The Online Photographer

Our friend Ken Tanaka got lucky and actually received his GFX 100RF—apparently there have been some shipment anomalies as a consequence of the trade chaos. Since so few people in America actually have one of thse yet, he thought we might like to see some snaps that show how close it comes to the APS-C X100 VI.

The back design is really very similar, the biggest visible differences being the RF's aspect-ratio dial and the location of the S-C-M switch.

Top plates are virtually the same, except for size.

He said he was surprised by how small and light the GFX 100RF is when he's actually holding it. If you don't know from personal experience, the X-100[x] is really very small; a little too small for some people, actually. The scale readout is a little soft—it's pounds, then ounces (1 lbs., 3.1 oz.).

Weight might be affected slightly by the attached strap.

For good measure, he threw in a weight measurement of his Leica Q3. He says they're nearly the same size, with the Fujifilm being a tad taller.

He hasn't used the new GFX 100RF much yet—he just got it—but he offered to write up his impressions of it once he uses it more, and I eagerly accepted. I'll be looking forward to hearing about it. 

Thanks, Ken!

Mike

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:

I'd get the Sony FE 35mm ƒ/1.8 lens with it instead of
the one shown, but you choose

So how come we've never talked about this before? We talk about handy, easy to carry, high-image-quality cameras with premium-level build quality, but have somehow skipped over the full-frame Sony A7Cr. Two people, Mike Fewster and psu (Pete Su), mentioned it in the Comments the other day. Who's leading the discussion here? He's been negligent.

The Sony A7Cr has Sony Semiconductor Solutions' formidable high-speed, low-noise, ultra-high-performance 61-megapixel back-illuminated CMOS image sensor. That's quite a draw. (The 24-MP A7C and 33-MP A7C II are still available too.) It adopts that and the BIONZ XR image processor from the A7R IV (which you shouldn't buy now because the A7 V and A7R VI are on the way, probably in 2025 and early 2026 respectively). Yet it's the same size, almost the same weight, and almost but not quite the same design as the more affordable APS-C A6700. I owned the A6600 (still available, for a bargain price and with a free extended warranty) briefly a year or two ago, and it was one of the few cameras I've seen or held in the last decade that felt truly premium in its solid, deluxe-feeling build quality. I have to imagine that the more than twice as expensive full-frame version would be equally satisfying in quality. I appreciated the A6600's big, powerful NP-FZ100 battery, too, and the same battery is used in the A7Cr. Another plus, but maybe just for me: I can remember its alphanumerical jumble.

My only problem with the crop-sensor version I had was that I couldn't quite work out the lens situation to my satisfaction. I liked the image quality of the Sigma 30mm I settled on quite a lot (so much so that it led me to my current Sigma lens), but it didn't seem to work as well on my A6600 as the native Sony lenses. Eye-focus only worked part of the time on mine. Too bad*; otherwise the two would have made a nice pairing.

The lens situation is better for the full-frame version.

Exudes, I say!
Historically I've had a certain problem I struggle with, which has worked its way into my camera investigations a few times—I give up on things too quickly. The A7Cr makes me think that maybe I should have pursued the Sony rangefinder-style cameras more doggedly. Instead of just bailing on the A6600 when I didn't immediately find "the" lens for it (I'm very picky, perhaps irrationally so), maybe I should have considered sidestepping over to the FF versions. (I didn't. Consider it, I mean.) There are more and better lens solutions in FF. I think I'd personally choose the FE 35mm ƒ/1.8 despite its high price and despite the existence of the 40mm ƒ/2.5. If you like 50mm there's the new GM one in the picture above, which is getting lots of buzz. (It appeared in stores two years ago right now.) In any event, there are choices in whatever focal length range you like. 

It's not like I like all Sony cameras. I tried an A7II when it was current, and didn't care for it. It wasn't bad at all; actually, quite good. But for me, it seemed designed to look good rather than feel good and work well. A little unfriendly to the hand, not very ergonomic in layout, and I didn't even care for the "touch" of its surfaces. It wasn't so bad until the Nikon full-frame mirrorless cameras came along and schooled Sony as to how it ought to be done. In fairness, Sony has modified the body design of its FF SLR-style cameras now and is in the process of migrating the new style into the various models. While the A7II just didn't invite me to pick it up for some reason, the A6600 was the opposite. It's beautifully solid and exudes a strong impression of premium quality. Nice. And inviting. And tickled the endorphins, every time I picked it up.

We should talk about the A7Cr sometime. I wonder if I should review it? It would enlarge my horizons, no pun intended—I've never tried a 50-MP+ sensor in any camera. It's probably past time to do that.

Mike

*I wonder what the ideal APS-C camera is to use the Sigma 3omm on? (It's too long for me with Micro 4/3.) That would be interesting to investigate.

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:

Bob Rosinsky: "I think the A7Cr's big drawback is its low-rez EVF."

Jeff Kott: "I’ve always been drawn to high quality but small photo gear, which is why I shifted from Nikon to Pentax to the Sony system starting with adapted M mount lenses on Sony NEX cameras. For me, the A7CR is the best camera I’ve ever owned. The only thing I would change is the EVF, which is OK to use, but there is clearly room for significant improvement."

Mike: "Actually the 30mm Sigma on Micro 4/3 is really great, especially since as a 35mm shooter I really enjoyed 60mm lenses on my Leica R and Contax system bodies. Paired with a 24mm ƒ/28 and a 135mm, it’s a very versatile kit. The 60 is a very good portrait length, even for tight headshots."

Mike replies: I'll go add the words "for me" to that sentence. As you say, if you like 60mm then that's a different story.

Christer Almqvist: "If you are to get the A7Cr, reconsider the 40mm ƒ/2.5 Sony G lens. I have three of the four Sony lenses you mentioned (not the 35mm ƒ/1.8 though). The small size of the 40mm makes it a very good fit for the A7Cr. I use it a lot on my A7R V especially for making pictures of people where I do not wish to hide behind a huge lens. Only ƒ/2.5? Yes, but with stunning sharpness wide open. Sony lenses, at least the G and GM, have excellent build quality. Buy a secondhand one. All mine are."

Steve Rosenblum: "The A7Cr is a very compelling camera. Put a 28mm or 40mm lens on it and you basically have a Leica Q3 or Q3 43 at half the price, with the advantage of being able to change lenses. I rented one to see for myself. Technically it has the sensor and the basic form factor of the Leica, but: 1. The Sony EVF is not nearly as nice, it has lower magnification and less resolution; 2. It has a flip out screen instead of one that tilts up and down (and I like waist level shooting), and 3. The menus, controls and general haptics are not nearly as intuitive and useful as the Leica Q3. On the other hand, it's $3,000 less."

DB: "My most-used travel camera."

