When you think of GoPro cameras, you likely think of the modern, digital, go-anywhere models. But the original GoPro grew from an idea by Nick Woodman, a California surfer and entrepreneur.

After an earlier Internet venture failed, Woodman went travelling and surfing in Australia and Indonesia. He wanted photographs of himself surfing, but there was a fundamental problem: unless another photographer was in the water, it was extremely difficult for a surfer to photograph himself.

Woodman experimented with attaching waterproof disposable cameras to his wrist. One early arrangement reportedly involved a piece of surfboard leash and rubber bands. The important insight was that the real invention wasn't necessarily the camera – it was a wearable camera system that could put the viewpoint where the action was.

The camera itself was manufactured in China rather than designed entirely from scratch by GoPro. Woodman worked with a Chinese manufacturer to adapt an existing compact film camera to his mounting concept.

It was introduced in late 2004 or early 2005 – depending on who you ask – as the GoPro Hero, a small waterproof 35mm film camera supplied with Woodman's wrist-mounting system.

It was extremely simple: film, fixed-focus lens, mechanical controls and a waterproof housing. But conceptually it established nearly everything that would define the GoPro. The name was clever as well. Surfers wanted to “go pro”, because professional surfers were among the few people who regularly had photographers recording them.

But GoPro truly hit the big time in 2006 with the first Digital Hero – evn though by modern standards it was extraordinarily primitive.

It produced roughly 640x480 still photographs, while video was only 320x240 pixels at about 10fps, with clips limited to approximately 10 seconds. It had only about 32MB of internal memory. But the important change was digital video.

GoPro gradually improved the digital cameras, with the Hero 3 (3MP stills and improved video) in 2007, the Hero 5 (5MP stills) in 2008 and the Wide Hero in 2009, which offered a genuinely wide, 170° field of view.

The Wide was immensely popular, as it generated an exaggerated perspective that quickly became visually identified with GoPro footage.

But the real revolution was the GoPro HD Hero, of 2009. Simply put, the HD Hero was a tiny digital camera that shot FullHD videos in 16:9 and a 127° field of view.

It had a waterproof housing, removable memory card and an extensive mounting ecosystem. This made GoPro footage practical not merely as a novelty, but for serious video production. And that changed everything.

It was followed in 2011 by the HD Hero 2, with much better image quality. But the secret wasn’t in the cameras; rather, it was in the system.

A GoPro could be mounted to a helmet, bicycle, motorcycle, surfboard, automobile, chest harness, pole or almost anything else. The standardized two-prong mounting system became nearly as important as the camera itself, with third-party manufacturers producing thousands of compatible accessories.

At its peak, GoPro was almost synonymous with the action camera. Indeed, to this day people still refer to action cams as "GoPros" the way they refer to vacuums as "Hoovers".

The company went public in 2014 and was at one point valued at roughly $4 billion (around £2.4 billion / AU$4.6 billion). But action cameras turned out to be a relatively narrow market with long replacement cycles.

A Hero from several generations ago can still make very good 4K video, so owners don't necessarily have a compelling reason to replace the one they have.

At the same time, camera phones became dramatically better. For ordinary travel, family, social media, and casual video, a phone is usually good enough – and is already in the owner's pocket. GoPro’s sales suffered.

Then a second problem arose: GoPro no longer had the action camera field largely to itself. DJI and Insta360 became formidable competitors, offering image stabilization, 360° imaging, compact cameras and rapid product development.

As of June 30 2026, GoPro had roughly $27.2 million / £20.3 million / AU$39.6 million in cash but as much as $90 million / £67.3 million / AU$131 million in debt. The company itself admitted that it had “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue as a going concern.

The company needed a savior, and fast! On September 01 2026, GoPro and privately held Starman Optical announced a merger agreement that is on track to close by the end of the year.

Starman isn't another camera manufacturer. It makes optical transceivers, including US-manufactured equipment aimed at AI data centers and other communications applications.

The proposed merger isn't simply intended to rescue GoPro's camera business; Starman wants access to GoPro's expertise and its enormous portfolio of almost 2,500 patents.

If the Starman merger fails to go through for whatever reason, GoPro an independent camera company could well disappear. If it does go through, will GoPro survive as part of a larger, non-camera making firm? The jury is still out…

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best GoPro cameras, the best GoPro alternatives and the best action cameras.

I prefer wildlife photography spent hiking rather than sitting in a blind. The problem is that wildlife camera gear is often the heaviest – and priciest. Inspired by the launch of the latest bridge camera, the Sony RX10 V, I wanted to see if it was possible to build a lightweight mirrorless kit under 3lbs / 1.3kg.

I took the Sony A6700 with the FE 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS to a wildlife refuge to see how a lightweight, crop-sensor mirrorless kit could perform for wildlife photography. I wasn’t disappointed.

Paired together, the A6700 with the 70-350mm weighs just over 36oz – or about 2.25lbs / 1kg. That’s a highly hikeable camera system. I ended up walking almost 2.5 miles / 4 kilometers with the kit on a fall afternoon. I probably would have gone even farther, but sunset comes fast in the fall.

I review cameras for a living, which means I’ve shot with a lot of the best telephoto lenses that I otherwise may not have been able to afford – including lenses that cost more than my first car and felt like carrying around a third leg.

It’s difficult to go from shooting with a 600mm lens to a zoom that maxes out at 350mm. But, the crop sensor edges the lens towards a 105-525mm equivalent. That’s not a bad reach considering the cost of the lens and how easy it is to carry around.

I did occasionally wish to get a little closer – which is the norm for me when I’m out photographing wildlife and too impatient to sit still for very long. That’s really what’s required to photograph wildlife with a shorter telephoto: more patience to wait for the creature to come close.

Yet, when I couldn’t get as close as I wanted, I ended up focusing on capturing more environmental portraits that show birds in their surroundings. I used the fall color to frame these distant but plentiful migrating sandhill cranes.

Redwing blackbirds were also plentiful on my hike, and I didn’t mind not being quite as close while photographing them plucking seeds from fading flowers.

What I missed about using larger, pricier systems like the Sony A7 V with the 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS or the new 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 primes is that the larger sensor allows for less noise at fast shutter speeds. That’s particularly noticeable when trying to crop in on the photos.

Last year, I tried three budget cameras from three brands for wildlife photography – a genre that’s notoriously difficult to do on a budget – including the Sony A6400.

The budget bodies and lenses did surprisingly well, illustrating just how far cheap cameras have come since the early DSLR days when my first APS-C DSLR shot just 3fps.

But the Sony A6400 has an older animal eye detection system, and I’ve been itching to try the Sony A6700 with a budget lens ever since. The A6700 with the 70-350mm lens didn’t disappoint, creating an easily hikeable kit.

You may also like

Take a look at the best cameras for wildlife photography or the best lenses for bird photography.

Something interesting is happening in photography. Data shows consumers are increasingly buying premium camera phones. Yet, at almost the opposite end of the market, inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras are also enjoying an unexpected resurgence.

On one side, we have flagship smartphones now costing well upwards of $1,000, while on the other, we have cameras like the Kodak Pixpro FZ55, a $140 compact camera that has become one of the year’s best-selling cameras despite offering photographic capabilities that, to put it politely, are considerably more modest even than those of the most basic camera phone.

Both slip in pocket and are perfect for capturing everyday situations, but why are consumers willing to spend more on the best camera phones, yet also embracing dedicated cameras that are photographically far less impressive?

Premium smartphones are taking over the market

The growth of premium smartphones has been an ongoing trend over the past few years. According to Counterpoint Research, more premium smartphones accounted for a record 29% of global smartphone sales by volume in the first half of 2026, up from 25% during the same period in 2025 and just 20% in 2022.

Apple and Samsung still dominate this market, accounting for a combined 84% of premium smartphone sales, but Chinese manufacturers are making significant progress. Oppo recorded the fastest growth in the premium segment during the first half of 2026, with sales increasing by 69%, while Vivo saw growth of 20%.

Those figures are particularly interesting in light of a recent briefing I received from Oppo, in which the company outlined its plans to concentrate more on premium smartphones than low-margin devices. The company is now targeting a doubling of Find X series sales in Europe in 2027 (and the incredible Oppo Find X10 Pro Max definitely has the potential to make that a reality).

And what does Oppo see as one of the most important ways to convince consumers to spend more? Cameras.

The company identifies imaging as one of its three main areas of premium differentiation, alongside AI and well-being. Oppo's strategy places considerable emphasis on photography, with its flagship Find X devices featuring its close partnership with legendary camera manufacturer Hasselblad.

Of course, better cameras are not the only reason premium smartphones are growing. Rising memory costs, which have pushed phone prices higher, and trade-in programs and financing options have also made expensive devices easier to afford.

Nevertheless, it's clear that photography is one of, if not the most important way of differentiating the most expensive phones, and that consumers are increasingly choosing the premium devices on which those camera technologies are found.

This makes what's happening in the dedicated camera market all the more intriguing.

Cheap point-and-shoot cameras are enjoying their own boom

While the smartphone market is moving increasingly toward premium products, recent camera sales figures tell a different story. In Japan, Kodak has been outselling some of the biggest names in the camera industry with dirt-cheap compact cameras with specs that would be laughable in a modern flagship phone.

According to Japanese retail analyst BCN+R, Kodak became the country's best-selling digital camera brand by unit sales in April 2024, taking a remarkable 22.5% share of the entire market.

And this wasn't simply a one-off. Kodak-branded cameras returned to the top of Japan's overall digital camera sales rankings in May 2026 and in June 2026, finishing approximately one percentage point ahead of behemoth Canon in sales volume.

There are some important caveats. These figures represent sales through participating Japanese retailers, and selling a large number of inexpensive compacts is also considerably different from selling high-end mirrorless cameras costing thousands of dollars with bigger margins. Sony has certainly shifted a lot of its A7 V this year, so we don't need to panic about the mirrorless market.

Nevertheless, it's quite extraordinary that not only can a brand predominantly selling cheap and cheerful point-and-shoot cameras compete with, and sometimes outsell, manufacturers such as Canon, Sony, and Fujifilm across the entire digital camera market – but also that the market en masse seems to have embraced cameras that offer objectively worse image quality.

Why do we want better smartphone cameras but worse dedicated cameras?

For years, camera manufacturers have worked to eliminate noise, improve dynamic range, correct exposures, and produce sharper, cleaner photographs. Smartphones have arguably taken this pursuit of technical perfection further than anyone else, using computational photography and AI to produce the best possible image with minimal user effort.

However, the aesthetic associated with inexpensive digital compact cameras is almost the opposite. Hard flash, higher contrast, less impressive dynamic range, and the noisy, blocky appearance of early digital photography have become desirable characteristics in their own right. It's an aesthetic that has become popular across Instagram and TikTok.

It's easy to suggest (and many have) that the rise of cheap compacts is simply a backlash to the perfection of smartphone photography, and that there is somehow an "authenticity" to lo-fi photos. Or that a compact camera is just more fun to shoot with than the device where you also get your email. But then it is an interesting contradiction that both are doing so well.

Sales figures alone don't tell us whether the same people are buying both premium smartphones and cheap compacts. But we seem increasingly willing to pay for technology that takes the guesswork out of getting a great photo, while also embracing cameras that put some of that unpredictability back in. Perhaps the definition of a good camera isn't quite as straightforward as we might believe.

There are plenty of smartphones that promise professional video capabilities, but there aren't many that can claim to have been developed alongside one of the most respected names in the film industry.

That's what makes Honor's partnership with ARRI particularly interesting, and having recently visited ARRI's studio in Los Angeles to get a firsthand look at the results, I think there might be something genuinely exciting here for mobile filmmakers.

The new Honor Magic 9 Pro Max is just the second product of the two companies' collaboration, which began with Honor's Robot Phone earlier this year. However, while the Robot Phone was a more unconventional concept that may or may not ever go on sale, the Magic 9 Pro Max brings ARRI's cinema technology to a mainstream flagship smartphone.

Bringing ARRI's cinema technology to a smartphone

The main focus of the collaboration is ARRI's Image Science, specifically the implementation of ARRI LogC3 and the company's established library of cinematic looks.

For anyone unfamiliar with ARRI, the company is responsible for some of the most respected cameras in professional filmmaking, including the ALEXA series, which has become a staple of high-end film and television production. ARRI's cameras are renowned for their image quality, dynamic range, and particularly their color science, which has helped establish a recognizable look across countless productions.

With the Magic 9 Pro Max, Honor isn't simply applying an ARRI-inspired filter to its footage. Instead, the company says it has worked with ARRI to reconstruct the phone's video-processing pipeline, tuning the imaging hardware and its dedicated Honor H1 imaging chip to produce footage that closely follows the same LogC3 curve used by ARRI's professional cinema cameras.

This could be huge. LogC3 is an established logarithmic image encoding system with an extensive ecosystem of color-grading tools and LUTs (Look-Up Tables) that filmmakers already use in professional workflows. Rather than introducing another proprietary Log profile, Honor is attempting to make its footage compatible with an existing industry-standard workflow.

One of my biggest frustrations with shooting Log video is that every manufacturer has its own interpretation of Log, which means I frequently have to tweak my existing LUTs or create new ones to get the colors looking how I want them, or to match footage from cameras.

With ARRI LogC3, there are already potentially hundreds or thousands of compatible LUTs and established workflows, making it considerably easier to incorporate the Magic 9 Pro Max into an existing video-editing setup.

That's the theory, at least. But how well does it actually work?

Putting Honor's ARRI cinema mode to the test

During my visit to ARRI's studio in Los Angeles, I had an opportunity to test the Magic 9 Pro Max's video capabilities and, more importantly, compare footage captured using its implementation of LogC3 with footage shot on a genuine ARRI cinema camera.

Honor has integrated ARRI's library of cinematic looks into the Magic 9 Pro Max, with up to 87 different downloadable looks (there are 14 pre-installed). These provide a selection of ready-made visual styles without having to grade from scratch in post-production.

It's also worth noting that you don't necessarily need to be interested in shooting Log footage and spending time color grading to benefit from the collaboration either, as you can bake ARRI’s looks straight into SDR or HDR video – and you have ready-to-share video straight out of camera.

I was particularly interested in how closely the two cameras could match in terms of color, comparing the ARRI ALEXA LUT to footage shot on the Honor and footage captured on an actual ARRI camera. And I was actually pretty surprised by how well the color reproduction transferred between the two cameras. The same overall palette carried across both sets of footage, with the Honor producing colors that looked very close to those from the ALEXA camera.

This is particularly impressive considering just how different the cameras are. Obviously, the ALEXA has a significant advantage when it comes to overall image quality, with its much larger sensor and professional cinema lenses, and the Honor footage still showed the compression and processing characteristics you'd expect from a smartphone. But when it came to the actual color rendering, the results were surprisingly close.

Also, something I've criticized Honor's phones for many times before in my reviews of the company's previous models is that I've consistently found Honor's camera processing a little too aggressive for my tastes, producing video that can look overly sharpened or enhanced.

Thankfully, at least in ARRI Cinema Mode, Honor seems to dial much of that processing back, producing footage that looks considerably more understated and natural. The result is an image that, to my eyes, feels much closer to something captured on a dedicated camera.

Honor has also made some ambitious claims about its "gimbal-level stabilization".

The optical image stabilization is very good, and the enhanced electronic stabilization is impressively smooth; panning and walking on the main camera look remarkably solid. However, I wouldn't quite compare it to using a decent gimbal with a physical tilt and roll axis, but for the kind of quick, spontaneous filming that smartphones are particularly good at, this could be extremely useful.

