danny Roberts and Dan B. contributed that the first camera with a built-in grip might have been the Konica FS-1 of 1979. You can see it at Camera-Wiki. It was the first camera with a built-in motor drive, and needed the space to house the four AA batteries that powered the motor. Ergo, an instant integral grip. (My father had one—like Danny Roberts, my own conclusion was that I didn't need a built-in motor drive.) Dan B. points out that it also came with a 40mm ƒ/1.8 as a standard lens. This might have been a first for an interchangeable-lens SLR, but a number of the compact fixed-lens rangefinders of the '70s had 40mm lenses.

See their comments below.

There was a period in the '80s when built-in grips were a new thing and suddenly seemed cool. The Canon EOS 6[xx] series, which I believe started with the 620 and included the very popular 630 as well as the 600, 650, and RT, featured built-in grips. The series was Canon's first big hit of the EOS era—the models proliferated, and the 630 was a best-seller. At least for the fancy pellicle-mirror RT, you could buy a larger grip—I know because I had one. It featured a nifty but not entirely practical leather or leather-like pad that covered your knuckles when you had the camera in your hand. The internet doesn't seem to have a picture of it. The most comfortable film SLR grip ever, in my opinion, was the one for the Pentax LX. The camera had two protruding pins and a threaded hole that you could use for adding a hand grip. If memory serves, I believe Pentax offered a grip made of wood for it (here's  an aftermarket one). Would Oren know? I asked him:

No grip came with the body. (I purchased one of my two bodies new, back in 1984.) Pentax offered two accessory grip options. Here is how Pentax described them:

"Accessory Grip B is hand-contoured for added balance and handling convenience. For more precise requirements, the Accessory Grip A can be shaped to meet the photographer's individual needs using a whittling knife or similar instrument and sandpaper to smooth out the rough edges."

I've never owned either of the grips, and its been a very long time—decades—since I've handled either at a dealer or camera show. My recollection is that Grip B is certainly plastic, and that Grip A, the carve-able one, was some sort of odd composite material. I doubt that it was wood, but I'm not certain. You can try Googling images of 'Pentax LX Grip A' and see what you think.

Of course there could well have been wooden ones marketed by third parties.

Built-in grips are nice, and make sense. But there's a downside. Isn't there always?

It's that the camera you otherwise want might not have the grip that feels the best to your hand. Naturally, we can adapt ourselves to a wide range of grips, even if they're not ideal, and, mostly, we get used to what our camera comes with. If it's not perfect, well, suck it up, soldier.

The late Herbert Keppler, who went by Burt—yes, spelled like that—was the longtime Publishing Director of the two biggest amateur hobbyist photo magazines for many years, first Modern Photography, then Popular Photography. For amateurs and hobbyists he was perhaps the most prominent commenter on the passing scene in photography for a period of several decades. I remember many of his columns, but one in particular mentioned that, because he had seen and tried so many cameras over the years, he had a laundry list in his head of all the features that he had liked the best. One camera would get one thing right, another would do something else best, and so on. My memory is that he tried to imagine a camera that included all of those ideal features. I've never been able to find that column again, so memory is all I have to go on.

However, I know how that goes. For me, my Fuji X-T1 had the grip situation "handled" the best, pun not necessarily unintended. It has a small integral grip, but Fuji offered not one but two different add-on versions to make the grip larger. I used the larger of the two. It hasn't been off my camera since I got it.

In an ideal situation, I'd prefer being able to choose my grip size from several alternatives, as you could with the X-T1. But it appears that even Fuji hasn't continued its own trend with the newer X-T[x] series models.

Back to the subject at hand, the new OM-3: it's possible that OM System will add grip options for the OM-3 soon, and it's possible or even probable that custom grips will soon be available from somewhere. Again, just my guess. But, assuming this happens, then I really don't think it's fair to slam the OM-3 for not having a built-in grip. But we all have our preferences on this.

UPDATE: John McMillim [sic—pretty sure it's McMillin —Ed.] contributed that he attended an OM System publicity event in Boulder, Colorado, last weekend, and that the spokesperson said that OM System will not be manufacturing a grip for the new OM-3—they are counting on the expectation that specialist companies will supply aftermarket ones.