Andy F: "My partner wants to get into wildlife photography, so we went to a trade show last Autumn, and we were both blown away by the handling of the A7Cr. When the body grip was attached, we found it superior to the A7r V. It's basically the A7r V, but with a low-res EVF and only one card slot. You should hire one with a GM lens and do a review."

Image courtesy CameraSize.com, used with permission

Thought experiment only: If you could have one or the other to shoot with, financial considerations removed, which would it be for you?

By the way,

Weight of GFX100RF: 26 oz.

Weight of OM-3 with OM System 20mm ƒ/1.4: 26.2 oz.

If you're tempted to make a comment regarding fruit, just go ahead and ignore the above question and go ahead and tell us whether you like apples or oranges better.  :-)

I feel your answer reveals a lot about you. I just don't know exactly what.  :-)

Mike

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:

Steve Biro: "The Fuji. And I say this as a current Leica Q2 owner…and former Micro 4/3 shooter."

jp41 (partial comment): "I'm currently not impressed with the new OM3. I reached out to OM Systems to request a repair for my Pen F, but they declined, stating that the OM3 is its replacement and that they only support one product cycle. I would lean towards the GFX100RF."

Merle: "I agree with jp41 on the concern for OM Systems' long-term support. Not only will they not repair the Pen F, but they don't import the parts so nobody else can repair them either. If there was a way to get mine repaired in Japan, I'd send it there, but I imagine it's the same story."

Rod S.: "The GFX100RF. For me, there's no contest. Its small size and light weight would enable me to carry a handheld camera in addition to my normal kit and still get images with nice resolution and clarity. The GFX 50R, which I have, is a bit too bulky—with its lens—to include in the pack. But the GFX100RF would sneak in.

"My real camera—for architecture—is a Phase One IQ4-150 digital back on a Cambo WRS 1200 technical camera with a set of Schneider Apo-Digitar lenses. The IQ4-150 is like a compact never-ending box of super-high-resolution instant film, only better. Once you get accustomed to clarity and resolution there's no going back. It's amusing for me to read comments from people who don't own a 100-MP camera saying 100 MP is too much. Nope, not for me. High resolution makes a successful photographic image even more realistic and life-like, and therefore better, than it was before. "

Bob Johnston [no relation to Mike]: "For me it would be the OM-3. Notwithstanding the cropping capabilities of the Fuji, the restriction of not being able to use longer or wider lenses would rule out the GFX. If you have to crop to get a longer lens perspective it rather defeats the object of having all those pixels. Having said that, Fuji have created a bold and innovative design and I wish them a huge success with it. In my opinion they are the only makers designing cameras that offer anything new."

Stephen S.: "It's often said that a weakness of Micro 4/3 is difficulty achieving shallow depth of field, and that it's a strength of medium format. With the GX100RF, as soon as you crop it to 35mm-equivalent, Micro 4/3 will have shallower depth of field with the inexpensive Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8. By the time you crop to 50mm-e, the Fujifilm is at ƒ/5.68-e, so an ƒ/2.8 zoom lens for Micro 4/3, at ƒ/5.6-e, will have shallower depth of field. When the GFX100RF hits 63mm-e, it's only got 20 megapixels, which matches the OM-3, and the OM-3 will have shallower depth of field with even an ƒ/4 zoom lens! Shallow depth of field isn't everything, but I think it's an interesting comparison."

Bill Giokas: "Because of the ability to change lenses I would go with the Olympus."

Kristine Hinrichs: "I chose the OM3 and have been using it since the day it was released. I like the slightly smaller profile and have a great selection of OM lenses. I also think the OM IBIS is a deal maker; a large sensor can’t compensate for a blurry image."

Clyde Rogers: "I love the vibe of that Fuji...I'd love to try it out for a few months and see if it grew into something for me. I have the OM3, and my primary lens is the 20mm ƒ/1.4. What I'd miss most with the Fuji (based on reviews) is the amazing speed of the OM3. Not the useless-to-me astounding frames per second rate, but the virtually instantaneous focusing and shooting. The OM3 with 20mm ƒ/1.4 is shapely, easily held, compact, well balanced and light. The controls I need are easily accessed, the IBIS is excellent, and the lens is sharp without any harshness. It is a seriously powerful quick handling camera. If I had to choose one, it would be the OM3."

Patrick Cooney: "I'd love to have a GFX100RF to play with. I already downloaded a RAW file from DPReview and worked on it in Lightroom. I was very impressed, both by its detail and dynamic range. But do I really need one? No. In fact my current Micro 4/3 collection of lenses and bodies are beyond perfectly adequate for my photographic needs."

Gary Mortensen: "I'd definitely go with the Fuji—I do my best photography with fixed lens cameras, like my X100VI."

Andrew L: "I feel like everyone is going to say the Fuji, mainly from pure format envy—I will say that if it were a question of buying them with my own money, and these were the only two choices, I would go for the OM3 and some nice Pro lenses. I'd spend the rest on travel to use the kit in new....

"Oh, who am I kidding? I want medium format."

psu (partial comment): "If I were to go dabbling with newer cameras that I have never bought into before I'd probably try Sony first...the already mentioned A7CR for example. The focus systems on modern Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras are really a lot nicer to use than anything else. They allow you to pick a thing in the frame and tell the camera to just keep that thing in focus no matter where it, or the camera, moves. Great."

I thought the announcement of the Fujifilm GFX100RF would generate more discussion, but the response has been a bit muted. I wonder how come? Here go a few of my own thoughts:

• It's a medium-format X100[x], naturally. Yes, there are some differences, mainly in the viewfinder, but you can't have everything.
• It's very cool. As in hip. Or however young people express that these days. Carry one of these, and the one per thousand persons-on-the-street who recognize it at all will be impressed.
• I think it's likely to be very practical as a picturetaker, taking its specs into consideration. Not everyone can use 102-MP 43.8 x 32.9mm-sensor images, but for those who can....

And take a gander at this:

Wow! That's amazing. Half the lens is in the body. There's your reason why the camera has a fixed lens. Try to imagine that thing as an interchangeable one—well, ya can't. I wonder how far that rear element is from the sensor.

The prospect of aspect
People are quickly—too quickly—arriving at conclusions about the dedicated aspect ratio dial. I personally am going to reserve and withhold judgement until I actually handle the camera and give it a try in real life. Jonas Rask, in his "biased as can be" review / love-letter to the GFX 100RF, actually has a whole section on how the GFX100RF is the digital XPan, in the section titled, "The 65:24 ratio—TX1/XPan mode engaged!" He has many examples of pictures taken with the camera in "XPan mode," including this attractively stylized one.