And as ever, there is a trade-off, as the electronic stabilization introduces a noticeable crop to the footage, so you are sacrificing some of the original framing in exchange for that additional smoothness.

Is this the future of smartphone filmmaking?

What makes the Honor and ARRI partnership interesting to me isn't necessarily the idea of phones replacing professional cameras, because I don't think that's particularly realistic. Instead, it's the idea that smartphones could become more useful as tools within established video workflows.

Color grading is a significant part of pro filmmaking, and having footage from different cameras that can be matched relatively easily is a huge benefit. By adopting ARRI LogC3 rather than creating another proprietary smartphone Log profile, Honor has potentially removed one of the frustrations of combining phone footage with material from dedicated cameras.

There are still obvious limitations to shooting video on a smartphone, and the Honor doesn't magically overcome the physical advantages of a much larger camera and lens system. But the image quality looks promising, the stabilization is excellent, and the ARRI color science appears to be a genuinely useful addition rather than simply another marketing gimmick.

It's also important to remember that these are my initial impressions from a relatively limited opportunity to test the camera, rather than the results of an extended review (which will be coming in the next few weeks). I'll be interested to see how consistently the video performs across a wider range of shooting conditions, as well as testing the Magic 9 Pro Max for photography – so stay tuned.

You might also like...

Check out more of the best phones for video recording and vlogging and the best camera phones

Film photography is having another moment, but its appeal goes beyond nostalgia. When we can take and share endless digital pictures, there is something refreshing about a camera that asks us to slow down, make each frame count and wait to see what we have got.

Taking a photograph has never been easier. With our phones are always to hand, we can shoot dozens of pictures in seconds and check them straight away. If one does not work, we simply take another. Most of the time, we barely give it a thought.

Film asks for a lot more patience. You buy a roll of Kodak Portra 400 or Ilford HP5 Plus, load it into the film camera and get on with taking pictures. There is no screen to check and no second chance at the touch of a button. You have to trust your eye, live with the occasional mistake and wait to see how things turned out. That does not automatically make the pictures better, but it can make taking them feel different.

That is part of the attraction. Film is not just about recreating the look of an old photograph; it changes the experience of making one.

The problem with infinite frames

When each extra exposure costs almost nothing, it is easy to keep shooting just in case. That freedom can be useful: instant review helps you experiment and catch fleeting moments. But it can also mean putting off the decision that matters most: is this really worth a photograph? With film, the limited number of frames makes that question harder to avoid.

Then there is the pressure of the social feed. Photographs sit alongside an endless stream of images and video, all competing for attention. It is easy to start thinking about whether a picture will land online before considering what made you want to take it in the first place. Of course, plenty of people still shoot for themselves, away from the demands of likes and shares.

AI adds another wrinkle. It can produce convincing images of events that never happened, so a picture on its own is no longer proof that something took place. Photography was never a guarantee of truth: framing, editing and context can all mislead. But a film negative does have a physical link to the scene it records. Light reaches the emulsion and, through chemical processing, becomes an image. Digital photography also records light from the real world; an AI-generated image does not need that process at all.

For some people, that difference matters. For others, the appeal is simpler: the feel of a camera in the hand, the sound of its mechanism and the small pleasure of loading a roll of film.

What a limited roll changes

A standard 35mm roll gives you 24 or 36 exposures. When they are gone, they are gone until you load another roll. Some photographers find that makes them more selective; others enjoy the surprise of seeing the results days later, including the frames they had almost forgotten about.

Sometimes the picture you barely remember taking turns out to be the keeper. The shot you fussed over for ten minutes may be the one that disappoints. That uncertainty is part of the fun.

Film also has a character of its own, shaped by the stock, exposure, development and the way the image is scanned or printed. Kodak Portra is a favorite for color work, while Ilford HP5 and Kodak Tri-X are long-established choices for black-and-white photography.

Still, a particular look is not the whole story. Digital cameras and editing software can recreate many of the colors, grain and tones associated with film. A photograph is not automatically more meaningful because it was made on analogue equipment, any more than a digital picture is somehow less authentic.

An industry still making film

Film has not disappeared from the market. Established stocks are still being made, new ones have appeared and analogue cameras can be bought new or second-hand. It is a smaller part of photography than digital, but it is very much still here.

British company Harman Technology, best known for its Ilford photographic films, introduced Harman Phoenix in 2023, its first color negative film under the Harman name. Phoenix II followed later. Pentax launched the Pentax 17, a new half-frame 35mm camera, in 2024, while Lomography continues to sell analogue cameras and film and Kodak remains a major name in film production.

These launches suggest that manufacturers see a continuing audience for analogue photography. They do not, on their own, tell us how large that audience is or how quickly it is growing.

There is also a lively second-hand market. Some sought-after cameras, including the Contax T2, sell for hefty sums, but plenty of older models are more affordable. If you want to take pictures rather than collect equipment, a used camera can be a good way in.

The expense does not end with the camera. You have to buy film, then pay for processing and scanning unless you do it yourself. Digital photography has its own costs, from equipment to storage and maintenance, but once you own the camera, taking another picture costs nothing. Shoot regularly on film and the bills soon add up.

The romance has its limits

Film will not suit every job. Digital is usually the practical choice when you need lots of images quickly, have a tight deadline or need to check results on the spot. Some professionals use film for particular shots and rely on digital for the rest.

Nor does loading a roll of film suddenly turn someone into a more thoughtful photographer. You can waste frames as easily as you can take a considered picture on your phone. And cameras and rare film stocks can become status symbols in their own right, with the gear taking centre stage instead of the photographs.

The environmental argument is not straightforward either. Making and processing film uses materials and chemicals; digital photography depends on electronic equipment, batteries and energy. The overall impact varies with how products are made, used and disposed of, as well as how long they last. Neither option is impact-free, so claims that one is always greener than the other need to be treated carefully.

Learning to wait

Perhaps the best thing about film is the wait between pressing the shutter and finding out what you have captured.

Finish a roll and you can send it off to a lab or develop it yourself. Until the negatives or scans come back, the pictures exist mostly in your memory. You might have nailed the shot, missed the focus or caught something better than you expected. You simply do not know yet.

Digital photographers can create their own version of that discipline by limiting the number of shots they take or resisting the urge to check every frame. With film, the limit is built – every exposure uses up one of a finite number of pictures and seeing the results usually means waiting for another step.

In a world where almost every image is available to view, edit and share in seconds, film offers a welcome change of pace. It asks you to be a little more deliberate, accept that some pictures will not work and enjoy the wait. Sometimes, the pleasure is not just in the photograph you get, but in the process of its creation.

Check out our guides to the best 35mm films, and our rundown of the best film cameras

Retro cameras are currently big business as, in an age of AI overload and digital burn out, we all crave for a return to simpler pursuits and a feeling that we are still in control.

So, it’s no surprise that photographic tools that give us the tactile satisfaction of turning dials, flicking levers and pressing buttons, also known as haptic gratification, are popular.

However, I feel there’s something else at play. The ever-lengthening gaps between new cameras being punctuated by almost exclusively heritage-inspired releases indicates manufacturers are more focused on resurrecting the past than they are on shaping the future.

And I get it. Revisiting what once worked well and was majorly successful is far less of a gamble for camera brands than clearing the decks and trying to sell us something wholly novel and new. The downside of this, though, is the rule of diminishing returns.

I can only feel so excited about something I’ve already seen many, many times before. No matter how beautiful its brass lens mount, aluminum construction, or how clever the incremental improvement in performance. Because I feel like the latter has only got smaller of late, between each successive generation. And if technology has already hit its plateau, is it worth me spending big money on something that doesn’t really add value to my existing setup? Just because, essentially, it looks cool?

Of course, I totally understand the retro appeal of cameras that make me feel nostalgic for gear and a time I never experienced the first time around. Or have only the vaguest childhood memory of, such as original Polaroids, Kodak Box Brownies and the cheap 110 film camera that was my first-ever photographic gift.

Nowadays we have that compelling blend of modernism and nostalgia via the OM System PEN, the Panasonic L10 and of course TikTok favourite the Fujifilm X100VI, all showcasing a classic design. I even liked the 1960s inspired premise of the distinctly bonkers Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo Cinema camera.

But do I really need them? Especially when, apart from compact retro toy cameras, they’re mostly priced at a premium? While certainly nice to have, my answer is probably no.

On a positive note, the lack of anything convincingly new when it comes to the latest heritage-influenced models has now led me to appreciate what I already have and work within my setup’s existing limitations. Perhaps if I do want innovation, that now needs to come first and foremost from how I choose to shoot.

Back in 1982, Fujifilm had a couple of rather large, medium format, rangefinder cameras with fixed lenses.. the Fujica GW690 Professional and its wide-angle sibling, the GSW690 used 120 film and both were sometimes referred to as the “Texas Leicas” – an affectionate reference to their large size, robust construction and excellent glass – and their lineage went back to the G690 of 1968!

Around that time, the engineers decided to take this concept a step further, and scaled up the camera from 6x9 cm to 6x17 and, in 1983, produced the Fujica Panorama G617. (The branding was altered to simply Fuji in 1985.) It was a remarkably ambitious camera for its time with a fixed 105mm (6 elements in 4 groups). It proved there was a professional market for the format. Landscape photographers in particular, could get large negatives or transparencies on 120 or 220 film, without the bulk and weight of a 4x5 camera and its film holders.

However, the G617 had one rather serious drawback. Its fixed lens meant the photographer had just one field of view. This led directly to the GX617, of 1993.

Lenses were now interchangeable, with four being offered. A 90mm f/5.6 Super-Wide, with an 89° field of view; the classic panorama lens: 105mm f 8 with an 80.3° field of view, a 180mm f/6.7 telephoto lens, that offered a 52° view, and a 300mm f/8 telephoto with a 32° field of view.

A 300mm sounds absurdly long until you remember the format. It still produces a very wide horizontal composition, and is useful when you want to isolate a mountain or an architectural detail.

The camera itself was a marvel of engineering, with a sturdy, die-cast frame, but a totally manual camera, without a rangefinder, exposure meter or autofocus. Each lens contained its own Copal leaf shutter. In fact, the only electrical part in it was the shutter release. While the Copal leaf shutters were completely mechanical, the camera had an electromagnetic shutter-release mechanism, so the shutter could be released by a shutter button on the body.

Focusing was fully manual, but for serious close-up work, the GX617 offered a ground-glass focusing accessory – as big improvement from the earlier G617.

For landscape work, photographers either estimated the distance or used the hyperfocal stop for the lens. Let’s be honest, it would be rare to use a huge 6xi17cm frame, to shoot something just a couple of feet away.

The Fujica GX617 Professional's format is huge. Compared to a 6x6 camera (Bronica, Hasselblad, Rollei, etc.) at 3,400mm², it offers a staggering 9,240mm² negative which approaches the area of a 4x5 camera (12,900mm2 ) while doing it all on 120 or 220 roll film! The drawback? Just 4 exposures per 120 roll or 8 on a 220 roll.

It was not an inexpensive camera, for in 1993 the body alone sold, new, for $2,663, with the lenses (which each included a dedicated optical finder and lens hood) cost between $2350 and $2800 each.

Fuji also offered a graduated “Central Filter” to help even out the exposure for both the 90 and 105mm lenses. These filters were very similar to the graduated filters used on the Zeiss Hologon lenses. But in 1993 these filters cost an additional $309 each.

Such was the price of perfection in a large format, (almost) hand-holdable camera of professional quality.

A number of prominent photographers, including the UK’s Colin Prior, have made their reputations on the distinctive 6x17 frame size.

The GX617 Professional was discontinued in 2003, along with the rest of Fuji’s roll-film cameras, as digital photography took over. They are still much sought after, and can be found, though prices have risen since the resurgence of interest in film cameras.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Check out the best spy cameras and the best hidden camera detectors

The iPhone Duo was a massive compromise in terms of photographic tech – that's what I thought, that's what everyone thought. So, logically, it follows that my photography was going to suffer.

Perhaps not. As I've been reviewing the iPhone Duo I've found my experience has been a lot more nuanced. In fact it's both delivered extra features that simply make life easier for every day photography, and actually started to push me in ways I wasn't expecting at all.

The second part of that is potentially the most interesting, especially as we live in an age where the analog deliberation of film is seeing a lot of positivity.

First, though, I'll get the bonuses that come in terms of tech out of the way. There are two, I think. The obvious one is the larger screen which can be used to compose photos and videos.

Because the inner screen is matt coated, it is soft, a little like a print preview, which is easy to like, and feels quite natural (even if you know deep down this is just Apple's way of hiding the crease – in fairness it works under most lighting).

The phone can also use its outer display at the same time so if you want your subject can participate in the experience. Despite looking amazing, my wife is prone to concern about her appearance and this has a bit of a negativity snowball; she is nervous about me taking photos, pulls a face, the photo looks bad and so on.

One use of this shared preview is that she can actually see the light and tell me if she's happy or not (also handy for me as she is a better portrait photographer than I).

Apple also have a quirky option for this display too – play cartoons to keep the kids attention – the future of 'Say Cheese!' is now.

Actually if you're enjoying a little street photography the device is a little more discrete when folded, too, than a Pro iPhone (especially those stand out orange or red ones), while the glossy outer preview screen has deep blacks so no complaints there from me.

Anyway you can read about these features in my review. The point here is that they have started to help on specific area of my photography – selfies with the wife – which were sadly lacking.

We can also let the AI decide the best moment to shoot and use the main camera for the selfies, which is, well, okay for now (here's hoping the software updates get better). Again definitely a benefit though.

The deliberation, though – the 'analog era' aspect – comes in small part from the fact that I've simply had to start developing new muscle memory because my phone is no longer essentially the same as it has been for more than a decade.

Work a bit slower and you think. Or I do. A bit.

The other aspect is that I do like to take telephoto photos and videos and now I can't do it without thinking from my phone, I'm going to have to use a camera, or at least another device more often.

For me that'll be a combination of my Sony A7 and A7iii – at least one of which often sits in the enormous backpack I like to keep with me – and a pocket camera. The Insta360 Lune Ultra is a great choice at the moment because of the Ultra Telephoto lens adapter that can give it up to 15x zoom – making up for my loss.

I am the kind of person who doesn't mind carrying a device the size of a DJI Pocket 4P or Insta360 Luna Ultra, so checking the best pocket gimbal cameras guide would be my next step after getting the iPhone Duo, and both can wirelessly transfer content to the phone. I'm still hoping that on-device editing will get the mini-iPad benefit soon too.

Finally, of course, the opportunity to review on-the-go on a decent screen is excellent, and even edit. That isn't something I've done a lot of yet – perhaps I'll want to do more when the Apple Pencil compatibility is fully up and running – but reviewing your work on the go can save time and make you think about your work more than firing off a lot of frames.

Ultimately I'm optimistic that the thought I'm being pushed into making, combined with the power of the A20 (and a bit of faith in app updates) is going to make life a good deal better.

I've already found my thought processes changing. Shooting fewer and better images. I wonder where it'll take me?

A girl stands between a towering row of spinning frames, which dwarf her tiny stature. A gang of boys, dressed in the dusty uniform of the coal miner, stare blankly into the camera. Three grim-faced girls stand outside the cannery where they shuck oysters for a living.

These are some of the photographs taken by Lewis Wickes Hine, a teacher-turned-photographer who spent 1908 to 1924 travelling the United States to document child labor.