Furthermore, when I said that there must be people at OMDS who care about cameras, several friends cast shade on that, saying that private equity companies just want to make money. Well, of course—the alternatives to making money are breaking even or losing money, and nobody sets out to do those other two things. But that's not what I meant. I meant that I think the OM-3 itself looks to be nice enough, and nicely judged enough, that there must be passionate, committed, thoughtful—dare I say it, caring—minds behind it. The people who work for a company can be distinct from the people who own it. And I don't care much if it does or doesn't offer fancy features that outperform stablemates or competitors—is the OM-1 mark II so bad that it has to be improved upon? I remained happy with my 2014 Fuji X-T1 for a full ten years, and even now, I'm not absolutely sure yet that I prefer the newer X-T4, a gift from a friend (he switched to the X-T5). An OM-1 mark II in a body that's more to my taste, or yours, or somebody else's, is not necessarily a bad thing.

As a coda, it's not exactly fair to write a book at Thom in response to his passing comment. So if he wants to come back at me, I'll welcome it, and will add it to this post.

Mike

Thom's response, a day later: "I don't want to extend this unnecessarily, but...

"Within all my other comments about the new OM-3 is this: it's basically an OM-1 Mark II with a worse viewfinder and less ergonomic handling, at the same price (currently). I simply don't see how that's efficient use of resources when OMDS has plenty of gaps and problems it needs to address. This is the Pentaxification of Olympus.

"You got me on Leica (and a few others) having no grips. But let's just imagine a scenario where no camera had a grip, that the only way to get one would be to add it. Would you really want to be the manufacturer that kept hearing a common complaint that cost the customer more money that you could have solved in the first place?

"This 'retro is cool' thing is simply a fad. It's solely about style, and styles get stale after a bit. You may remember I wrote about what happens to companies that solely chase style as the key 'new' feature as far back as 20 years ago (hint: one of those was Pentax making colored bodies). It's tough for fashion designers to stay in sync with tastes. Cameras have no chance of doing so.

"Which leads me to this: if a company hasn't already put out its 'retro' camera—several have put out several—it's probably too late to take advantage of the fad."

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Joe Kashi: "I enjoyed today's article about some urging us to just 'get a grip' while others argue to 'just hang loose.' It's a gripping controversy, indeed. Picking up the Olympus Pen-F on my desk, I noticed that it had no front grip, only a rear thumb rest. It feels perfectly fine and secure without a front grip, good enough that I never noticed that the emperor had no front grip. I've recently made a few hundred outdoor photos with that Pen-F and never had a gripe about no grip. For extra security, I also made use of another retro accessory, the camera strap that came with the Pen-F."

ronin: "The classic 35mm rangefinders and SLRs of the '60s and '70s lacked a grip because a grip just would have been in the way. The 35mm shooter used two hands to control the process—on a Nikon, for example, the left hand and fingers had to brace the camera, change the aperture, and focus, while the right hand and fingers steadied the camera, advanced the film, adjusted the shutter speed, and pushed the D-o-F preview, etc. A grip would have prevented the right hand from wriggling all around the machine. Thus, a very neutral, slab body was useful.

"I don't know enough to say if the materials of that era would have even been conducive to curvy or bulbous bodies. Once auto-exposure and auto-focus and built-in motors and little knurled wheels on the body and a dependency on battery power were all available, a grip was feasible, and, in fact, quite comfortable. Plus, you could shoot one-handed all day if you really wanted to. So there is an evolutionary element to the appearance of integral grips. On the original (old) OM-3, who wants a grip? It would get in the way of the all mechanical/all manual body. On the new OM-3, your hands don't have to do the dance around the box, so a grip can indeed be a convenience,"

Francisco Cubas: "I have a little hypothesis about the contemporary preference for the grip. When I started on photography, with film, back in the '90s, the shutter speeds use to be long. The fastest accessible film for ordinary guys was ISO 400 for B&W and 800 for color (but the latter was really bad). You were told again and again to support the camera by the lens, with your left hand, and to not transfer any weight to the right hand, who had the all important task of gently pressing the shutter to avoid any vibration. In those days nobody except people with access to unlimited film (I hear you saying: Garry Winogrand), would normally shoot a camera using only the right hand. Enter digital with its high ISOs, first, and the lack of a mirror later, and nowadays must people just doesn't need to be very careful about supporting the camera with the left hand, hence the popularity and endless discussions about the grip. (Please feel free to edit my poor English). "

Mike replies: Not poor. I edit Featured Comments but not those in the full Comments section, which is accessible in the footer or by clicking on the post title. 

I really like both ronin's and Francisco's comments—I think they're right, and they make points I hadn't thought of. The first camera I enjoyed using one-handed was the Nikon N8008, which had a built-in motor winder and a large grip, the latter to house the batteries, and good autofocus for its time. Of course I mostly shot with it using both hands. But one-handed shooting with it was one of the memorable "then-new" pleasures along my camera journey.