Anyway, it turns out the sensor is natively 4:3, because the 4:3 aspect ratio uses the entire sensor. But there are many other choices—just about all the choices as far as I can tell, from square to panoramic and including 6x7, 4x5, and a vertical 3:4, so you can shoot 4:3 ratio as verticals with the camera held in the horizontal position. Shades of the old 645 cameras like the Fujifilm GS645s I reviewed long ago in...where? I guess it was in the original Camera & Darkroom. Anyway, I want to see how that's implemented between the dial, the viewfinder, and the files before I rush to judgement. Could be it's not much more than other cameras offer in their menus, but maybe it's done better.

By the way, you really do need to read Jonas Rask's review. Not only was he deeply involved in the development of the camera, but he was the one who suggested it to Fujifilm—and Fujifilm actually admitted in public that they initiated the camera as a result of his suggestion! That's amazing. Companies almost never do that. A company once marketed a variant of one of their cameras based on my suggestion, and they acknowledged that to me, but didn't acknowledge it to the public. Oh well—there went another seventeen seconds of my allotted 15 minutes of fame. Here's one small fun nugget from Jonas's article: the GFX100RF doesn't have a leaf shutter like the tiny X100IV's; it's the exact same shutter.

I like the GFX100RF well enough as it is (without a lot of "if only it had..." objections, is what I mean), and I'm very interested in it on a number of levels. It's been a lot of fun to look into it and I'm still eager to learn more. I think it will appeal to the exclusive coterie of connoisseurs who can afford a "point-and-shoot" with a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor, but it would be more accessible to me and others like me if it were full-frame and had half the megapixels and cost half as much. I guess that would defeat the uniqueness of the whole exercise, but me buying a $5,000 digital camera is just not going to happen. It would be like taking a Piper Cub into Class Alpha airspace—I just don't fly at that altitude. I don't even think I could get one of these to review. At least not easily, or any time soon.

Just like the digital good old days
Fun stuff, though. It would be interesting to count how many "new" cameras in the past few years are truly all new, such that they embody new ideas, new thinking, new design. Not very many, is my guess. This is surely one, and that makes it fun and interesting.

Mike

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:

Mike Plews: "'Digital Xpan' completely put the zap on my head. The samples are enchanting. If you look up what a clean XpanII/43mm combo goes for, the Fuji starts to look like a bargain. It's nice to see something bold come to market. Fuji has a history of medium-format fixed lens film cameras and the GFX feels like a logical extension of that approach. Can't afford it but it sure is growing on me."

Stan B.: "Yes, I wondered if the lens retracted when the camera was shut off upon seeing that diagram! The camera seems fun, with some features that promise to be quite useful, or prove quite trivial in actuality...I'll never get to find out, so it's yet another exercise in living vicariously. It's one very practical, innovative and yet another, somewhat odd brick of a camera in the same sentence. A 50-MP $3k version woulda been one hot commodity indeed!"

Mike replies: I see what you did there. Glad I didn't correct it as I started to.

Tim Walters: "I’ll be trading in both my X100V and my GFX100S for it, which should reduce the pain a bit."

Andrew L (partial comment): "I like most everything about the design. I like that it's tall—a taller grip makes a camera so much more comfortable. My Pentax K-1 has the best camera grip I've ever used, and it's because it's tall (and well-shaped)."

Andy Munro: " I think the lack of interest is mainly down to its price and its size. It is too big for a compact. Throw in the non-stabilised ƒ/4 lens and the number of potential buyers is even fewer. The only plus as far as I can see is the ability to crop using the 102-MP sensor. Good try, but I can't help but think that the X100VI is about the maximum size for compact. It's also got stabilisation, and an ƒ/2 lens."

Patrick Medd: "For the past year I've been using a Hasselblad X1D II with the 45mm ƒ/4P 'affordable' lens from the Hasselblad X system (secondhand, this outfit will set you back about half the price of the GFX100RF). One of the revelations of that system is the crop modes, including XPan and my favourite square and 5x4 crops. Yes, you could crop after the fact but you need to compose before the fact and the crop modes allow you to do that. A dedicated control to access them quickly sounds like a good idea to me."

Tex Andrews (partial comment): "This is the first piece of camera gear I have ever preordered (except some Kickstarter stuff, which were neither cameras nor lenses). I expect it to be absolutely wonderful."

[The full text of partial comments can be found in the full Comments Section, accessible by clicking on "Comments" in the footer, or on the title of the post. —Ed.]

Gary Booth: "I believe that the rear lens element in the Leica Q's is a mere 0.8mm away from the sensor."

James Bullard: "The price tag muted my reaction by more than a bit."

It's the Fujifilm GFX100RF—an all-in-one, portable, fixed-lens GFX camera with a 102-MP medium-format sensor. Just announced, moments ago. Here it is at B&H Photo.

A few of the basic facts:

• It has a selectable aspect-ratio dial! A first for Fuji. So you can have native 4:3 if you like that.
• It's very light at only 735 grams (about 26 ounces). That's with the lens of course. (Coincidentally, that's right at my longtime personal preference for the perfect weight of a 35mm film body + normal prime).
• The fixed (i.e., permanently attached to the body) lens is a 35mm ƒ/4, but read below.
• Costs $4,900. ($6,999 for our Canadian friends.) That includes the lens too, though.
• "The sensor features evolved pixel structure and micro-lenses that enhances dynamic range and low-light performance, as well as providing further improvements in peripheral image quality and autofocus (AF) accuracy." That's right out of the press release (as is most of this).
• It has a digital tele-converter selector lever on the front of the camera to select angle of view. From its native 35mm focal length, which is 28mm in 35mm format, the angle of view can be switched in three steps to 45mm (36mm equivalent), 63mm (50mm equivalent), and 80mm (63mm equivalent). Those crops (rounded) are 79 MP, 57 MP, and 45 MP. Pretty impressive that at the narrowest crop you're still at 45 MP. I guess when you have all those pixels to play with....
• Controls look to be very simple, à la Leica.
• "Surround View" function displays the area outside the image range as a semi-transparent frame, so you can see around the image area in the viewfinder like you can in a classic rangefinder. This is selectable, so you can turn it off.

• Flip-up style viewing screen. Also flips down. (You can see the aspect ratio dial in this view.)
• The lens has a leaf shutter (!), which allowed a significant shortening of the flange distance. (Leaf shutters allow flash at any shutter speed.)
• Aperture selection ring on the lens.
• The lens takes the same 49mm filters the X100VI does.
• Lens construction is 10 elements in 8 groups (2 aspherical).
• No image stabilization for stills, but it has it for video.
• NP-W235 battery allows approx. 820 shots per charge.
• Dual SD card slots.
• Close focusing down to 7.9" from the front of the lens.

• Black or silver.
• Built-in 4-stop ND (neutral density) filter, a first for a GFX camera.
• Includes a "rope-style" camera strap, precision-machined aluminum lens hood, dedicated adapter ring, and 49mm protective filter. The filter when used with the adapter ring "achieves dust and drip resistance, making it safe to use even in outdoor environments where it may be exposed to light rain or flying dust."
• Dedicated exposure-compensation dial on the top plate, which by the way is milled from a single billet of aluminum. The dials are machined from aluminum as well.
• All this and video too.