His story has been retold this week by the Alliance for American Manufacturing as part of its Unsung Heroes series. It’s a clear reminder of what photography can achieve for a cause.

Hine was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in 1874. As a teenager, he had to work long hours to support his family after his father died. But he kept up his education and, in 1901, moved to New York to work as a teacher.

He first picked up a camera as a teaching tool. He took his students to Ellis Island and photographed newly arrived immigrants. According to the Smithsonian, he wanted to counter growing anti-immigrant feeling by showing them as “brave, dignified pioneers of a new land”. Realising that documentary photography could be a great tool for reform, he volunteered for a major project for the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC), a campaigning body.

At the time, many American children worked in textile mills, mines, factories, canneries and fields, often in dangerous conditions and for long hours. Hine travelled across the country to photograph them.

To get access, he adopted a range of disguises, posing variously as a fire inspector, a postcard seller, a Bible salesman and a photographer who was only interested in machinery. This was risky work: Hine was often threatened by foremen and factory police.

The NCLC used the pictures in its lobbying campaign, and the federal Children’s Bureau was set up in 1912. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 finally brought the practice of child labor in the US to an end.

Continuing to crusade

Hine’s went on to photograph the Red Cross’s relief work in Europe during and after World War One. Back in the US, he made a series of “work portraits” celebrating the dignity of industrial workers.

Most famously, in 1930 he documented the construction of the Empire State Building. To get a good angle, he was swung out in a specially designed basket, 1,000ft above Fifth Avenue. His final years, sadly, were troubled ones. Commissions dried up, interest in his work faded, and he lost his house and had to apply for welfare. He died in 1940, aged 66.

Hine called his pictures “photo-interpretations”, which emphasized his personal involvement, as opposed to professional detachment. It was an approach that influenced generations of documentary photographers. And today, more than a century later, his images remind us that a camera, in the right hands, can help change the world.

Northern Hemisphere finally get extended hours under truly dark skies in November 2026. The Milky Way’s bright core has slipped from view, but in its place come the rising winter constellations, dense star fields and bright targets that reward longer stargazing sessions. The month also features a well-timed new moon, a bright supermoon and a meteor shower, but it’s less about headline events and more about technique, patience and making the most of the darkness. Here’s everything you need to know about astrophotography in November 2026…

Read: 10 must-shoot events for astrophotographers in 2026

November 1-12: Dark sky window

With the new moon on 9 November, the first week of the month offers some of the year's darkest skies. Look east after sunset – preferably from somewhere that looks dark on a light pollution map – to see Orion, Taurus and Auriga rising. These regions are rich in bright stars and deep-sky objects that photograph well even under modest conditions. Use a wide-angle lens (14–24mm), a fast aperture (f/2–f/2.8), ISO 1600–3200 and exposures of 10–20 seconds to capture the starry scene. A star tracker allows longer exposures and reveals more detail in star clusters and nebulae — such as the Orion Nebula below Orion’s Belt.

Read: The best star tracker camera mounts

November 17-18: Leonid meteor shower

The Leonids peak overnight on 17-18 November, producing around 10-15 meteors per hour under ideal conditions. However, a bright first-quarter moon will significantly reduce visibility this year. Even so, you may still capture brighter meteors. Use a wide-angle lens (14-24mm), ISO 800-1600 and 20-30 second exposures, shooting continuously for several hours. Aim away from the moon to maximise contrast. While results may be modest, you have a good chance of capturing one or two bright meteors.

Read: How to photograph a meteor shower

November 21: A celestial triangle

Be outside at midnight tonight, and you’ll see, rising due east, a lovely conjunction of Jupiter, Mars and Regulus, the latter the brightest star in the constellation Leo. Use a telephoto lens (50-135mm) and try exposures of 5-15 seconds at ISO 800 to capture the trio.

Read: The best cameras for astrophotography

November 24: Full ‘Supermoon’ rises

November’s full moon is a supermoon, occurring when the moon is near its closest point to Earth on its slightly elliptical monthly orbit. It will appear slightly larger and brighter than average, dominating the night sky.

As always, the best time to photograph a full moon is at moonrise. Use a telephoto lens (200-600mm) to exaggerate its size relative to the foreground or capture it rising behind buildings, hills or trees. Use ISO 100 and fast shutter speeds — it’s a very bright object. However, bracketing exposures can help retain detail in both the moon and the surrounding landscape.

Read: How to photograph the full moon

Astrophotography shot of the month: Orion rising

November marks Orion's return as a dominant evening constellation, making it the month's standout subject. Its bright stars and distinctive shape make it ideal for beginners and experienced astrophotographers alike.

Use a wide-angle lens to capture Orion within a larger winter sky scene, or a short telephoto lens (50-135mm) to isolate the three stars of its Belt and the surrounding region. Exposures of 5-15 seconds at ISO 800-1600 will reveal detail without star trailing, while a star tracker will allow longer exposures and finer structure.

Orion also serves as a gateway to the winter sky. Follow its Belt downward to Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, or upward to Aldebaran in Taurus. Including these connections in your compositions can add depth and context.

Read more:

• Astrophotography tools: the best camera, lenses and gear

• The best lenses for astrophotography

• The best star tracker camera mounts

When photography was first invented, critics argued that photographs lacked the soul of traditional artwork like paintings – but around two decades after the first daguerreotype, a jewelry-maker in Boston would bring “soul” to photography in an entirely different way: spirit photography.

William H. Mumler (1832-1884) wasn’t originally a photographer but rather a jeweler who worked in engraving silver. Mumler was experimenting with a self-portrait in another photographer’s studio, Helen F. Stuart, when a dim, spirit-like figure appeared in the final print. Mumler reportedly said that figure looked like his cousin, who had died 12 years earlier.

Mumler continued to experiment with photography, and soon word of the “spirits” appearing in Mumler’s photographs spread. At the time, America was in the midst of a Civil War, and many families were mourning the loss of a loved one.

At the time, post-mortem photography was common. A camera wasn’t yet something that many families owned, and with high infant and child mortality rates, post-mortem photography at the time was often the only photograph of the deceased that the family owned.

It’s amid that historical backdrop that Mumler’s spirit photography flourished. At one time, he charged $10 for a dozen photos – which would be more than $200 (£150 / AU$284 / CA$280) in today’s currency. A visit from a “spirit” was never guaranteed and, in some cases, required returning to the studio for additional photographs.

Mumler’s photographs weren’t without doubters, and when business began to slow in Boston, he moved to New York City. But around a year after that move, Mumler took a photograph that would alter the course of his photography career – some accounts say this person was an undercover reporter; others say Mumler photographed an undercover New York Marshall.

Mumler was subsequently arrested on charges of fraud. The trial drew a lot of attention, including P.T. Barnum, who served as a witness in the trial. Mumler was eventually acquitted due to a lack of evidence.

Mumler continued to take spirit photographs even after being publicly disproven, but his work became far less popular after the trial, and he stopped taking spirit photographs in 1879.

Mumler, who many describe as the first spirit photographer, likely used a few different techniques. A double exposure exposes the light-sensitive surface twice – which, in Mumler’s case, was a glass print negative. Exposing the same photo twice creates a semi-transparent image that overlaps the other. The long exposures required for photography at the time also likely contributed, with motion blur adding to the eerie look of the photographs.

While Mumler worked well before the invention of computer-based photo manipulation, darkroom techniques were likely also part of Mumler’s photographs. Reusing a glass plate that was only partially cleaned from the first image, hand-scraping away parts of a glass negative, and exposing two glass negatives together for a print are also techniques that likely factored into the eerie quality of Mumler’s work.

Today, dozens of his photos still exist, often housed in museums. His most famous portrait is arguably the photograph he took of Mary Todd Lincoln with the “ghost” of Abraham Lincoln.

You may also like

For more double exposures on modern film, take a look at the new Polaroid Mod or the new Instax Mini Evo 2.

When I think of Sony cameras and professional sports, I naturally think of photographers lining the pitchside with enormous telephoto lenses. However, Sony invited me to Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London to see its NFL technology in action, and its involvement goes far beyond photographers on the sidelines.

Sony became an official technology partner of the NFL in 2024, expanding an existing relationship in which its cameras, broadcast equipment, and Hawk-Eye technology have become increasingly important to how the sport is played, officiated, and watched.

And the scale is quite remarkable. During the 2025 NFL season, Sony cameras captured more than 1,100 hours of broadcast television across over 300 games, while Associated Press photographers shot more than 130,000 images using Sony Alpha equipment. At Super Bowl LX alone, more than 175 Sony cameras were deployed on and around the field.

Cameras that can influence the game

Perhaps the most recognisable part of Sony's NFL partnership is Hawk-Eye, a name that will already be familiar to anyone who follows tennis or soccer, where cameras have become essential to officiating (love it or hate it).

In the NFL, Hawk-Eye has a similar broad role in instant replay. Across the NFL, 12 dedicated boundary-line cameras at each stadium provide additional angles to help officials scrutinize key decision moments in the game. And during the 2025 season, these cameras supported 322 replay reviews and 141 replay assists.

One of these key areas is using Hawk-Eye's camera systems to determine whether a team has gained the required 10 yards for a first down.

Traditionally, close first-down decisions involved officials bringing out a set of measuring chains, a process that could take more than a minute and interrupt the flow of the game. Sony's virtual measurement system instead uses six cameras to determine the distance between the spotted football and the first-down line.

During the 2025 season, the system was called upon for 21 virtual measurements, and Sony says these were completed in nearly half the average time required for traditional chain measurements.

Officials are still responsible for deciding exactly where the ball should be placed after a play. Hawk-Eye measures the distance from that position, rather than independently determining where the ball should have ended up, so there is still room for human judgment and error.

Supporting photographers with kit

Of course, Sony hasn't forgotten about the army of photographers capturing every moment, and one thing I learned during my visit was just how much support goes into keeping them shooting throughout a game.

Sony told me it typically supports around 75 to 100 photographers on game days, offering everything from loan equipment to sensor cleaning and repairs (even on cameras not carrying Sony branding).

There's also an interesting mix of cameras being used to capture the action. Sony says freelance photographers have been particularly drawn to the high-resolution Sony A7R VI; now its speed has caught up with the massive resolution, while agencies tend to favor the even faster Sony A1 and A9 series.

Lens choices are interesting too, with Sony's new, significantly smaller and lighter 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 G Master lenses apparently already proving popular with photographers who don't fancy lugging enormous telephotos around the sidelines all day.

Sony audio on the sidelines

Sony's partnership also goes beyond photography – the headsets worn by NFL coaches.

Sony developed a completely new headset specifically for the league, drawing upon the design of the WH-1000X consumer range of noise-canceling headphones, but adapting it to an environment where it needs to withstand humid heat to freezing temperatures, as well as some abuse from frustrated coaching staff.

Sony tested its headsets using crowd noise exceeding 100 decibels, with specially designed microphones that isolate the coach's voice from the surrounding noise. I tested this out (without the baying crowd, unfortunately), but the audio beaming between the sidelines and a box far up in the stadium rafters was crystal clear.

More than 2,300 of its headsets were deployed across all 32 NFL teams during the 2025 season, recording over 1,100 hours of game-day communication, which Sony says was done so without a single hardware failure.

You might also like...

For more, check out our guides to the best Sony camera or the best camera for sports photography.

Zeiss has reminded the photography world that it is still making lenses for the Leica M-mount, and while that might sound like good news for rangefinder enthusiasts, I can't help but feel that it also highlights just how little has changed in more than two decades.

According to Leica Rumors, the German optics manufacturer recently took to social media to remind photographers that its ZM lens lineup is still very much alive, offering a respectable selection of optics for Leica's legendary M system. And while I am certainly pleased to see another established name supporting the M-mount, I do wonder whether Zeiss has become a little too comfortable relying on its past successes, rather than looking toward the future.

To put things into perspective, the Zeiss ZM system dates all the way back to 2004, when lenses including the Biogon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZM were first announced. That was 22 years ago, and while the range has seen some additions over the years, including the excellent Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZM introduced in 2014, the overall lineup has remained remarkably familiar. Today, Zeiss still offers everything from the ultra-wide Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 to the classic Planar T* 50mm f/2, providing Leica photographers with a healthy selection of focal lengths. However, when you consider just how much the camera industry has evolved since 2004, it does feel as though Zeiss has largely been standing still, particularly when it comes to developing something genuinely new for the M system.

Of course, there is absolutely no denying the optical quality of Zeiss lenses. The company has built its reputation on producing exceptional glass, and its ZM lenses are no exception, offering excellent sharpness, contrast, beautiful rendering, and the sort of mechanical construction that feels perfectly at home on a Leica rangefinder. Perhaps more importantly, they deliver much of what photographers love about Leica lenses without the considerably higher price tag that often comes with that famous red dot. For anyone looking to build a Leica M system without spending a small fortune on native optics, Zeiss remains a compelling alternative, and I would certainly never discourage anyone from considering one. After all, a great lens doesn't suddenly become a bad lens simply because it is getting older.

However, as someone who shoots with Leica M cameras regularly, I can't help but feel that the ZM system is beginning to show its age. Leica has continued to refine its optical designs, introducing close-focusing capabilities and making the most of modern digital M cameras, while other third-party manufacturers have been pushing the boundaries of what affordable rangefinder lenses can offer. Zeiss, meanwhile, seems content to keep offering essentially the same familiar designs, with little indication of a major refresh on the horizon. I would personally love to see a new generation of ZM lenses, perhaps with more compact designs, improved close-focusing capabilities, or even entirely new optical formulas that take advantage of today's increasingly demanding digital sensors. Zeiss certainly has the expertise to make it happen, which makes its apparent lack of ambition in this particular corner of the market all the more frustrating.

Then again, perhaps I am missing the point entirely. One of the greatest attractions of the Leica M system is that it doesn't demand constant technological reinvention, and a lens designed more than two decades ago can still produce incredible photographs today.

There is something rather refreshing about a manufacturer continuing to support products that have already proven themselves, rather than replacing them simply for the sake of having something new to sell. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and perhaps that is exactly the philosophy Zeiss has adopted. Nevertheless, while I am delighted that Zeiss hasn't abandoned the Leica M-mount, I would love its next announcement to be about an exciting new lens rather than another reminder that it still makes the old ones.

Because after 22 years, surely it is time for something new?

Check out our guide to the best Leica M lenses

The compact cinema camera market has become increasingly competitive in recent years, with manufacturers finding new ways to squeeze professional filmmaking features into smaller, lighter, and more affordable bodies. However, one camera that continues to catch my attention is the Nikon ZR.

Priced at $2,199.95 in the US at Adorama, or B&H, and currently available for just £1,999 in the UK from Wex, or Park Cameras, down from £2,199, Nikon's first cinema camera developed with RED represents a particularly interesting proposition.

We're talking about a full-frame cinema camera with some genuinely impressive filmmaking credentials, yet it costs considerably less than many of the established professional alternatives. For independent filmmakers, content creators, and even photographers looking to explore filmmaking, I think that's a pretty compelling starting point.

But what exactly are you getting for your money? Well, underneath that rather understated exterior sits a 24.5MP partially stacked full-frame sensor capable of recording 6K video at up to 60fps, including internal 12-bit RAW recording using Nikon's R3D NE format, developed with RED.