More pics and info at B&H.

Discuss!

Mike

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:

robert e: "Wow. This thing ticks so many boxes that it would be a terrific camera at a number of sensor sizes, let alone MF. I mean, it's a right-sized metal body--M11 except a bit taller, and at half the price of an M11 body without a lens, and has a built-in grip (which looks right-sized, too). But, yeah, let's see if they can satisfy demand."

Mike replies: You know, I found myself thinking the same thing. I was thinking it would be great if there were a FF version at $1,600-$2,200, somewhere in there, with a 36- to 50-MP -ish sensor. But Fuji's made the decision not to go with FF in anything.

John Camp: "Sort of a head-scratcher. Maybe designed for landscape guys who might occasionally want to do something else at lower res? Made for tripods? Dunno. I think the same effort that produced an X-Pro4 at ~40mp would have interested more people. But that's just me."

Steve Deutsch: "Wow. But no IBIS/OIS for photos no sale."

Tim Walters: "Having upgraded from X to GFX in September, I can testify that while the megapixels don't really matter (I'd be happy with 50), the bigger sensor definitely does, for the same reason as in the film days: you don't have to enlarge the image as much to get to the same size. My 24-inch X prints don't look as good as my 24-inch GFX prints, even though both have full print resolution. And truth be told, I can see the difference even on the screen. Whether that difference is worth the extra $$ is another question, of course!"

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.

Insofar as it's the topic of conversation, opinions about the just-announced OM Digital Solutions OM System OM-3 are divided. Some are saying its purpose is to slot between the existing OM-1 and OM-5, and they give measurements and weights to make their case. Others say it's a marketing move into "retro" because old guys allegedly like retro because we (ahem—have to count myself in the elder generation now) are unable to move on from 50 years ago. That's a bit of a slander, considering that an 80+ year old reader from Israel who wanted to visit me here in the boondocks rented a plane in NYC and flew himself here, and another of those allegedly hidebound readers is doing post-processing in Photoshop using his Apple Vision Pro goggles (and says it's spectacular). I think young people like retro just as well, because old film cameras are a style accessory in their generation. But, old or young or in the middle, retro is a minority enthusiasm, let's admit. I'm in favor; others aren't.

A friend and I got into the discussion about it. We weren't arguing, really—I can't think of a time hostility has ever entered into our communications. He said:

"I doubt that the retro-cult thing is going to gain them many new sales from people who haven't already decided that Micro 4/3 offers an appealing tradeoff of advantages and disadvantages. So ultimately the gamble that OM is making is this: can they gain more by up-selling prospective OM-5 buyers than they will lose from prospective OM-1 buyers moving down, and by enough to cover the costs of developing and stocking an additional model?"

Texting with one finger, because I was eating, I typed back:

"I think there’s considerably more at stake—a new camera makes OM System a real camera company that is releasing new models, not just a remnant merchant surviving on aging legacy models. It might or might not be a significant/profitable product, but it’s crucial for the company’s image and to reassure all of its customers that it’s a going concern that intends to remain in business. Just my 2 cents."

To which he responded:

"On that count it's looking like a fail, at least if early discussion board chatter is representative. Many are panning it as offering nothing really new, rather just a rearrangement of existing parts. I agree with that. And it suggests that OM can't afford to develop anything genuinely new. So the fact that the new model took this form exacerbates the 'going concern' issue rather than alleviating it. And from those not already committed to the small sensor because of its particular virtues, the reaction is, 'but I can get a full-frame camera for that kind of money.'"

Thom Hogan points out that you can also get a OM-D E-M1 mark II, from which the guts of the OM-3 were allegedly repurposed, for exactly the same money as the OM-3. That might adjust as time goes on.

So that's yet another complaint: that the OM-3 is not really new—doesn't break new ground—doesn't offer anything we didn't have before—and that it's a "parts-bin camera," the latter meant as a condemnation. It has mostly the guts of the OM-D E-M1 mark II, some say; some say the guts of the OM-1 mark II. (If you can confidently sort out all the Olympus/OMDS camera designations, you're alone in the Universe. It's like being an expert in Newtonian alchemy).

Even Olympus couldn't afford being Olympus
But here's the thing. We got spoiled for a lot of years. Cameras were a frontier market for a while. Growth was chaotic and intense. Giant multinational electronics companies rushed into the biz. Sony played Djokovic to Canon and Nikon's Nadal and Federer, and the Big Two became the Big Three. Look at graphs of camera sales in the 2000s. And all along, Olympus, conspicuously even in that era, was trying innovative new ideas (remember the folded in-body telephoto lens path?) and coming up with cunning new technologies. But Olympus ended up hemorrhaging money rather spectacularly. I have a poor memory for figures, but my memory is that it had lost $157 million over either one year or two near the end, and God knows how much over the decade prior to them running for the doors c. 2021.

That's the Olympus we want back; that's the Olympus we expect; it's the Olympus we're used to: a deep-pockets international corporation with heritage going back to 1932 that kept throwing away good money to support original engineering and a parade of new products...all at a loss. Now, however, OMDS is a small independently operated subsidiary of a private equity firm, JIP, that makes money by buying and restructuring unwanted and unprofitable divisions of larger corporations.

Put plainly, this ain't the good old days. And I think people are responding to the OM-3 like they think it still is. They want progress! They want new! Innovation, please. Push the envelope. They want to be dazzled and tempted and indulged and catered to like Olympus used to do.

But Olympus used to do that by lavishing us with products developed with endless mountains of vanishing cash from the parent company. And those days are gone. Olympus couldn't even afford to do what Olympus used to do. Why would anybody think that OMDS, much smaller and more streamlined and with shallower pockets—and much less R&D money and fewer personnel (I have no confirmation of those last two things, but it's very likely I think), be able to continue the old tradition?

People who care
Looked at from a realistic viewpoint, I think the rational reaction is to be very pleased by the appearance of the OM-3. It's a fine little alternative. It shows that there are people at OMDS who care about cameras. And about photographers. It shows they are willing to make new products to keep the company alive and viable. Yeah, maybe the OM-3 uses existing parts—but the original Ford Mustang was a parts-bin car, and that product caught the public's imagination, not to mention that it did rather well over the decades. The original Shelby Cobra was a Frankenstein, a British AC Ace with an American V8 shoehorned in. Try buying an original now—you'll need expendable cash in the millions. And we're going to complain that the OM-3 uses a sensor that's used in other cameras? Really? That's often done, you know. If you want every new camera to have an all-new sensor in it I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Acknowledging that not everybody likes retro, the OM-3 a beautiful little retro exercise, at least as good as the Zfc and the old Pen F. And it's nicely judged: it has the new menu system from the OM-1, a big plus; it's weatherproof; it has a single card slot—some of us (there's that "us" again) having no desire for two; the eye relief has been improved (allegedly—I'd have to look through it); and it uses the larger battery from the OM-1. And weight and size are Goldilocks.