That's a pretty serious specification for a camera at this price point, especially when you consider the RED color science, dual-base ISO settings of 800 and 6400, and Nikon's claimed dynamic range of more than 15 stops. There's also support for N-RAW and ProRes RAW, giving filmmakers considerable flexibility when it comes to editing and color grading. To me, this is arguably the ZR's biggest selling point. You're getting access to a genuinely sophisticated RAW video workflow without having to invest in a much larger, more expensive cinema system.

However, it's not just the image quality that makes the Nikon ZR interesting. Nikon has clearly understood that modern filmmakers want equipment that works just as well when shooting independently as it does on a professional production. The ZR features a large 4-inch vari-angle touchscreen, in-body image stabilization, intelligent subject-detection autofocus, and perhaps one of its most impressive features, internal 32-bit float audio recording.

Being able to capture high-quality audio directly into the camera, with greater flexibility to adjust levels in post-production, is a huge advantage for anyone recording interviews, documentaries, or spontaneous content. Better still, the entire body weighs approximately 540g, making it incredibly portable and ideal for handheld shooting or mounting on a compact gimbal. For someone who appreciates smaller cameras that don't compromise on their creative potential, there's a lot here to get excited about.

Of course, Nikon isn't operating in an empty market. Cameras such as the Sony FX3, Sony FX30, Canon EOS C50, and Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K have already demonstrated just how much demand there is for compact filmmaking systems. Yet I think Nikon has approached things slightly differently with the ZR, combining the familiarity and versatility of its Z-mount mirrorless ecosystem with the filmmaking heritage of RED. It isn't perfect, of course.

There's no built-in electronic viewfinder, no internal ND filters, and the inclusion of micro HDMI rather than a full-size connection might frustrate filmmakers who rely on external monitoring equipment. You also only get one CFexpress Type B slot alongside a slower microSD slot, which limits your options for redundant high-bitrate recording. Nevertheless, these are compromises I can understand when you consider the camera's size, price, and overall capabilities.

So, is the Nikon ZR worth its asking price? Personally, I think it's one of the more interesting compact cinema cameras currently available, particularly when you consider what Nikon has managed to offer for around $2,200 or less than £2,000. Naturally, you'll still need to factor in lenses, memory cards, and potentially some additional accessories, but the foundations of a remarkably capable filmmaking setup are already there.

What excites me most, however, is what the ZR represents for the wider camera industry. Professional filmmaking technology is becoming increasingly accessible, and cameras like this are challenging the idea that you need to spend thousands more to produce genuinely cinematic results. The market might be crowded, but if Nikon can continue delivering this level of performance at such competitive prices, I have a feeling the ZR could be just the beginning of something much bigger.

After a very quiet time in terms of new camera releases, there’s been a bit of a flurry of activity recently, but to be honest, with now being the buy-in time for retailers preparing for the busy Christmas and New Year period, more activity might have been expected. Nevertheless, the recent newcomers are very interesting in terms of the different ways that their makers are tackling a challenging market situation.

Both the OM System PEN (pictured above) and the Nikon Z5IIC are different takes on how to convince smartphone users of the benefits of actual cameras, beyond it just being fashionable. So far, it’s the fixed-lens compact camera that’s made all the running here, offering the benefits of a much bigger sensor, but still being comparatively small and so still easy to carry around all time.

Panasonic’s Lumix L10 has upped the ante by packing all its mirrorless camera tech into a fixed-lens package that’s bigger and more expensive, but hugely capable so its appeal extends to more experienced photographers. The new PEN has a similarly broader appeal, but with the added flexibility of interchangeable lenses. However, with its kit zoom, it’s pretty close in size to the L10 and also quasi-retro in its looks, which is important because real cameras have to look like real cameras, and that means at least a hint of a more classical styling. The L10 is quite a bit more expensive than the PEN kit, but it’s a better-featured camera, especially when it comes to shooting video, but both cameras are targeting first-time users.

The more left-field offering here is the Nikon Z5IIC which is aiming to slot first-timers straight into a full-frame camera, and a very well-featured one at that. Under the skin it’s mostly the Z5II – the best-selling Z mount mirrorless body at the moment – but there’s no EVF and only a single memory card slot. However, ditching the ’finder makes the Z5IIC smaller, lighter and cheaper; plus Nikon has added a set of subject/scene modes to enhance its appeal as a high-end point-and-shoot. None of this is random, of course. The much-underrated ‘APS-C’ format Z30 has found a niche as a better-featured compact camera so Nikon thinks a full-frame model could do the same… the Z5IIC is as much designed for photographers as videographers, but the emphasis is on it being easy-to-use or, as we were told at the press preview, a “super fun” camera. And, funnily enough, it sort of is.

The Z5IIC still looks a bit on the serious side, but it handles beautifully and with the subject mode AE and subject recognition AF, works brilliantly at a push of the shutter button. It’s still expensive in compact camera terms, but Nikon also sees the Z5IIC as being a longer-term investment with users able to grow with it as they gain experience. Much will depend on how it’s marketed, but the Z5IIC makes a whole more sense than you might first imagine. In fact, it’s actually rather clever. And, if you really want an EVF, there’s always the Z5II isn’t there?

There have always been so-called entry-level interchangeable-lens cameras to attract first-timers, but promoting the idea that you’re getting something less hasn’t really ever seemed like a great idea. Anyone graduating from a smartphone wants to get more serious about photography so they’re looking at a camera that’s going to help them do that. They probably won’t ever use all the features of cameras like the L10, the PEN or the Z5IIC, but they really want to have them… and maybe a big sensor too. Well, why not?

It’s encouraging that we’re seeing some innovative approaches to designing cameras that are more attractive to beginners, but that aren’t the old-school, pared-down, yesterday’s tech models. Thanks mainly to the smartphone, the market is now much more visually literate and savvy – which is why more users want to move to a real camera – and, notably, price isn’t everything. These newbies want the latest and greatest in capabilities and are prepared to pay for them, so it’s more about how they’re packaged and presented. For camera designers, this is about thinking outside the square and maybe breaking with established conventions to appeal to a whole new category of potential buyer… the advanced beginner. And it could be good for all of us.

As a photographer using a Fujifilm mirrorless camera, there’s been more than a few times that I wish the viral X100VI compact camera was easier to get my hands on. But it’s not just the compact camera’s size that I’m jealous of – one of the features that I wish I could tuck into my mirrorless is actually the compact camera’s unusual viewfinder.

The Fujifilm X100VI uses a hybrid viewfinder design that fits both a traditional optical viewfinder and an electronic viewfinder into one. The hybrid design launched with the first X100 series camera and remains an iconic part of its retro design.

But despite Fujifilm’s hybrid viewfinder being around for more than a decade, the feature hasn’t bled into many of the company’s mirrorless cameras. The one exception is the X-Pro series. Cameras like the X-Pro3 also had a hybrid viewfinder, but the discontinued X-Pro3 is only available used.

The hybrid design mixes the best of optical viewfinders, which are pure optics, with the best of electronic viewfinders, which are screen-based viewfinders, because photographers can choose to switch between the two. (Or use the electronic rangefinder mode that puts a small EVF window inside the optical viewfinder.)

When I first transitioned from a DSLR to mirrorless, I loved the electronic viewfinder because I could see exactly what I was photographing, down to the exposure and colors.

But when I’m working with flash, I usually find myself missing the old-school optical viewfinder. When I’m exposing for the flash, the exposure preview on the EVF renders a dark image because, without the flash of light, that’s what the exposure would look like. I have to turn off the exposure preview option on the EVF in order to get around that darkened viewfinder.

That’s why I often find myself thinking about not just the X100VI’s small size, but its unusual viewfinder. The hybrid design allows photographers to choose whether they want a true optical viewfinder that shows the scene without screen lag or an electronic one that shows an accurate exposure and white balance preview.

I suspect one of the reasons that the hybrid design hasn’t become more widespread is that the optical view has a number of limitations, particularly when mixed with modern camera tech. The electronic viewfinder mode is a must for using features like eye detection and subject detection autofocus.

Putting a hybrid viewfinder on a camera with swappable lenses is a different beast from putting one on a fixed lens camera, but the X-Pro3 proves it’s possible.

Still, I love the film-like controls on my Fujifilm mirrorless, and the classic optical viewfinder feels much more classic than a modern EVF. The option to choose between either type depending on what I’m shooting and the experience I’m looking for is something that I would love to have without giving up swappable lenses.

The hybrid viewfinder seems particularly notable with the rise of screen-free compact cameras, digital cameras that use traditional optical viewfinders and skip the ability to view photos.

The price of the Fujifilm X100VI has me eyeing pancake lenses as a portable alternative instead – but mirrorless alternatives like the X-E5 don’t offer the same hybrid viewfinder experience.

You may also like

Take a look at the best Fujifilm cameras or the best retro cameras.

I've always admired Leica for its willingness to do things differently, and perhaps one of the best examples of that philosophy is its S-series of medium format cameras. While the Leica M-series has become synonymous with rangefinder photography, and the Q and SL systems have established themselves as incredibly capable modern cameras, the S-series has quietly faded into the background.

Its most recent model, the Leica S3, arrived back in 2020, and for years there have been rumors suggesting that a successor, widely referred to as the Leica S4, was in development. However, more recent reports suggest Leica has significantly reduced its medium format development activities, with engineers previously working on the S-series reportedly reassigned to the company's SL and M divisions.

For me, that raises an interesting question: as much as I would love to see another Leica medium format camera, does the world really need an S4, and more importantly, does Leica?

To understand why this is such a difficult decision, you first have to appreciate what made the Leica S-series special. Originally introduced with the Leica S2 in 2008, the system was Leica's answer to professional medium format photography, combining the image quality and larger sensors traditionally associated with studio cameras with the familiar handling of a DSLR.

The latest Leica S3 took that philosophy further, introducing a 64MP medium format sensor measuring 45 x 30mm, an optical viewfinder, and Leica's exceptional S-mount lenses. It was a beautiful camera capable of producing extraordinary images, but it was also a rather chunky piece of equipment, particularly when compared with today's increasingly compact mirrorless systems. And therein lies one of the biggest problems facing any potential successor. The photography industry has moved on considerably in the six years since the S3 arrived, and I struggle to see how Leica could simply update the existing formula and expect it to compete with the likes of Fujifilm and Hasselblad.

The rumored Leica S4 has been an interesting story to follow. Previous reports suggested Leica was working on an entirely new mirrorless medium format system, potentially featuring a new lens mount and accompanying optics. In May 2025, Leica chairman Dr. Andreas Kaufmann was reported to have acknowledged that the camera was still being developed. Yet, by May 2026, Leica Rumors was reporting that the dedicated medium format development structure had effectively been dissolved, with personnel moving to other projects.

Interestingly, Leica's vice president of global marketing and communications, Andrea Pacella, subsequently told Digital Camera World in August that the company had not abandoned medium format, but had paused development of its next-generation S camera while waiting for advances in sensor and processing technology. So, while the S4 may not be completely dead, its future certainly appears uncertain.

I think one of Leica's biggest headaches would be deciding exactly what a modern S4 should look like. Today, we have cameras such as the Fujifilm GFX100S II delivering 102MP resolution in relatively compact bodies, while Hasselblad has established itself as another major player in the 100MP medium format market. For Leica to launch a new S4 with the S3's existing 64MP resolution would undoubtedly raise eyebrows, even though I personally believe 64MP is more than enough for almost any photographic application.

However, moving to a 100MP sensor introduces another question: what happens to all those wonderful Leica S lenses? While increasing resolution doesn't automatically mean existing lenses need replacing, it would certainly put their optical performance, autofocus capabilities, and compatibility with a modern system under greater scrutiny. Would Leica have to redesign some of its glass to deliver the performance photographers expect from a new flagship? And if so, how much would that add to the already considerable cost of developing a new camera system?

Then there is the physical design of the camera itself. The Leica S-series has always followed a traditional DSLR-style design, complete with a mirror box and a substantial body, which made sense when the system was first introduced. But I cannot imagine Leica releasing a new medium format DSLR in today's market.

A mirrorless S4 would almost certainly be the direction to take, allowing for a slimmer camera body, an electronic viewfinder, improved autofocus, and potentially in-body image stabilization. However, making that transition properly could mean developing an entirely new lens mount, something previous rumors had already suggested. Leica could potentially retain compatibility with existing S-mount lenses through adapters, but that still leaves the prospect of developing a new generation of native lenses designed specifically for the shorter flange distance and more compact proportions of a mirrorless system.

Suddenly, what initially sounds like a relatively straightforward upgrade from 64MP to 100MP becomes the development of an entirely new camera ecosystem. And knowing Leica's commitment to optical quality, I cannot imagine the company wanting to cut corners.

What makes the situation even more complicated is Leica's current position in the photography market. The Q3 and Q3 43 have helped make the Q-series one of the most compelling premium compact camera systems available, while the SL-series continues to develop into a serious professional alternative to Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

Then, of course, there is the M-series, which remains at the very heart of Leica's identity and offers something genuinely different from almost anything else on the market. These are camera systems with established audiences, recognizable identities, and extensive ecosystems that Leica can continue refining. Developing a new medium format system would require enormous investment in research, development, manufacturing, and marketing, all to compete in a relatively small segment already served incredibly well by Fujifilm and Hasselblad.

When I look at it that way, the reports of Leica redirecting resources toward its SL and M systems make perfect business sense, particularly when those resources could help develop the next generation of cameras and lenses that existing Leica customers are already invested in.

Of course, the photographer in me would still love to see Leica surprise us with an S4. There is something undeniably appealing about a beautifully engineered Leica medium format camera, particularly one that could combine the company's outstanding lens design with a modern 100MP sensor and a more compact mirrorless body.

But the realist in me thinks Leica has a much bigger decision to make than simply whether to release another camera. To bring back the S-series successfully, Leica would need to create something that feels genuinely different from what Fujifilm and Hasselblad are already offering, rather than simply attaching a red dot to another high-resolution medium format system. And that would be no small undertaking. I would much rather see Leica continue pushing the boundaries of its hugely capable Q, SL, and M cameras than spend years and significant resources resurrecting a system that might struggle to find its place in today's market.

The Leica S-series deserves to be remembered as something special, but perhaps, just perhaps, its greatest legacy is what it has already given us, rather than what Leica might attempt to create next.

I must confess to not originally being aware of the film-era Olympus Pen, launched way back in 1959. At least not until the digital version, 2009’s Olympus PEN E-P1, landed a cool 50 years later, complete with a press trip to a cinema in Berlin, where the usherettes were dressed in 1960s garb.

Nevertheless, the retro styling of the PEN E-P1 had the effect of making me feel nostalgic for something I’d never experienced. Which is a neat trick to pull off, in terms of marketing.

I’ve owned one of the digital PEN’s compact mirrorless successors, the E-PL7, for a decade now and it’s the camera I return to the most, for a very simple reason: its balance of portability and quality hits the sweet spot for me.

I don’t need a full-frame sensor or anything bigger than what the Micro Four Thirds system offers as my photographs are used almost exclusively online these days and I’m never asked for prints, let alone billboard sized ones.

When Olympus’s former camera division became the newly formed OM Digital Solutions shortly after the Covid pandemic, it seemed, briefly, that the PEN range had been put out to pasture. So, I was pleased to see it resurrected and hopefully re-invigorated as, simply, the OM System PEN. It wasn’t the PEN F Mark II continuation some were expecting, but a case of dialling it right back to the beginning again, like rebooting a movie franchise.

Resembling a modern classic from the get-go, the 2026 PEN more expectedly features various under-the-bonnet tweaks to bring it in line with more recent OM System releases, including a Computational Photography button plus, this time around, phase detection auto focus with 121 AF points.

OK, if I’m being picky, I would have preferred a metal chassis to the plastic / polycarbonate body we’ve been given, but then that would have impacted both lightweight build and price. While I approve of its weather-sealed construction, I also like the fact that, in the age of the influencer, its maker has kept this very much a ‘photography first’ camera. In an age where competitors have sought to primarily seduce videographers as the most ‘sticky’ form of content creation, that almost feels like a rebellious stance.

Now all I need to work out is how I can blag one from the former Olympus to update my ageing E-PL7 workhorse.

Almost film’s last hurrah, the “Advanced Photo System”, was developed jointly by Kodak, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, and Minolta after nearly a decade of research. The consortium reportedly invested well over US$1 billion in the system.

They say timing is everything, and unfortunately, the APS arrived at exactly the wrong time. Within five years of its 1996 launch, digital cameras advanced so rapidly that APS never really got off the ground. It never had the opportunity to mature into the successful format its backers envisioned.

APS wasn't simply a new film size, or another of Kodak’s seeming endless efforts to promote smaller film sizes, It was an entirely new system designed to make photography easier and smarter. Its major innovations included a simple cartridge for drop-in film loading that eliminated the need to thread a leader onto the pickup spool. All APS cameras had motorized film advance and rewind. And a magnetic strip along the film’s edge, to record the exposure data, print instructions (cropping, etc) etc. This IX (Information Exchange) data was essentially to an APS negative, what the EXIF data is to a digital photograph today.

APS allowed for three selectable print formats without changing lenses: H (High Definition) gave a 16:9 aspect ratio to match modern digital TVs. C (Classic) matched the 3:2 aspect ratio of standard 35mm film, while P (Panorama gave a 3:1 aspect ratio.

But there is one clever bit in this that is often misunderstood. Regardless of which format the photographer selected, the camera always exposed the entire frame. The chosen format was merely recorded magnetically for the photo lab’s automatic cropping. This also allowed for different print cropping to be made on later prints from the same negative.

The auto rewind and advance feature meant that cameras could rewind and reload film rolls, making it possible to switch rolls, mid-stream, without wasting a single shot Although commercially unsuccessful, APS introduced concepts that became standard in digital photography.

Among them were the concept of metadata stored with each image, automated film (and later, memory card) handling, and the viability of smaller image formats. Today, the term APS-C, denotes a smaller sensor using the APS "Classic" frame size of 25.1 × 16.7 mm.

Most APS cameras were compact point-and-shoot models. Only three interchangeable-lens SLR systems were produced: Canon’s EOS IX, Minolta’s Vectus and Nikon’s Pronea. Of these, Nikon's Pronea S was arguably the most technically interesting.

Introduced in September 1998, the Pronea S was advertised as the world's smallest and lightest autofocus SLR, from any maker. Nikon targeted travellers and women photographers who wanted SLR capability without the bulk of a traditional 35mm camera. (Indeed, one of Digital Camera World’s editors bought one for his wife, which would still be in use today if you could still buy the film.)

The Pronea S looks unlike almost any Nikon before or since. Its designers concentrated on making the body as thin as possible. The result resembled an early digital camera more than a film SLR. NIkon’s engineers endowed it with all the bells and whistles; including a Nikon F-derived lens mount, phase-detection autofocus, Multi-segment Matrix Metering, built-in flash and a 1.5 fps shooting speed. And unlike most APS cameras, the Pronea S provided nearly all the exposure controls found on Nikon's contemporary 35mm SLRs.

The IX Nikkor lenses made for the Pronea models covered only the smaller APS format and so were unusable on NIkon’s 35mm cameras. But the modified F-mount meant the camera could use most contemporary Nikon autofocus lenses, including Nikon’s AF, AF-D and many of the AF-S series of lenses could be used with a 1.6 crop factor, foreshadowing Nikon’s later use of DX lenses and APS-C sized sensors for digital SLRs.

Reviewers at the time said it handled remarkably well, and praised its fast autofocus, excellent metering, bright finder, and good ergonomics. But APS negatives have only about 56% of the image area of a 35 mm negative. Although APS films employed finer-grain emulsions, enlargements beyond about 8 × 10 inches generally showed more grain than comparable 35 mm photographs. Add in the fact that APS film and processing cost more than ordinary 35 mm and that many labs declined to make the investment in APS processing machinery when they could see the digital revolution coming, and it’s easy to see why the Advanced Photo System failed.

Between 1998 and 2002, digital cameras improved dramatically rapidly increasing in resolution while prices fell. Consumers increasingly preferred instant image review and no film processing costs. By 2002, major manufacturers had largely switched to digital cameras and Kodak ceased APS film production in 2011. In the end, it seems that APS had a bigger influence on digital photography than it did on film.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Check out the best spy cameras and the best hidden camera detectors

Dave Newman is an amateur wildlife and pet photographer based in Lincolnshire in the UK.

He submitted this fantastic photo to Digital Camera World magazine, responding to shoutouts for its regular 'Rate My Photo' page.

The image gets a full analysis, highlighting the aspects that excel, and ones that could be improved upon.

Before deconstructing Dave's photo, let's go behind the scenes of the shot…

"In this image, I captured a kingfisher emerging from the water with a freshly caught fish, freezing a split second of precision and power," Dave recalls.

"I positioned myself near a known hunting perch. I tracked the bird from the dive, into the water and then back out, and used a fast shutter speed to freeze motion.

"The goal was to reveal the bird’s hunting skill, timing and the dramatic beauty of its everyday survival instincts. This is my best kingfisher capture to date."

Captured on a Sony A9 with a Sony FE 400mm GM f/2.8 OSS. Settings: 1/8,000 sec at f/2.8, ISO 800, -0.3 exposure compensation.

See more of Dave's shots on his Instagram: @daves_spherical_photography

Expert analysis of 'Kingfisher' by Dave Newman

Overall impact

It’s a tremendous shot that has bags of impact. Having the kingfisher coming straight back out of the water like a missile, and with a fish in its beak, makes this perfectly timed capture.

Getting this shot was all down to Dave’s fieldcraft in knowing where the bird was likely to perch and dive from, and where it would emerge, then using his technical skill to capture the action at the perfect moment.

Eye contact

The slight tilt of the head trades symmetry for a more engaging photo. Being able to see the bird’s eye gives the image more of a connection; a symmetrical bird may not have made as good a shot.

Frozen water and spray

The fast shutter speed of 1/8,000 sec means every droplet of water is frozen, giving the splash an interesting shape. The trade-off for that shutter speed is that the ISO had to be increased to 800, but the resulting noise was dealt with in software.

Beautiful background

The wide-open aperture of f/2.8 means the background is a series of pastel coloured bands, with lovely muted colours, allowing full focus on the bird.

Depth of field

The advantage of f/2.8 is the background and keeping the ISO to 800 with that fast shutter speed. The disadvantage is that there is little depth of field.

The focus point seems to be the head and neck area, which is sharp, but some feathers are out of focus, as are the feet and tail.

Would a narrower aperture have achieved more depth of field? Possibly, but it would have impacted either the shutter speed or the ISO.

Vertical composition

Dave has already cropped this image to get closer to the bird, but another option may have been to crop it into a vertical orientation to emphasise the upwards movement.

He could have tried to capture it vertically, but that would run the risk of not getting it in the frame when it was moving quickly, so shooting in landscape orientation was probably the better choice.

Read more from Digital Camera magazine

This content appeared in issue 308 (June 2026) of Digital Camera magazine.

Every issue of Digital Camera magazine is packed with tips, techniques, pro advice, reviews, news and inspiration.

Don’t forget that you can subscribe to Digital Camera magazine and get the magazine delivered to your door every month. Choose between a print or digital subscription, or a bundle of the two.

All subscribers to Digital Camera magazine can now access digital back issues dating from 2009 (when using iOS) or 2012 (when using the Pocketmags Magazine Newsstand app or the Pocketmags website).

You can buy limited back issues of Digital Camera magazine in print at our Magazines Direct secure store.

Alternatively, there is a range of different digital options available, including:

• Apple app (for iPad or iPhone)
• Zinio app (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• PocketMags (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• Readly (digital magazine subscription service)

Yes, DSLR shipments may have fallen 30% year-on-year while fixed lens compact shipments have risen by the same amount. But DSLRs didn’t stop being good overnight simply because the market shifted to smaller alternatives.

There’s also been a recent twist. Pentax has teased a whole new concept for the DSLR format, while simultaneously ceasing production of every one of its current models. By doing so it’s generated confusion and excitement in equal measure.

The message is clear: photographers shouldn’t consign the DSLR to history just yet.

Plus, if we frame DSLR as a ‘classic’ format, while outlining the reason why it deserves to stick around, not instead of, but as well as competing options, including mirrorless cameras, maybe that will be enough to placate the DSLR’s haters.

Sure, we’ve long been conditioned to believe ‘mirrorless = good / DSLR = bad’. But the sensible response is that they’re both simply different paths photographers take to arrive at the same destination.

So, to cut to the chase, why is it still worth considering purchasing and still using a DSLR in 2026?

For those on a budget, a DSLR is often the very definition of a best buy. Though Canon products tend to depreciate the least, a declining market for DSLRs means that there are used bargains to be had; not just regarding the camera bodies but all the accessories that go with them.

It’s inarguable that you can now kit out a full-frame DSLR for far less than what the latest mirrorless system costs, making DSLRs the perfect back-up body option.

Then there are also operational considerations – and bonuses.

One thing I really appreciate about still using a DSLR is the large and bright optical viewfinder, as opposed to an EVF or LCD screen, the latter of which reflects and is tricky to view in strong sunlight.

Plus, because an EVF or LCD is not constantly draining my camera’s juice, I can shoot all day on a DSLR without fretting that dreaded low battery warning. So, using an optical viewfinder doesn’t boil down to personal preference or nostalgia.

Next, there is the DSLR’s typically deep and chunky handgrip that provides a nice counterbalance to whichever lens is currently in use. It just feels right. Likewise, in the DSLR’s favor is a durable build quality that, unlike most mirrorless bodies, doesn’t compromise on ergonomics to hit a certain size and weight.

Yes, I fully understand that sometimes a camera that is lighter and more compact, including my go-to Olympus PEN Lite E-PL7, is more appealing as an everyday device to stash in the glovebox, while features of contemporary mirrorless cameras such as AI-enhanced subject tracking and 4K/6K/8K video recording also add a degree of future-proofing. I get it.

But equally, for those who don’t feel the need to constantly have the latest and greatest – valuing more a setup that reliably does the job and does it well – a DSLR that is reassuringly rugged and more professional-feeling still holds major appeal.

And as I’ve noted before, just because DSLR and mirrorless systems both exist, I don’t feel the need to take sides and use one exclusively over the other. Despite all the money put behind manufacturers’ marketing push.

So, the message is shoot smart… and not just with whatever is currently on trend.

Check out the best DSLRs that you can still buy today

In second place to Canon only, in terms of total sales and shipment numbers, yet arguably in pole position for its sensor technology with more than 50% market share, Sony is without question a massive presence in the photographic world.

But it’s rarely a brand that I get excited about, or by. You may feel the same. Why?

As part of my attempt at an answer I’ll acknowledge there is something very competent about Sony. Impressive even, given the consistent quality of its products. Pioneering too, in that it was the first company to bring a full-frame mirrorless camera to market back in 2013, when the Alpha series A7 and A7R were unveiled, following on from the previous year’s fixed-lens Cyber-shot RX1.

13 years on, however, and Canon and Nikon also have comprehensive full-frame interchangeable-lens mirrorless ranges. So that period of Sony feeling in any way special to photographers was short lived. But is that on its own why I don’t feel much love or loyalty to the brand?

Probably not.

Turning the clock back further, Sony notably purchased Konica Minolta’s imaging expertise to fast track the launch of its own Alpha DSLR series in 2006. Again, at that time this felt like a real statement of intent and display of manufacturing might. But am I subconsciously still unable to shake a feeling that Sony hasn’t quite paid its dues, by not starting from scratch itself? Brand heritage must be earnt, not just bought, surely.

Or maybe it is something more superficial. Something about the angular, utilitarian and almost at times brutalist and perfunctory design of Sony’s cameras that doesn’t give me that pang of nostalgia that say, an OM System PEN or Leica rangefinder camera does? With its consumer electronics background, Sony does appear to focus on function rather than form, and care about capability rather than craft.

And what about the output of Sony’s cameras themselves? Is there something clinical and sterile about the appearance of its images that lacks the inherent warmth of competing brands? Or is that all in my head?

It may just be it’s a combination of the above, that, when compared with legacy players, Sony feels more like a brand to admire and less like a brand to love. Recent releases including the Alpha 7R VI and the upcoming FX5 have done little to shake that feeling.

So, what now? Should Sony embrace what the others have got right? Should a usually future-facing electronics brand instead go enthusiastically retro?

As Yamilex and Naiomy, two escaramuzas, posed for a portrait, a third, Katie, entered the background, the entire scene illuminated by an ethereal orange glow.

“I noticed Katie off to the side lunging her horse and thought it could make a beautiful composition to have all three in the frame, with the horse in motion,” said Constance Jaeggi O’Connor, who clicked the shutter.

Recently, O’Connor’s image was selected by the photography platform VSCO to feature in The Fifty. An ongoing project, The Fifty celebrates 50 photographers, one from each US state, by displaying an image from each photographer on a billboard in their home state.

Chosen from over 13,000 entries, O'Connor's frame will soon appear on a billboard in Colorado, where she resides.

O'Connor's gear and settings

Constance Jaeggi O’Connor has used a Contax 645 120mm film camera along with an 80mm and 35mm prime lenses for her project Escaramuza, the Poetics of Home. While she opts for film rated ISO 400 by the manufacturer, she typically set her in-camera ISO setting to 200 for richer, more colorful images.

The photographer captured the scene near Nampa, Idaho, while photographing the Reinas del Valle (Queens of the Valley) escaramuza, an all-female Mexican equestrian tradition in which riders perform intricate, high-speed maneuvers on horseback while riding sidesaddle.

As the sun hung low, creating a soft, warm light, and the stamping hooves kicked up dust that filled the smoky air, she framed the shot.

Shooting on a Contax 645, a medium-format autofocus SLR film camera, O’Connor rated her Fujifilm Pro 400H at ISO 200 in-camera and opted for a slower shutter speed to capture what she described as the “ideal” conditions.

“This was probably the best day of photographing of the entire project – which I worked on over the course of two years – and it was in part because of the light,” she explained.

The project had developed from an exhibition commission, Escaramuza, the Poetics of Home, which was previously on display at the National Cowgirl Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. “I was certainly interested at first because of the beauty of these women’s attire, and the spectacle of their performances,” said O’Connor.

But interviews with riders revealed a more complex story about identity, belonging and gender inequality within charrería – Mexico’s overarching national horseback tradition and sport.

Rooted in the image of the charro, a male horseback rancher, the tradition became a cornerstone of Mexican identity, with traits like bravery, dominance over animals and fearless bravado treated as badges of machismo.

However, O’Connor’s travels across the US, interviewing and photographing escaramuzas, revealed the all-female branch of charrería “pushing back” against machismo. “I realized what a complex and layered story this was, one that I really felt the need to help to tell,” she said.

The photographer hopes that, by being featured in The Fifty, her image will help tell the story of escaramuza and how these women are redefining the Mexican charrería tradition, albeit north of the border in the US.