Any niggles? Its EVF has fewer dots. That's the only thing I presently see that seems like pure cost-cutting. And you know that I personally don't prefer the swing-out viewing screen—I like the flip-up kind. That's just me. OM System has a long history of preferring the swing-out style, however, and its customers are used to that.

If you'll notice, these aren't even retro dials. The
on-off switch certainly is retro, though!

One thing that's def not a niggle: the Internet is griping that the OM-3 has no hand grip. C'mon. You think the aftermarket won't take care of grips, even if OMDS doesn't? There are like ten add-on grips and cages for my rectangular cuboid Sigma FP, including two from Sigma. My Fuji X-T1 has only a tiny grip, which is one of the best things about it, because I could choose the size of add-on grip (big) that fits my hand. Complaining about the grip looks a lot like trying to manufacture arguments against the new camera.

So, forumers and discussion groups and commenters, as well as my compadres in the nattering class: let's remember an ancient Mikey rule, from this old donkey who's been testing cameras since before LeBron James was born: you've got to hold a camera in your hand and shoot with it before you really know what it's all about. Until then, don't pre-judge. I probably said that in the pages of the ancient and long-gone Darkroom Photography magazine when Ronald Reagan was President, and I've been saying it ever since and all along.

Until then, better keep an open mind.

Mike

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:

Kristine Hinrichs: "I’m admittedly an Olympus/OM 'fan-kid.' Since 2013 I’ve owned every OM-D/OM iteration (plus several 'marks') except the E-M1X. I have the OM-3 on pre-order to replace my OM-5 and complement my OM-1 mark II. I think the OM-3 is what many of us hoped the OM-5 would be, and I would not be surprised to see the OM-5 fade away. I have been hoping for the OM-1 in a smaller package, with a similar menu, the same battery, syncIS with some lenses, and subject detection.

"I think a key here is that this is not being marketed as a wildlife camera. I think OM got themselves in a corner with the OM-1 as people assumed it is just for wildlife, limiting its appeal. I am one not concerned about a grip—if I wanted a bigger camera, I’d buy another OM-1 mark II. I do wish they’d bring syncIS to some of the smaller lenses, however."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I’ve no interest in this camera. But it sure looks breathtakingly over-priced ($1,999) for what it is and compared to predecessors and (mostly Lumix) competitors."

Walter I.: "By the way, Thom Hogan did not say that the OM-3 uses repurposed E-M1 mark II guts. He said, 'In essence, OMDS is doing a strange thing with this new model, squeezing the current OM-1 innards into a changed and slightly simplified body and trying to wedge that between the OM-1 and OM-5. I'm not sure that there's room there for that. [...] Still, perhaps the 'newness' of the 'timelessness' may trigger some additional buying by a few. I'm unconvinced as to why I'd want the OM-3 over the OM-1 mark II, though.'"

Albert Smith: "I may be wrong, and I have no vested interest other than general photography practice, but the term retro seems like a moniker that doesn't match my interpretation. For me, the top deck of a retro camera should allow you to see (and adjust) the three parts of other exposure triangle, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, plus (my most used control) the exposure compensation dial. I can compare my old Nikon FE2 with my newer Fujifilm X-T class body, and 'retro' applies in both form and function. When I look down on that Olympus, I see none of that."

Chris: "Agree with your assessment. It takes some effort to do a completely new body and style. They did it! This shows signs of life and gives hope to those of us invested in the system that the company is alive and kicking."

Gorazd: "This was a very logical and down to earth read, and summarizes my sentiments as well. OMDS is not Olympus, and it shouldn't be. It should pick up where the old company left off, make itself sustainable and build on from there. Anyone that has any knowledge of how businesses operate knows that we are talking a 10-year goal here. First third spent on consolidation, second on finding stability, and the third on getting ready for a feasible future, based on how good of a job was done this far. Hence, I think the OM-3 is a great release. It captures imaginations, offering something new to existing customers and something to bring new people into the fold. The tech has reached a very good plateau as well. Cameras today are really, really good, regardless of brand or sensor size, and people arguing about that are finally starting to sound like relics. Yes, we know FF is superior, but Micro 4/3 is great too, and sufficient for a lot of us (I would even argue most). At this point it's all about charm, use-case, and personal preference, and to me OMDS nailed it with the OM-3. I truly hope it sells well and wish them luck!"

Moose: "I'm an OMS fan. I have purchased four of their bodies. The form factor doesn't much please me, but they do things no other cameras can do. They make possible shots I couldn't dream of a few years ago. Like Mike, I want them to succeed. Some stuff: I worked for many years for a Fortune 500 company with lots of vertical integration. The distribution of costs, expenses and profits between internal entities is as much politics as accounting. Not so much, in my case, because of stupidity or venality. It's just really hard to distribute that stuff. I could go on, and on.... Suffice it to say that those old reported losses from the camera group may or may not have had any bearing on how the spun-off company will do. When we went through an LBO, consultants came in and revalued everything. I didn't agree with all of it, but it made even more clear how arbitrary it all is. JIP may well have come in and decided the camera business was viable; why else acquire it?

"Next: there are no parts-bin cameras, nor indeed any volume consumer electronics. They are made in one-shot batches. If the OM-3 has any internal parts the same as the E-M1 II, that's because they worked for the new design, and were reordered from scratch. I could go on, and on...."

Mike adds: ...And Moose does, but in the full Comments section. What he wrote is fascinating, but too long for a Featured Comment. Do check it out.

Jayanand Govindaraj: "If, as you say, the OM-3 is at least as good as the Nikon Zfc, it is also at least double the price of a Nikon Zfc (which would have better low light capability as it has a bigger sensor for approximately the same number of megapixels). Why should anyone but a blind fanboy buy an OM-3 at a price equivalent to a Nikon Z6 III? It has the smell and feel of a typical product from a company run by private equity, which is all about short term pick-pocketing of the loyal customers!"

Per: "I think people miss that this is a camera that is targeted to be fun to shoot with. People will want this for the feel of solidity, that they hold a high class product that looks good, and the easy access to colour modes and computational features. Will I get one? Not sure; for the ski photography I do, an OM-1 mark II is more suitable. Will I want one? Once I try it, yes, I expect I will."