“Working on this project opened up a whole new world to me, and helped me understand a culture and a tradition that I hope more people are able to discover thanks to this work,” she said.

You might also like…

Here’s Seb Oakley, our analogue expert’s pick of the best film cameras.

I’ve made no secret of my love for the Insta360 Luna series. In fact, I genuinely believe it's one of the most exciting little cameras to come along in years, and every time I pick it up, I'm reminded just how much fun creating content can be.

But while I've been enjoying everything this wonderfully compact pocket gimbal camera has to offer, there's always been one piece of the puzzle that could make it even better: professional-quality audio without all the unnecessary equipment. Well, Insta360 might just have answered my prayers with its new Insta360 Mic, and I think it could be the perfect companion for both the Luna Ultra and Luna Pro.

What excites me most isn't necessarily the microphone itself, but just how effortlessly it fits into the Insta360 ecosystem. Thanks to Insta360 Direct Connect, you can pair a Mic directly with the Luna Ultra or Luna Pro over Bluetooth, without needing a separate receiver, adapters, or a collection of cables dangling from your camera. It's the sort of simplicity I absolutely love. With the appropriate camera firmware, you get 48kHz audio, while both Luna models support connecting two transmitters simultaneously. And that, for me, is where things start getting really interesting.

As someone who enjoys documentary-style shooting and capturing those spontaneous moments, the idea of being able to conduct an interview on the fly with such a compact setup is incredibly appealing. Imagine walking around a city, spotting an interesting story, and being able to clip a microphone onto someone, connect it to your Luna, and start recording within moments. There's no digging around in your camera bag, no complicated rigging, and no need to turn a simple conversation into a full-blown production. Better still, with support for two mics, you can capture both sides of an interview. It's exactly the kind of creative freedom that makes these smaller cameras so much fun to use in the first place.

But here's the feature that really puts a smile on my face: the ability to record audio directly onto a microSD card inside the microphone itself. I'm a huge fan of having separate audio files when I sit down at the editing suite after a shoot, and the Insta360 Mic gives me precisely that flexibility. Simply insert a microSD card into the Mic, and you have the option of recording in either 24-bit or 32-bit float.

The latter is particularly exciting because it offers extra flexibility when recovering audio levels in post-production. Whether I'm recording an interview, capturing ambient sound, or working on a more involved video project, having those independent audio files gives me another layer of control in the edit. And because storage is expandable, I'm not restricted to a fixed amount of built-in memory. I can choose a card that suits the shoot.

There are plenty of other thoughtful touches, too. AI noise canceling and Auto Gain Control should prove particularly useful when recording in unpredictable environments, especially if you're working alone and don't have the luxury of constantly monitoring audio levels.

I also love that supported microphone settings can be adjusted directly through the Luna's camera menu, keeping everything in one place. You can even start or stop camera recording remotely using the Mic's power button. Then there's the customizable E-Ink display, which allows you to replace the usual prominent branding with your own design. Is that essential to recording great audio? Absolutely not, but it's a wonderfully personal touch, and one I can see appealing to creators who want their equipment to look as considered as their content.

Perhaps the biggest selling point of the Insta360 Mic, however, is just how little equipment you actually need to carry. We've reached a point where compact cameras can produce genuinely impressive video, yet getting equally capable audio can still mean adding another layer of accessories and complexity.

The combination of a Luna and one or two Mic transmitters has the potential to change that. It's a setup that could fit comfortably into a small camera bag, ready for travel, interviews, vlogging, or simply documenting everyday life. And if you're someone who enjoys traveling light, as I do, the prospect of leaving additional receivers and cables at home is enormously appealing.

And while I've been singing the praises of the Insta360 Luna, the brilliant thing is that the new Insta360 Mic isn't exclusive to the Luna series. In fact, I'd argue it's the ultimate audio companion for anyone invested in the Insta360 ecosystem, supporting the Insta360 Ace Pro 2, GO Ultra, X6, and X5 through Direct Connect. That means I can shoot a traditional interview on the Insta360 Luna Ultra, capture immersive 360-degree footage with the X6, or switch to the Ace Pro 2 for some action-packed sequences, all while using the same fantastic wireless microphone system.

But here's where things get even more exciting. The Insta360 Mic isn't just for Insta360 cameras! Thanks to the wireless Insta360 Mic receiver, which comes as part of the two-mic and one-receiver bundle, you can also use these tiny microphones with your traditional mirrorless camera or even a professional cinema rig. Simply connect the receiver to your camera of choice using an audio jack cable, and the Insta360 Mics pair instantly with the receiver. Within minutes, you've got yourself a professional wireless audio setup that's ready to capture interviews, documentaries, or whatever creative project you're working on. It really couldn't be much easier!

For me, that's what makes the Insta360 Mic such an exciting addition to my camera bag. Rather than investing in different audio solutions for every camera I own, I now have one wonderfully compact system that can move effortlessly between my Insta360 cameras, mirrorless bodies, and cinema setups. Whether I'm interviewing on the fly, recording a piece to camera, or putting together a more ambitious documentary project, I can concentrate on telling the story rather than worrying about my audio equipment. And quite frankly, that's exactly how technology should work!

I've said before that the Insta360 Luna represents the future of compact content creation, and the Insta360 Mic only strengthens that argument. It isn't simply about making cameras smaller or adding another accessory to an already crowded market. It's about removing the barriers between having an idea and actually capturing it.

For me, being able to grab my Luna, clip on a microphone, and record an interview with separate, editable audio files is exactly what modern content creation should look like. The Luna has already made filming more enjoyable for me, and I have a feeling the Insta360 Mic could make it even better. This really does feel like a match made in content-creation heaven.

And the best part? The Insta360 Mic is surprisingly affordable, with the complete package of two transmitters and one receiver priced at $249.99, while those looking for a simpler setup can pick up the bundle with one transmitter and one receiver for just $139.99. If you're already invested in the Insta360 ecosystem and simply want to expand your audio setup, an individual Insta360 Mic transmitter costs just $79.99. Considering the creative possibilities these tiny microphones unlock, I think that's a pretty compelling proposition.

The Canon AE-1 is arguably one of Canon’s most well-known film cameras. The AE-1’s classic look, simple shutter-priority mode, and readily available price make the 1976 camera a popular choice even for modern analog photographers. But the film camera that I bought is actually its less well-known sibling: The Canon A-1.

A few weekends ago, I went to what could only be described as camera nerd heaven: A vintage camera swap hosted by a historical photography club nearby. I’d put a few rolls of film through my Pentax K1000, but I went to the vintage camera sale on the lookout for one feature in particular: Double exposure.

On a majority of film cameras, the shutter is locked after a photo is taken until the film advance lever is pulled, which prevents an accidental double exposure. On cameras that don’t have a double exposure mode, like the Pentax K1000, there’s a workaround that involves partially winding the film roll back to expose the shot a second time.

But the thought of messing with the winder and not getting the film to line up just so made me a bit nervous – hence my search for a film camera with a double exposure mode.

I didn’t have a particular model in mind, just the double-exposure feature, but I was immediately drawn to the iconic look of the A-1. The Canon A-1 has a small lever at the top that will cock the shutter without advancing the film, essentially creating a double exposure mode.

While the double exposure mode is what drew me to the Canon A-1, the more I started exploring the camera’s multitude of features, the more I fell in love with it. The Canon AE-1 shoots in shutter priority mode, but the A-1 can shoot in full manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, and programmed auto exposure.

The A-1 was reportedly the first electronic SLR to combine those four modes that are now standard on pro cameras, as it was the first with an electronically controlled programmed auto exposure mode.

The A-1 may be from 1978, but it uses a microcomputer to display the light meter readings at the bottom of the viewfinder. It even has a built-in self-timer.

The Canon AE-1 is the simpler camera to use, but the A-1 is the camera with more built-in tools. That does make the camera harder to learn. I had to look up a few tutorials, even as someone who shoots digital photos professionally.

I’ve just put my first roll of film through the Canon A-1, and I can’t wait to get it developed. But if first impressions are anything to go by, this is a retro analog camera that I hope will get a lot of use.

You may also like

Looking for a vintage film camera? I recommend looking at reputable used camera dealers, like MPB or KEH Camera. Or, take a look at the best film cameras or the best 35mm film.

It’s quite staggering that, broadly speaking, a good two-thirds of Fujifilm camera sales are of Polaroid-style Instax instant print cameras alone.

This takes some getting my head around because, when thinking of Fuji, I typically visualize one of its sleek, metal-bodied APS-C sensor incorporating ‘X’ series mirrorless cameras. Or even its ambitious medium-format GFX lineup, via which it has built a solid reputation among enthusiasts and pros. As a member of the photo press, those large-sensor digital cameras are the ones I most typically experience – and value.

But as for Fuji itself, does it still value the ‘X’ series in the same way? Especially when it been almost exactly a year since the previous ‘X’ camera launch in the X-T30 III, which was preceded by the slightly gimmicky X-half.

Sure, competing manufacturers have had a very quiet 2026 too, but that’s not quite true of Fujifilm.

While there have been no new ‘X’ models this year, at the time of writing there have been four new Instax cameras in the Instax Mini Evo Cinema, the Instax Mini 13. the Instax Square 2 and the Instax Pal 2. Alongside these, there have been two Instax standalone portable printers launched this year in the Mini Link+ and the Link Wide 2, aimed at smartphone photographers.

It’s therefore not such a stretch to assume Instax is now the priority for Fujifilm and its X and GFX cameras for enthusiasts and professionals are, by contrast, on the back burner. It would come as no surprise to learn the typical Fuji customer is now a young female, not the middle-aged male typically found at photo shows.

If so, is there anything wrong with that? It makes sound business sense to go where the money is. Instax sales have boomed in recent years and there’s little apparent slowdown. All Fuji is doing is feeding the beast; that ‘beast’ being someone who likes cutesy, shiny things.

However, does that mean its traditional photographer audience is feeling slightly neglected right now, or worse still, alienated?

Not quite yet, I’d argue. Us photo enthusiasts are used to ever-lengthening gaps between new camera iterations – and, in the specialist photography market, a wait of one, two, three or even five years between models isn’t unheard of. Especially when the wider industry is beset by chip shortages and production delays.

However, no new Fujifilm ‘X’ cameras at all in the space of a year still feels unusual.

It’s too early to tell if this is a blip or the new normal, but, given the evidence above, I’d wager that it may well be the latter.

Check out the best Fujifilm cameras you can buy right now

While I wouldn’t first and foremost describe myself as a Canon user, I have tried and tested almost every new camera it’s released over the past 25 years. I even have a Canon DSLR as a backup to my mirrorless setup.

I think we can all agree it’s a solid, reliable brand, no matter your skill set. And on initial glance, its latest mirrorless offering in the entry-level full-frame Canon EOS R8 Mark II feels like it continues that consistency of excellence. It’s a good bet for fledgling photographers seeking to throw their weight behind a system.

However, I could say the exact same thing about Nikon’s equally new Z5IIc, likewise a full-frame mirrorless aimed at beginners, or suggest its marginally older Z5II, if having an eye-level viewfinder in the case of the latter is a deal-breaker.

While Canon has always enjoyed better support in terms of the volume and variety of directly compatible lenses and accessories, with its equally long and distinguished heritage, Nikon is no slouch when it comes to own-brand and third-party support either.

Moreover, for those seeking to make the step up from an APS-C sensor camera, fixed lens compact or even smartphone, a further alternative is Sony, now Canon’s closest competitor for sales. Worth considering here is its own lightweight full-frame mirrorless A7C II camera with a handy, fully articulating touchscreen, or the even older but still available and more keenly priced A7 III.

Sticking with electronics manufacturers, the Panasonic Lumix S9 is a further viable full-frame option, particularly suited to those getting into content creation. Or, circling back to Canon, how about the manufacturer’s own step-up model in the EOS R6 Mark II, which, despite the lower numerical identifier, boasts more of a workhorse construction, a weather-sealed body and two card slots.

While the R6 Mark II may win for robustness, both it and the EOS R8 Mark II share the same 24.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor and DIGIC X processor. So, it depends whether your photography will benefit from the R6 II’s extra heft and slightly better spec, including in-body image stabilisation, or not.

In short, yes, there are better options than the latest EOS R8 Mark II out there. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that, at this point in time, it may well still be the best option for you.

We all remember the class portrait photo from our school days, and not always in a kindly way. Rows of children, arranged by height, squinting at a stranger behind a lens. Getting shouted at to comb your hair. Being berated for not smiling properly. It wasn't everybody's idea of fun.

And yet if someone keeps the print, and it turns up a couple of decades on, we're generally pleased. Not because it's a great photo: it's typically average at best. The light is whatever the light happened to be. The composition is entirely predictable. At least one or two kids end up blurred.

No, whether we're talking about a 100-year-old portrait or a 20-year-old one, what makes it precious isn’t usually anything the photographer did. It’s how well someone captioned them afterwards.

A face to a name

Take the 1927 photo from Mountain School in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, at the top of this page. On its own, it’s just fine.

A young teacher, nine pupils and a small, curly-haired child, on a lawn. The boys’ socks are wrinkling down their shins. One girl squints hard into the sun.

Then you turn it over. On the back, someone has written down every name, row by row: Paul Kittredge, James Curns, Gilbert Stacy, Wilfred Bennett along the front, then Madella Stacy, Georgia Curns, Florence Dupont, the teacher Pearl Supernow, Janet Piper and a girl whose surname they weren't sure of (“Louise?”). The toddler is listed as “small child visitor Clare Tupper”.

That list makes the difference between just a nice old picture and a truly fascinating historical document. If you just have the picture, it's nothing special. With the list, you have real, breathing people, with families and descendants who are able to find them today.

An invaluable help

Sometimes the info is right there on the picture itself. This 1906 picture from Fairview School, Illinois, shows the classic structure of the class portrait: small ones at the front, tallest at the sides, two teachers in the doorway, almost no one smiling. Along the bottom, in careful copperplate, are the words: “Niles Township, Ill – District 72 – Sept. 1906”.

It’s barely a dozen words. But it means an archivist 120 years later can tell you exactly which school this was, where it stood and who probably ran it. That's not just helpful, it's invaluable. Especially considering the building has long gone, and the town isn’t even called Niles Center anymore (it’s Skokie).

Finally, we have the graduating class of 1901 in Independence, Missouri, posed beneath a stained-glass window. And again, we know exactly who’s in it, because someone recorded all the names, row by row.

That's just as well, because the boy fourth from the left in the back row is Harry S Truman, future 33rd President of the United States. His future wife, Bess Wallace, is there too.

Here’s what's bothering me. We now take more photos in a month than some of these people took in a lifetime. Automatically, our camera will record the time, a date and maybe even the GPS location. But it won't know that the girl second from the left is your great-aunt, or that the toddler was only visiting. Those details need to be written down by an actual human.

So, here's my plea: think of future generations. And next time you shoot a group of people, take five minutes to write down who’s who. It’s not fun, and it's not glamorous. But half a century from now, it may well be the only part that matters.

“Rigid” and “unforgiving” are perhaps two adjectives that come to mind when describing ballet. But that’s not Idaho-based photographer Weston McGhee’s approach to shooting dancers.

Through his ongoing photo series, Interval, he’s captured these artists in settings beyond what he calls the “polished performances” of practice studios and stages, highlighting how the beauty and emotion of this art form can exist spontaneously, too.

For one of these images, Weston photographed a dancer named Cydney in a garage, the last place you might expect to see a ballet act. “Most of the time during this shoot, it was me letting her do what she knows best and trying to time these movements correctly,” he said.

This image was recently selected by the photography platform VSCO to feature among The Fifty, a current project drawing attention to practicing photographers across the US. Weston’s frame was chosen from some 13,000 entries and is now being displayed on a billboard in his home state.

Weston and Cydney were meeting for the first time, having connected through a mutual friend. The photographer encouraged the dancer to express herself “freely,” rather than follow a planned choreography.

“I told her that I wanted this to be a collaborative shoot. I said, ‘Turn on some music and create!’” Weston explained.

The garage was located in Boise, the capital city of Idaho, and was a prime spot on Weston’s list of shoot locations, having scouted here several times. “Each time always had a different feel, but this time, in May, the direct sun was perfect,” he said.

Weston placed Cydney in an illuminated spot on the ground, “absolutely loving” the way the light entered through the opening in the roof. He then distanced himself to not “interfere” with the dancer's movement. “I wanted to see her whole body and freestyle movement in that patch of light,” he said.

To capture the scene, the photographer used a recently purchased Fujifilm X100VI. The 40.2MP camera features a fixed 23mm f/2 lens, which Weston balanced with a fast shutter speed. “I didn’t want any motion blur for this series,” he said.

Throughout Interval, Weston has shot images in color, later changing them to monochrome in post-production, and this frame was no different. “I believe it helps eliminate any other distractions, and I like to have a timeless look,” he said.

But for Weston, the series is much more about the emotions and vulnerabilities expressed through the dancers’ bodies than the aesthetic appeal of its individual images.

For him, the photographs reflect a place between posed portraiture and the “quieter, unguarded moments” that spontaneously emerge through trust and shared time between dancer and photographer.

“I just want to give thanks to all of the amazing ballet dancers that have collaborated with me so far,” he said. “I would also like to thank VSCO. Having this photo put on a billboard in the city I live in is such a cool experience.”

You might also like…

Here’s our monochrome expert, Seb Oakley’s, pick of the best cameras for black-and-white photography.

In 1920 The Czech playwright Karel Čapek had introduced the word "robot" to the world in his play R.U.R., where it meant an “automatic worker”.

The term seemed to fit, for while most manufacturers concentrated on making cameras that produced a single carefully composed photograph, the Robot was designed to make many photographs quickly, reliably, and almost automatically. In many respects it anticipated the motor-driven cameras that would not become commonplace for another 30 years.

The Robot story begins with Heinz Kilfitt, who later became famous for his Kilfitt lenses and other camera designs. He was the son of a German watchmaker and inherited an intimate understanding of precision mechanisms. During the early 1930s, he admired the Leica cameras, but wondered why the photographer needed to wind the film. Could not the camera do that?

So Kilfitt designed a clockwork spring motor, much like that used in a movie camera. A single winding of the spring advanced the film and cocked the shutter, allowing rapid-fire photography for the first time. Yet, both Kodak and Agfa rejected his proposals.

Fortunately, a young entrepreneur, Hans (Heinrich) Berning, saw its potential and founded Otto Berning & Co. in Düsseldorf to manufacture Kilfitt’s design. The original Robot immediately stood apart from every other miniature camera.

Among its innovations were the spring-motor film advance, which allowed shots to be taken at the breakneck speed of 4 photos per second. This was unheard of in the 1930s and foreshadowed the motor drives and winders of the 1960s and 70s. He also pioneered the rotary shutter, variations of which were used in many later cameras, such as the Olympus Pen F and the American-made Mercury. And because it was a focal-plane shutter, it accepted interchangeable lenses.

But the most brilliant idea was the adoption of a 24 x 24 mm negative, which allowed 50 exposures on a 36-exposure roll. When shooting at around four frames per second, this made a huge difference to film costs, and mimicked the format of the Rolleiflex.

Just prior to World War Two, in 1938, the Robot II refined the original design with better film transport, flash synchronization, a somewhat larger body for easier handling, and more interchangeable lenses.

During World War Two, the Robot became far more than a civilian camera as it was adapted to serve as Luftwaffe gun cameras and for reconnaissance and use in bombers for bomb-damage assessment. The spring drive was ideal for military use because it required no batteries and functioned reliably under harsh conditions. The compact size and rapid sequence capability made them invaluable.

After the war, Berning resumed civilian production and in 1951 brought out the Robot IIa, which was now compatible with Kodak’s new, standardized 35mm film cartridges, making the camera much easier to use.

It was followed by the Robot Star, which introduced an improved finder and automatic filml rewind. It became the classic, post-war Robot. Perhaps the ultimate Robots were the Royal 34 and Royal 36, which featured coupled rangefinders, interchangeable finders (for the different lenses) and speeds approaching six frames per second!

The Royal 24 and Royal 36 were intended as premium professional cameras competing with Leica and Contax. Mechanically, they were masterpieces, but commercially they struggled because they were expensive and arrived just as Japanese cameras were beginning to dominate photography.

Ironically, Robot achieved its greatest commercial success outside consumer photography. Thousands of Robot cameras were sold for bank surveillance, industrial inspection, scientific recording, and traffic enforcement. The spring motors were eventually replaced by electric drives and very large film magazines.

Many European (and some North American) speed trap cameras of the 1960s through the 1990s were, in essence, heavily modified Robot cameras.

Civilian Robot cameras continued in small numbers into the 1990s, with the last collector-oriented models appearing in 1996. By then, however, the company's primary business had shifted to industrial, surveillance, and traffic-enforcement imaging systems. The Robot name later became part of the Jenoptik group and survives today in industrial imaging rather than consumer cameras.

Robot cameras have an outsized reputation because they remained in production for over 60 years. But they were always a specialist product. Nobody knows for sure, but a realistic estimate is that approximately 110,000 to 130,000 consumer Robot cameras were built between 1934 and 1996.

The Robot remains one of the more interesting cameras of the twentieth century, despite never approaching the commercial success of Leica, Nikon, or Pentax. But it introduced many features that we now take for granted, long before their time.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Check out the best spy cameras and the best hidden camera detectors

I’ve always thought of the Ricoh GR camera lineup as appealing to a rather select crowd of photographers. Namely those prepared to pay a premium for an advanced, yet portable fixed-lens compact, who at the same time value image quality way above a trendy design.

It never struck me as something that would find favor with the masses.

Yet now, with compact cameras all the rage, the latest GR camera variants are making multiple appearances in Japan’s top ten camera sales placings. Plus, to reference recent Nikkei Industry Map data from Japan, Ricoh is currently overtaking OM System sales overall. In fact, Ricoh has tripled its volume of camera sales to give it a 2.1% share of the digital camera market.

While despite the sturdy magnesium alloy body I wasn’t initially a fan of Ricoh compacts’ rather sensible, frill-free design, I’ve come round to its less-is-more appearance. Especially when we’re otherwise constantly over-stimulated by the increasingly digital aspects of daily life – much more so than we were when the GR Digital first appeared in 2005, successor to the late 90s GR1 film camera.

The most recently announced GR IVx, due to arrive toward the end of this year, looks to be continuing a golden lineage, squeezing a 25.74-megapixel APS-C sensor into its chassis and pairing it with another high-quality fixed lens; this time a 40mm f/2.8. Protecting against possible camera shake is five-axis image stabilisation, an improvement on paper over its GR IIIx predecessor’s three-axis IS.

Just prior to this model hitting the shelves, we have the tease of the limited edition (of 6,000 units) Ricoh GR IV 30th anniversary kit, boasting the same sensor with a wideangle 28mm f/2.8 lens, plus a pin badge, finger strap, and metal hotshoe cover to satiate the collectors.

With its cameras not only being steady sellers but also witnessing markedly increased sales, it begs the question as to why rival manufacturers haven’t wanted a slice of Ricoh’s big sensor / small camera market segment?

My guess is that, like me, until now they’ve considered the audience for Ricoh GR cameras to be too niche and too specialised to come up with their own competitive offerings.

Alternatives can be found in Fujifilm’s chunky fixed-lens, APS-C sensor X100VI of course, but it’s not quite the same thing. Ditto the luxury likes of Leica’s Q compact series, which similarly offers street and travel photography possibilities. However, it likewise doesn’t feel like a direct competitor to me.

It’s clear that when it comes to Ricoh’s GR series, it continues to plough its own singular furrow.

And for rivals looking on, it is very much the case that if you can’t beat ‘em, don’t bother joining ‘em.

A pair of red-crowned cranes emerged from what looks like a blank canvas, in a dance of courtship across the snow-capped landscape.

With their dark plumage and red crowns standing out as the only anchors of color, the scene raises the question: how much detail can a photographer remove before an image stops working?

“The set I came away with reads more like ink-wash paintings than wildlife photographs,” said Somdutt Prasad, the ophthalmologist and multi-award-winning photographer who created the image as part of a series in Hokkaido, northern Japan.

Choosing Hokkaido and the high-key look

However, this high-key aesthetic was no attempt to salvage an overexposed set of photos, rather a thought-out artistic decision to capture a unique wildlife subject in a unique way.

“I was already thinking about how to make the images intertwine with the crane’s (tanchōzuru) folklore and its place in Japanese culture, rather than simply document it,” said Prasad.

The photographer explained that producing colorful, fully saturated scenes would have resulted in a "fairly standard" photographic series, so he instead chose to push the images toward a monochrome look

“High-key was the obvious direction,” Prasad added. “These birds are essentially black and white already, with color confined to a small patch on the head and neck.”

Planning before pressing the shutter

Achieving this visual effect began before taking any images, with Prasad planning his visit to the northern Japanese island in January, during Hokkaido’s coldest period. In search of the heaviest snow cover, he braved temperatures below −20°C, which strained batteries, hands, and patience.

In the field, Prasad prioritized mornings, looking for fog rising from warmer, spring-fed areas of marshland to compress the tonal range and separate the cranes from their surroundings.

Although this was no easy feat, the photographer explained that the high-key effect depended on isolating a single crane or, at most, a pair of cranes away from the bustling flock.

“That meant a lot of waiting – for a wing to open against a clean background, for a neck to arch into a shape worth keeping – rather than simply firing at whatever moved,” he said.

The equipment and technique

Snow can easily fool a camera’s metering into rendering a bright scene too dark, so to achieve a high-key look, photographers must deliberately increase the exposure. But push too far and you risk “burning the highlights,” and important details, such as birds’ feathers, can disappear, explained Prasad.

Shooting in RAW on a Nikon Z8 and Nikon Z9, the photographer explained how he kept a “constant” eye on the histogram displayed in the electronic viewfinder to assess exposure while pressing the shutter.

“You have to deliberately overexpose beyond what feels natural and then protect the highlights rather than the midtones,” said Prasad.

Prasad's gear for the red-crowned crane series

• Nikon Z9
• Nikon Z8
• Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
• Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
• Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S

The “real transformation” happened in Photoshop

After overexposing “right up to the edge” of clipping, Prasad’s first editing step was to recover detail in the snow by adjusting the “Exposure” and “Highlights” sliders in Lightroom Classic.

Then he ran the images through Photoshop, which, according to Prasad, was where the “real transformation happened.” The photographer masked the birds, carefully refining these masks near the edges of the feathers by hand.

Prasad explained that if a crane was standing on snow, he sometimes included the snow around its feet, using a feathered lasso selection or soft radial gradient.

To create the negative space in each image, Prasad then inverted the masks to select the background, pushing its exposure to the maximum and burning or clone-stamping out any remaining “stubborn” color flecks.

“The processing became an extension of the same minimalist instinct as the framing, stripping out distractions and leaning on negative space,” said Prasad.

For the final touches, the photographer masked the birds’ bodies, deliberately leaving their necks and red crowns untouched, before desaturating the body plumage. “Only then the image is done,” he said.

Controlled, conscious decisions

Prasad’s high-key technique proves that wildlife photography doesn’t always have to capture the rich colors of scales, feathers, or fur.

According to Prasad, when the exposure is controlled and post-production edits are made thoughtfully, a photographer can “strip a scene down to its essentials” by removing most of its color and background detail while still depicting the subject in an interesting way.

You might also like

Here’s our pick of the best editing software for your post-production work.

If you miss your Sony Walkman – and I very definitely do – then the first app on this list might make you forget that the iPhone Duo has more cost and fewer cameras than the iPhone 18 Pro which came out a few weeks before.

I'm one of those people who has been sitting, waiting, wondering but for every day I don't buy the new iPhone 18 Pro (as I have every one of its predecessors), I get a little bit better at not buying iPhones.

Rather than worry about that, Apple seems to have been encouraging developers to be creative with the new form factor and – even though they have only been able to use simulators – Duoman is a great example of the kind of thing that has already drawn my attention.

I grew up in the UK and, call me ungrateful, but I never quite overcome the embarrassment of getting a Boots-brand personal stereo first.

Boots is the UK's main high-street pharmacy – think CVS – and back in the late 1980s, as well as being the place to get your film developed, it was also a place to buy home stereos and all sorts of goods.

Eventually, though, I got a Sony Walkman (you know what? It was a lot better), and got used to swapping tapes to change

Potentially of interest to photographers – or their subjects – is the Saura App, a "voice first" beauty app which uses one half of the screen as a mirror and the other half to provide a hands-free vanity assistant.

In other words, in case you don't know what that is (don't worry, I didn't), the phone will tell you what make up to apply where to get the look you're after.

Thanks to the design of the phone, it can become a self standing vanity mirror, as well as one that actually talks back.

It's all a bit "Mirror mirror on the wall" for my liking, but it can remember your personal routine, and the developers have suggested that it is at its most powerful when it helps boost your confidence.

Another app that has been doing the rounds is Accorduon, which uses the hinge of the phone as the bellows. The reed sound is fully synthesized and it's been tested on the iPhone Duo simulator.

MPC fans – might be excited by a music sampler created by Shuhan-Zhang Zhang, Aradhya Mishra and Mahin Bharathwaj which beat the others in a competition on Devpost. Called Crate it is an AI-powered music sampler that splilts the controls across the two halves of the device.

That's great, but sadly this isn't a tech that I have the talent for.

Of course these creative new apps aren't really the big new feature, which is side-by-side use of existing apps.

The thing is I've spoken to plenty of people I know who have Android folding phones (yes, I don't know if you heard, but Apple didn't get here first). All of those people tell me that they very rarely end up using that feature.

So I was hoping that there might be something a bit more special to draw me into the new iPhone – Apple-specific software.

Especially as the iPhone Duo isn't actually that big; it folds small and passport sized so that it opens with a more 4:3 shaped screen; 7.6-inches rather than 6.9-inches of the iPhone 17 or 18 Pro Max. Somehow I doubt that'll make a lot of difference for enjoying 16:9 TV/movie content – it'll have black bars or be cropped.

Perhaps there is TranslateCat to look out for though. Should I be lucky enough to get sent on any international trips where my shameful lack of language skills might be exposed, this app using the dual screen system to present both sides of a conversation with a live conversation looks promising.

I didn't say I'd need a lot of convincing, after all. Now admittedly a fake Walkman is asking a lot of my "nostalgia budget," but altogether these apps do start to show that there is potential in the new form factor.

Perhaps I will get a new iPhone this year after all.

The market for pocket-sized gimbal cameras is becoming increasingly crowded, with manufacturers seemingly falling over themselves to offer more features, better video quality, and ever more impressive specifications. But in a sea of products that often feel remarkably similar, Insta360 has somehow managed to cut through all the noise with the Luna Pro.