You might already be up to speed on this, but after a long tradition of removing buttons and ports from the iPhone, usually controversially—the home button and the headphone jack come to mind—Apple has added a button to the iPhone 16, and I tried it. With the phone in landscape (horizontal) orientation and the lenses pointed outward, the Camera Control Button (CCB) is on the top right side of the body, and—it’s really nice. It makes holding the camera horizontally much more comfortable, and puts the lenses at operator’s top left where they won’t get in the way of your hand. I like it. It’s so natural it gave me a strong sensation of, “why didn’t they do this a long time ago?”

Even better, the first press of the CCB turns the camera on.

A short press takes a photo and a long press starts a video. The button is of course multipurpose—it’s also a touch slider and can be used to set and adjust settings. A light touch brings you back to the previous control. And the button can also be used for various functions within different apps.

I didn’t sort out all the functions at the store. But the basic haptics are a radical improvement to the experience and the iPhone’s usability.

By all means check it out for yourself if you’re in the ecosystem and get a chance to try it. It’s a nice, sensible improvement.

Mike

Emails: You'd think I'd get nothing but photography-related emails. But no.

Just for curiosity, I tallied up the last 300 emails I received to see where they're coming from. Nothing had been deleted. The oldest one was almost exactly four days old, meaning I received an average of 75 emails a day. Only four of them were personal messages (three photo-related and one about music), meaning I got an average of one personal email per day.

Here's how they stack up:

• Political: 171
• Newspaper or magazine: 34
• Flickr: 27
• Photo-related: 9
• Misc. ads: 9
• Associations or organizations: 7
• From a museum or gallery but not photo-related: 6
• Music and audio: 6
• Facebook: 5 (I don't participate on Facebook)
• LinkedIn: 5 (don't participate there either)
• Amazon: 4
• Zillow: 4
• Shopping: 2
• Computer: 2
• Misc.: 2
• Gas Company, Medical, Bank, Zoom, Patreon, Tennis, and Keyboards: 1 each

Granted, I don't discourage the political emails (I do when they come in over the phone). But I'll be unsubscribing from a lot of them once the election's over.

Leica old: To commemorate the 70th anniversary of the M camera, Leica is selling a film M-A gussied up with platinum plating, a matching 50mm Summicron, and a matching Leicavit, all for $23k. The thing is, it's not that much more expensive than a regular ol' black M-A and 50mm Summicron. That's not including the Leicavit, which will be coming in the first half of 2025 as a new-old accessory in black-painted, glossy black-painted, and silver-chromed versions. To encourage customers to buy them, they will cost only $79*. A Leicavit, for those of you born in the past 40 years, is a manual rapid-winder you attach to the bottom of the camera where the baseplate goes. It has a little flip-out handle that you pull with your left hand to advance the film and cock the shutter. It's only a little faster than using the regular wind lever; if you practice you can get up to two frames a second. Always a minority preference, but a few people liked them. True Leicaphiles will remember Tom's, which some people liked better.

More interestingly, there's a 70th anniversary book called Leica M due out next month, with a cover that is mostly a funereal black. It's possible it will only be available at Leica Stores, although there will be both English and German editions; there doesn't seem to be a pre-order page on Amazon unless I missed it. It will include pictures taken with the cameras.

Dumbest thing ever: Old computing devices aren't generally collectible, but some are. The most collectible item of all, allegedly, is the original 2007 iPhone. The most collectible original 2007 iPhone is one in its original box that has never been opened. One of these sold recently for $63,000 and another for $55,000—proving, as if proof were needed, that some people have too much money. A third guy, a YouTube reviewer, found one for $40,000. (Apparently it was such a bargain [?!?] because it had a little slit in the shrink-wrap.) He bought it. It arrived in a stout wooden crate that could have held a kitchen sink, with "Glass" stickers on it. He opened the big box and, amid much bubble-wrap, found a little box made of Plexiglas or something similar. Inside that was more bubble-wrap, and another box—the original iPhone packaging, still shrink-wrapped. And he opened that in a video, presumably removing thousands of dollars of "value" from the collectible. That was the video: he opened the box. Oh, be still, my beating heart**.

This strikes me as the all-around dumbest thing I have ever seen. Every part of it is inane: people wanting old iPhones; old iPhones costing up to $63,000; a sane guy actually buying one; the same guy making a video of himself opening the box for people's entertainment; and, people being entertained. It's hard to say what part of that is the dumbest.

Oddly enough, though, the YouTuber himself might have been being smart. He presumably knows how much he will earn from the video (9.2 million views as of this writing), how much his sponsor(s) will pay him for the attention, and how much residual value is left in the old iPhone after it's been opened, because it's still an LN original iPhone and must be worth a lot to collectors even though it isn't in its box any more. I'm sure he calculates that he'll come out ahead. So there's a good chance he's being sensible, like that guy who bought a simple lens hood for an old Nikon lens for $5,500 and increased the value of his old lens by $10,000. It's all a game, right?

Clearly, though, I should have stopped writing blog posts and started making YouTube videos when everyone else did.

Fuji new: All things considered, the most interesting camera brand of the past decade—to me, anyway—has been Fuji. I love the compromise "crop sensor" size and the no-compromise "medium"-format cameras; the highly sensible and high-performing XF lens line; the retro-themed cameras in a variety of form-factors, all appealing, none particularly cynical; and the out-of-step, "think different" way that Fuji charts its own course rather than copying/echoing/shadowing its nearest rival.

Another thing I like is that Fuji is still introducing actual new cameras—meaning, something that isn't merely a refresh of an existing model. Somehow, I missed the advent of the X-T50, which is an interesting little camera indeed. It descends from the amateur-level X-T30, but adds image stabilization and the 40-MP sensor from the X-T5 and the X-H2. It has the same processor as the X-T5 as well. And still it's noticeably smaller in size. There are a few telltales of it being targeted to "amateurs": the film simulation modes now get their own dial on the left side of the camera, and there's a pop-up flash.

I don't get the film-simulation dial. They're there in other Fujis, and do they expect you to change film-simulation modes picture to picture? Maybe they're just trying to remind people that, hey, these exist. Re the flash, I've never been a flash user, and I haven't used a pop-up flash in years, but it seems to me that this handy little feature beloved of family-documenting shutterbugs might be especially useful now that high ISOs are prevalent. A built-in flash was always pretty woeful as a primary source of light (some wag once referred to them as "picture-ruiners," and that might or might not have been me), but ISO 3200 and a little puff of flash might be just the thing to fill shadows, for tough lighting situations, or to provide a catchlight on eyeballs.

The X-T50 comes in silver with black lettering, black with white lettering, and charcoal gray with white lettering (above), which I think is the handsomest.

Anyway, if I were looking for a carry-around APS-C camera, I'd be shopping this against the X-T5, the Sony A6700, the Nikon Z50, and any other competitors. It's a pleasure to be able to write about a new camera that's new and not just refresh-number-whatever of a camera we all already know***.

Mike

*I'm kidding.

**You might think that's Shakespeare, but no. "The earliest instance of the full 'be still, my beating heart' appears in William Mountfort's Zelmane, 1705: 'Ha! hold my brain; be still my beating Heart.'" (nosweatshakespeare.com)

***When I say that I'm not referring to the Leica M Edition 70, which is a commemorative and a collectible.

Original contents copyright 2024 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:

Ben: "Probably easy enough to shrink wrap the iPhone box again and come out ahead, no?"

Mike replies: I'm not up on it, but apparently several YouTubers have bought supposedly NIB original iPhones and opened them while being videoed, only to find that it's an obviously used phone in a shrink-wrapped box and that they've been scammed. But they still make enough money on the video to cover their loss.

Jeff: "From Leica Press Release: 'The "Leica M" book will be available globally in Leica Stores, the Leica Online Store, the LFI (Leica Fotografie International) Online Store, and select authorized dealers starting on November 5th, 2024. The retail price is $50.00.'"

Mike replies: Thanks Jeff. And by "select authorized dealers" I take it they mean not bookstores or online behemoths whose name starts with "Amaz," but select authorized Leica camera dealers?

Herman Krieger: "The Leica M3 that I purchased in 1964 for about $600."

Mike replies: Beats $23k any day! More personal history and connection.

ChrisC: "Pop-up flashes aren’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s the slow sync speed that’s the problem. I had a Nikon D50, which had a 1/500 sync speed (as did the D70) and the little pop-up flash provided great fill on a bright sunny day, adding an extra little sparkle to the picture. Never managed to get quite the same results with later cameras that reverted to more conventional sync speeds."

Mike replies: And the X-T50's sync speed is a mere 1/180th. So it might be pretty limited. On the other hand, it isn't meant to be a pro camera and doesn't pretend to be. Of course, I'm pretty sure the X-H2 doesn't have a pop-flash at all...although I asked Google if it did, and the "A[rtificial un-] I[ntelligence] Overview" said, "Yes, the Fujifilm X-H2 camera has a pop-up flash." In any event the X-H2's sync speed is 1/250th.

As you know the Leica "Q" series is a sequence of fixed-lens 24x36mm-sensor compact cameras that punch above their weight; they get more attention, love, and customer satisfaction from photographers than their sales numbers and spec sheets would predict. Most if not all (sorry, not going to go research it) have had 28mm lenses, because that's the most popular focal length for a prime lens in Japan.

What's normal?
Another longtime custom in normal lenses is to equate "normal" to the diagonal of the format, which for 24x36mm is ~42mm. Normals around this focal length are treasured by those peculiar people such as moi who love normal normals. Well, now Leica has introduced a desirable variant of the current Q3 that will have a 43mm lens. The only other 43mm lens I can personally remember is one of the Pentax Limiteds (which were never limited, but let's move on), the Pentax HD Pentax-FA 43mm ƒ/1.9 Limited. It's a very sharp lens, at least to my eye*.

A "normal lens," by the way, is one with a neutral angle of view, neither telephoto nor wide angle. Oskar Barnack's prototype Ur-Leica had a 40mm lens. This was proved by Malcolm Taylor when he was entrusted by Wetzlar to service the ultra-valuable Ur-Leica. (That name itself is a bit of a back-formation, since the word "Leica" wasn't used by Leitz until 1925 or so.) But early Leicas thereafter had 50mm lenses, which some people in those early days considered relatively wide. 55mm and 58mm normals persisted through the 1960s. But let's move on.

Price: in keeping with Leica's service to photographers, you will not be forced to pay as little for the Q3 43 as you would for a common garden variety Q3: you get to pay $600 more. Although not a large premium, the little dab of added exclusivity is much appreciated and Leica is to be commended for offering this courtesy.

It has gray leatherette making it look perfect. It is just about a perfect camera**; the lens speed is ƒ/2 (perfect); the size and weight are perfect; the focal length is perfect; the Leica brand is perfect; we could go on. This is not tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic—we are perfectly sincere.

Cameras you can not-get
A little more background. A "fixed-lens camera" means a camera with one lens permanently attached to it, whether the lens is a zoom or a prime and regardless of whether conversion lenses are available for it. "Fixed-lens" or -lensed is the opposite of "interchangeable lens" or -lensed. An example of a conversion lens is this tele adapter for the upcoming Fuji X100VI that will be not-available soon (the Fuji X100 series keeps being advanced but is never actually available for purchase. For instance you can not-get the Fuji X100V right now. You used to be able to get a Fuji X100[x], but now you can only not-get them, making them that much more desirable.)

Ansel Adams's onetime assistant Ted Orland is the co-author of the book Art & Fear which everyone should not only get but read. His work is represented by the Ansel Adams Gallery, and he is a man with a sense of humor. I love his "Half Car," a twist on Half Dome. Ted sold a poster starting in 1981 called "Photographic Truths," one of which hangs in my downstairs powder room. One of the truths listed was: "Owning more than one lens assures that you will always have the wrong lens on the camera for any given picture." True dat. Owning a camera with just one lens, if the lens is a prime (a semi-incorrect term meaning a single-focal-length lens), will gradually teach you to "crop" the world in your mind's eye just like your camera frames it with its viewfinder. This is a nice effect, and an aid to visualizing which, I have long asserted, helps some people take better and more fluent pictures; YMMV.

Primes
Time was when lots of advanced kinds of cameras took single-focal-length prime lenses. For example, most medium-format film cameras either had no zooms available for them or had just one extremely impractical, gigantic, and expensive zoom as proof of concept. Leica M rangefinders, due to the type of viewfinders used, took only one prime at a time. The break-out-of-the-mold proof of zoom-concept in that case was a goofy lens called a Tri-Elmar that allowed you to switch back and forth on a dial between any of three single focal lengths; the expense, size, and slow speed of the Tri-Elmar of course made it worse than any of the three single focal-length lenses it replaced, thus making its owners more passionate about it and more committed to defending its virtues; everyone's interest was thus served and all were happy. View cameras that used sheet film of 4x5 inches in size and up, of course, used interchangeable single prime lenses-in-shutter as long as they fit the camera's lensboards. The proof of no-we-don't-have-to in their case were called convertible lenses, which allowed you to screw different front or back cells onto the shutter that changed the focal length, happily making them much more difficult and fiddly to use than simply changing out one lens for another like a sensible person. Most people never bought medium-format zooms or Tri-Elmars, but some, including Ansel, did own convertible VC lenses.

But for the most part, classic Leica rangefinders, film medium format cameras, and view cameras all used prime lenses. This was why all photographers were better in the film era! It actually had nothing to do with film. You too can be just as good by using primes exclusively or a fixed primes in particular; the Q3 43 will make you a better photographer and I guarantee that. See if it isn't true. Okay, a little tongue-in-cheek here.

And a great many amateur cameras, from 1930s folders to 1970s compact rangefinders and lots else, had fixed prime lenses.

None of the foregoing means that Q3 owners will not immediately begin searching obsessively for conversion add-ons to change the focal length of their fixed-focal-length fixed lenses, because the primate brain makes us want whatever we have not got.

Speaking of which, if you wish for a Monochrom version of the Q3 43, then one will never come out. If you don't care, then it will be available promptly.

Mike

*I don't "test," I just look. Phil Davis used to dismissively call me an "eyeballer." I plead guilty. Phil, R.I.P, a good friend and the author of the scientifically formidable Beyond the Zone System, was a measurer, par excellence.

**One way of looking at camera history is that all innovative cameras are attempts to make the perfect camera. No matter where the starting point is, everybody always seems to have ideas about how they'd make any camera better.

P.S. This started out as an "Around the Web on a Thursday" but I got carried away!

Original contents copyright 2024 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:

Comments are up to date as of 2:09 Saturday

I received a complaint recently that I opened the door for a discussion about Canon R cameras but then promptly fell down on keeping the comments current, and moved past the subject before a conversation could develop.

The main problem with cultivating that conversation might be that I don't know anything about Canon. I have nothing against the marque at all; positive feelings, positive impressions, love the results I see. I've owned a Canon in the past, and at one point rented one to write about to try to stay current with them.

Uh, boss...
How-ev-er. The Canon I owned was the EOS RT, which came out in 1989—I bought mine in '91. (As often happens with me and camera purchases, I bought it because it was too cool to resist. In 2020 I named it as one of the ten favorite cameras of my lifetime.) And the camera I tried out to "keep up to date" was the 5D Mark II...in 2008. It's been a minute since then*.

I know almost nothing about the Canon R line. I've never seen one in a glass case, never held one, never shot with one. I could get up to speed with the lineup, but I wouldn't even know as much as the average shopper because I'm not motivated by interest. But, again, nothing against them at all. I assume they are excellent cameras used by a great many expert photographers and a great many happy customers.

Canon R1 from the operator's side

If anyone wants to step in and school me from their personal experience with R-line Canons of any sort, I'd love to hear!

Was Ronny right?
One bit of unfinished business: when I named the three types of customers who might pay $6,300 for the EOS R1, Ronny A. Nilsen wrote:

"I guess I'm sort of a forth type: people that need or can use the new capabilities of the cameras to get more or better images? For me the other three types is a bit...odd? Why would I buy something that would not give me more or better images? But it has to be seen in context of what kind of photography one do. For my landscape photography I only need a reasonably high resolution camera, and I do everything in manual mode. But for wildlife and my daughter's horse show jumping, I need low light and autofocus to get more keeper images. My current Canon R5 can do all the kinds of photography I do, so I only need one camera."

I answered: I need to reply to this but I'm out of time this morning....

So here's why I didn't add "people who need the improved image quality" as the fourth reason people would buy it: the R1 is just a 24-MP camera. All the speed and operability parameters are optimized, but I assumed IQ wasn't optimized—like a lot of the other "speed/sports/action" pro cameras that offer ordinary IQ but things like a very high frame rate, no lag, superfast and capable AF, and so forth.

But on (slightly) closer inspection, Ronny's right. The R1 does offer what Canon calls "neural upscaling" that results in a "a 96-MP JPEG in about 10 seconds," so maybe image quality is a reason to buy an R1. It also depends on how one chooses to define "image quality," because a camera that has very good high-ISO performance, low-light AF, and all the other "speed camera" features might indeed offer better image quality, if you define image quality to take those potentialities into account. Which I guess Ronny did.

We can get around the IQ debate by adding another customer type to the list in this way:

No. 1: people who are not price sensitive to that amount of money;

No. 2: people who really want the camera and don't mind stretching their finances to get it;

No. 3: people who make money with their cameras and consider it a sensible purchase for their business; and

No. 4: people who need or can make use of whatever special features and capabilities the camera has. (And can also afford it.)

Things have changed
Maximized speed and operability features don't tend to interest me. But that's only lately. They mattered very much back when they mattered. As time has marched on, digital camera capabilities have reached and exceeded the point of sufficiency for me in all sorts of parameters. I used to care a lot about noise when I shot with the Sony F-707 (4.9 MP, 2001). But I don't care any more, because virtually any top camera these days just doesn't have enough noise to worry about, by my personal standards. Same with resolution and "uprezzing"; it mattered a lot until it stopped mattering so much, which to me was at about 15–16 MP, which for me happened with the 16-MP Pentax K-5 of 2010. Same with throughput, which is fine for me on virtually any camera. Same with high-ISO capability; same with color fidelity; same with frame rate; same with AF. On virtually any good current camera at the "prosumer" level or above, it's likely going to be good enough for me, and I sort of lose interest in discussions of which has the most.

...But that's just me, of course. You have your own standards and your own needs or wants. And some people just want the latest, the most and the best because they want the latest, the most and the best. There have got to be people out there who are enthusiastically comparing the R1's neural upscaling to the pixel-shift mode of some other camera to high-MP medium-format files of a third type of camera, because that matters to their work and they are vitally interested in it. For me the point might be moot, but not for everyone.

Mike

*It's also been a minute since "it's been a minute" was an up-to-the-minute expression.

Original contents copyright 2024 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:

Bruce Bordner: "When I bought a Nikon D850 after using a D800 for 10 years, I found no visible image quality improvements unless you really look. However, it's a much improved tool. The handgrip is more comfortable, more focus options are available and can be assigned to buttons, the shutter sound is so nice (snick).... It makes me want to pay attention and work harder when I use it, and that's a bigger improvement than going from 30MP to 45. Sometimes it helps to buy more than you need, to challenge yourself."

Hugh: "Mmmm…I’ve read pretty much everything you’ve written since you started (nearly half a century ago?). So I’m a fan. That’s in spite of the blind spot for Canon cameras…. Shared by Kirk, and a lot of YouTube experts. IQ…. Maybe rent one and print a 24x 36" print or two? The R8 and R6 Mark II have enough image quality for me at that size, and the AF is amazing. Possibly Canon are for people who just want to take photos and aren’t that interested in cameras? They just work, and the lenses are good."

Mike replies: First article published 1987. So 37 years.

Tex Andrews: "So infrequently do I disagree with you, especially given your long career. But I'm afraid that having a camera spit out a 90-something-MP JPEG is absolutely not what I would be looking for in any camera I'd be using for work that required high resolution. The limits of working with JPEGs in post are well known, and with the sorts of things I need high-MP images for, I absolutely want a raw file. After that (and only if necessary, and it is sometimes) a TIFF file. JPEGs are for speed, convenience, snaps, easier file transfers, and other situations where all those things matter more than being able to milk all the possible goodness out of a file. I think Canon was dumb here."