Just look at what the Insta360 Luna Pro offers: stunning 8K video recording, Dolby Vision color, Leica color profiles, and a beautiful Leica co-engineered lens. I mean, on paper, it sounds incredible. And having spent the past month using one, I can tell you that it really is incredible. But here is the thing. None of those features are what make this, in my eyes, the best pocket gimbal camera on the market. That honor goes to one seemingly simple addition that completely changes the way you use it: the removable control center with its 2-inch OLED touchscreen.

When I first saw that little screen detach from the camera, I genuinely thought I was looking at the future of filmmaking. Now, after a month of putting it through its paces, I am convinced that it is the future. It is revolutionary, not necessarily because the technology itself is particularly complicated, but because of the creative freedom it gives you.

Suddenly, you can position your camera almost anywhere, step away, monitor your framing, and control everything from the palm of your hand. It sounds almost too simple, but that is precisely why it works so well. However, the most important thing about this entire experience is something that rarely gets discussed enough when we talk about cameras. It is fun. Proper, laugh-out-loud, make-you-want-to-go-out-and-film-something fun. And in my book, fun is absolute gold.

I have never had so much fun with a little camera in my life. I am talking about the kind of fun that has me channeling my inner Casey Neistat, filming my morning coffee for absolutely no reason other than the fact that I can.

I have found myself putting the Luna Pro in trees, positioning it in ridiculous places, and standing several feet away talking to what must look like a small piece of technology growing out of a branch. Anyone walking past probably thinks I have lost the plot, but I genuinely don't care.

That is the beauty of this camera. It makes me want to create things, experiment with angles, and capture moments I would ordinarily walk straight past. And when a camera makes you want to use it more, that is when you know a manufacturer has got something right. Fun sells, but more importantly, fun inspires creativity.

Of course, all that enjoyment would mean very little if the results were disappointing, but the Luna Pro absolutely delivers where it matters. The 8K footage looks fantastic, the subject tracking is remarkably effective, and the combination of Dolby Vision and those lovely Leica color profiles gives you plenty of creative possibilities straight out of the camera. Then there is the audio.

Having a microphone built directly into the detachable control center is such a clever idea that I am surprised more manufacturers haven't embraced it. You can simply hold the screen in your hand, talk to it, and capture your audio without needing to rig up an entirely separate microphone system for everyday pieces to camera. It feels professional, it looks professional, and, most importantly, the results are professional. There is a reason this little camera has Pro in its name.

What really strikes me, though, as someone who also operates a Red cinema camera, is just how much creative freedom the Luna Pro offers without all the usual friction. If I wanted to create a comparable tracking shot with my Red, I could be looking at a tripod or support rig, a LiDAR autofocus system, and potentially another operator to manage the camera movement. Suddenly, what should be a simple idea becomes a production in itself.

There is equipment to set up, things to balance, cables to manage, and time disappearing before you have even pressed record. With the Luna Pro, I can switch it on, unfold those wonderfully simple paperclip-like tripod legs, position it on a fence post, trash can, or wall, activate the subject tracking, and start filming in seconds. No additional operator, no complicated setup, and no unnecessary fuss. Just an idea and a camera that is ready to capture it. That is practical, that is efficient and, above all, that is fun. Yet the finished footage can still look remarkably professional.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of situations where my Red cinema camera will absolutely be the right tool for the job, and I would never suggest otherwise. But for the other 99% of everyday life, the little moments, the adventures, the spontaneous ideas, and those occasions when you simply want to create something because you feel like it, the Insta360 Luna Pro is becoming an essential part of my everyday carry.

It is compact, capable, and genuinely exciting to use, which is a combination that is becoming increasingly difficult to find in a world obsessed with specifications and technical perfection.

I have spent years working with cameras of all shapes, sizes, and prices, and very few have made me feel quite like this. The Luna Pro has somehow managed to make this rather sensible, bordering-on-boring journalist want to go outside, experiment, create, and act like a complete goofball with a camera again. And you know what? That feeling is absolutely priceless.

Not only are more young people eschewing their smartphones and getting into traditional photography – with, I believe, the greatest enthusiasm since digital photography exploded in the mid 2000s – but now’s also the ideal time to be a fledgling snapper.

Why? Well, for starters, look at the sheer volume and diversity of available tools.

If you’ve only pocket money to spend, or are asking to be gifted a device, then there are standalone digital cameras available from Kodak, Camp Snap, Chuzhao, Yashica and more, plus plentiful ‘no brand’ options currently flooding Amazon.

Is anyone looking to make high art with this low tech? No, but that’s exactly the point.

To this selection, we can add equally accessible entry-level instant print cameras from Polaroid, Fujifilm Instax and Lomography, some of which, in the case of certain Instax models, allow for digital camera as well as print output. And that’s even before exploring what can be found second-hand via photo specialist retailers or the worldwide marketplace that is eBay. Added to this, every day there seems to be a new Kickstarter campaign to fund weird and wonderful new image capture alternatives to curb our smartphone obsession.

Of additional benefit to beginner photographers exploring their options, there are plenty of ‘proper’ cameras offering greater accessibility and reliability with it, providing the benefit of AI-enhanced subject-recognising autofocus.

The only issue for anyone starting out is that cameras from the traditional photo brands are a bit more expensive. Or more than a bit. In fact, there’s a sizeable price gap between the pocket money offerings listed above and, say, a compact point-and-shoot from Canon or Panasonic. For example, the PowerShot G7 X Mark III or Lumix TZ300, aka ZS300, respectively.

The same is true of Ricoh’s equally popular GRIV series, another excellent learning tool for anyone new to the hobby that doesn’t yet want to have to deal with interchangeable lenses.

OK, so I ideally wouldn’t recommend starting out your photographic journey with one of the key fob-sized toy cameras currently doing the rounds, as the novelty will soon wear off.

But the best thing about the present photographic landscape is that there is the widest choice available in a good 20 years. Even the output from a cheap low-tech camera will help its user’s images to stand out against a sea of glossily unreal AI slop, making such snapshots much in demand.

It will be fascinating to see where the beginners of today drive the medium tomorrow. But, naturally, it’s not just about the tools. They need to first decide on what their vision is and then how best to communicate it.

It’s all too easy to get caught up in negativity online, particularly when it centres around Nikon’s first camera in nearly a year. And especially when said camera arrives and appears to be, mostly, a downgraded version of what was already available.

So, when specifications for the Nikon Z5IIC were published, my initial reaction was a shrug of indifference, followed by outright irritation. Nikon has removed the eye-level viewfinder… what the hell, Nikon?!

While my response was a personal one, I was acutely aware that my opinion didn’t really matter this time around, because the camera isn’t made for me.

Its target audience is closer to that of my teenage niece studying photography, someone who has grown up with parents and siblings shooting exclusively on a smartphone. She doesn’t care about an eye-level viewfinder to shut out distractions as a frame is composed. She’s never used one.

Of course, with familiarity, a viewfinder, may well in time become an appreciated creative asset. Taking and reviewing pictures in strong sunlight using only a screen can be tricky, but yes, we do manage to do just that with our phones.

As for me, well, if truly I like the cut of this camera’s gib, I can opt for the earlier Nikon Z5II from a year-and-a-half ago. That did include an eyelevel viewfinder. And two SD card slots, whereas this newer model makes do with one. So, there are options. There are always options.

While I can understand that, after a year-long release drought, Nikon announcing a ‘new’ camera that appears to simply be a lower spec version of what’s already available has left it open to accusations of sheer laziness, to the uninitiated it’s still the most budget-friendly full frame Nikon mirrorless out there.

We’ll leave aside the fact that it seems odd to expand your full frame range, when that specific market segment, along with Nikon itself, is experiencing a dip in sales.

So it remains to be seen whether the Nikon Z5IIc will play its part in turning things around for the wider photo industry and Nikon itself. But more options is always a good thing, right? And if something isn’t for us, then no worries, the next thing to come along might well be – and blow our minds.

The original Minox is the stuff spy legends are made of, and it became one of the most famous cameras ever made. People would recognize it on sight, even if they could not remember the brand. But that was not what its inventor, Walter Zapp, had in mind.

Zapp felt that cameras had become unnecessarily large and complicated. During the early 1930s he envisioned a camera that could, and should, fit in a waistcoat pocket, produce enlargements of surprisingly high quality, and require almost no adjustments to operate. It was a tall order!

His earliest prototypes were built between 1932 and 1935 with the help of Richard Jürgens; a precision machinist and mechanical engineer. Jürgens ran a small precision workshop in Riga during the early 1930s. Walter Zapp had conceived the Minox but lacked the facilities and practical machining expertise to turn his ideas into a working instrument.

The first working Minox prototypes, completed around 1935–1936, were largely fabricated in Jürgens' workshop. Without his craftsmanship, it is doubtful that Zapp's concept would have gone beyond paper drawings. Yet it progressed to the point where it attracted the interest of the Latvian electronics company VEF.

Zapp’s revolutionary design featured a stainless-steel body that could be concealed inside a clenched fist. Extending the shell simultaneously advanced the film and cocked the shutter. Focus was by guesstimation, with closeups measured with bumps on a chain. No camera like it had existed before.

Once the prototypes proved successful, Zapp began approaching manufacturers, but most dismissed the project almost immediately, saying it was too complicated to manufacture.

From a business perspective, this was a reasonable concern.

The turning point came when Zapp demonstrated the camera to executives at VEF (Valsts Elektrotehniskā Fabrika), Latvia's state-owned electrical manufacturing company.

Although VEF specialized in electronics, it also possessed one of the finest precision engineering facilities in Northern Europe.

The demonstration reportedly astonished the engineers. But even after VEF expressed interest, many engineers remained skeptical. The greatest challenge was not designing the camera—it was manufacturing thousands of identical examples. The camera contained around 140 precision parts, many of them tiny and requiring exceptionally close tolerances.

Remember, this was the mid-1930s. Modern CNC machines did not exist. Every operation relied on precision lathes, milling machines, jigs, and highly skilled workers.

Eventually VEF's management approved the project. It was a remarkably bold decision as the company had no proof that a market even existed for such a camera. Still, they invested heavily in tooling and optical manufacturing equipment. When production finally began in 1938, the Minox emerged as perhaps the most precisely engineered miniature camera ever built. But the timing was disastrous for the young Minox enterprise. By the time the Soviet’s invaded Latvia in June of 1940, production was well established. Some production continued, but the Soviets shifted more and more resources to military communications equipment, and production fell.

After a year, the German army invaded, as part of their war on the Eastern front. Under German control, production of Minox cameras resumed on a limited basis during the occupation. In all, some 17,000 “Riga Minox” cameras were produced.

When the Red Army returned in 1944, Walter Zapp fled westward rather than remain under renewed Soviet rule. He eventually settled in Wetzlar, West Germany, where he succeeded in reviving Minox production in 1948 under the newly formed Minox GmbH.

The new factory was established in Wetzlar, Germany—the city already famous for precision optics and home to E. Leitz GmbH, makers of the Leica. Unlike Leitz, Minox manufactured virtually every component in-house, including shutters, film cassettes and lenses. A level of vertical integration that was extraordinary for such a small manufacturer.

The postwar cameras became known simply as the Minox A, Though nearly identical to the Riga model, manufacturing quality became even higher.

During the next forty years Minox produced a remarkable succession of models.
The Minox B (for Belichtungsmesser, the German word for light-meter) became the best-known model and is often considered the classic Minox. In all, from 1928 to then end of production in 2003, just under one million Minox miniature cameras were made.

Despite a tiny 8×11mm negative, Minox cameras produced enlargements rivalling much larger cameras. Most models used the superb 15mm f/3.5 Complan though later versions introduced others. All of them could resolve extraordinarily fine detail.

No discussion of Minox would be complete without mentioning espionage. Many intelligence agencies reportedly used Minox cameras, including those of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Israel and undoubtedly many more who simply don’t want to say.

The Minox became so closely linked with spies that it appeared in countless novels and films. But, in reality, most Minox cameras were purchased by ordinary people.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Check out the best spy cameras and the best hidden camera detectors

One of the strongest childhood memories most of us have, me included, is of cameras coming out at family gatherings. And during the 1970s and 80s the camera that typically came out most often was a Polaroid.

It was undoubtedly the theater of the device’s operation plus the immediate output that appealed to us kids. There was no need to wait a week to fully see the results, just a couple of minutes.

Prior to the instant gratification digital photography gifted us, an image emerging through the cigarette fog of my grandparents’ living room and appearing on the milky white Polaroid paper felt like magic being witnessed.

Recent Polaroid-branded cameras have done little to dispel the market dominance of Fujifilm Instax, however, which snatched the ball from Polaroid in the mid 2000s and ran with it.

But could all that be set to change with the introduction of the Polaroid Mod? Is there still time and opportunity for the instant print pioneer regain the crown? And why am I suddenly re-enthused after so many years?

Because the Polaroid Mod finally feels like a step forward. And by giving the filter-enabled smartphone generation a relatable creative option via its lens encircling mode dial, thereby making it easy to quickly switch from fully auto capture to hands-on experimentation.

Deliberate double exposures, split frames, the ability to freeze motion with flash plus light painting style effects can be accessed via a dial twiddle. When the current trend is to embrace photographic imperfections as somehow more ‘authentic’ than a perfect shot, the Mod, with all the built-in quirks that come with Polaroid prints, feels like a camera for our AI-weary times.

Because one of the best things about photography is not just the possibility to freeze time and, with it, a passing moment, but also its ability to enchant us with the process. Polaroid cameras and instant print photography deliver on both accounts, while giving us something tangible, affordable and accessible.

Though the price per print still gives reason to grumble, it feels like a price worth paying. No wonder they are being embraced by successive and otherwise very different generations.

I'm not making enough money as a photographer (cue sympathy, violins, and offers of a million pounds). So: what's the next best thing to taking your own photos? Starting an interior design website and writing about other people's photos, of course.

Which is where my blossoming relationship with the stock image library iStockPhoto comes in. For a mere $125 / £142.80 a month, I get to download 50 premium photos and keep them forever, and I've been having fun choosing and using them.

Owned by Getty Images, iStockPhoto assures me that it is "always AI free. iStockPhoto doesn’t allow any AI-generated visuals in our library. Every visual at iStock is crafted through human expertise, creativity, and ingenuity."

Which is kind of hilarious, because as soon as you purchase a photo, iStockPhoto encourages you to "customise this image" using AI!

Amusingly, if you click to follow that very instruction, it immediately sets about removing the background of the photo in question – which as you can imagine, is undesirable with, say, a kitchen. Removing the background of a kitchen leaves you with a worktop in the middle, and not much else.

If, however, you want to change any other aspect of the photo – and I often do, as I am a picky creature – you should actually use the text box at the top of the page, which asks you, "What would you like to change?" Type in, for example, "Change the plant to green" and hit "Modify." Hey presto, you have a green plant.

Admittedly, the AI sometimes changes it to an entirely different type of plant – I couldn't tell you what, for I have no botany credentials – but hey, it'll be a green one.

Against my better judgement, I also asked iStockPhoto's AI to turn a bath bright pink. The result made me feel a little nauseous but was very convincing – you couldn't tell the bath hadn't been pink in the first place.

The whole "our photos aren't AI, don't worry. But why don't you use AI with our help if you want to?!" thing is, I think, endemic of a world where many creators absolutely detest and resent AI, and the rest of us will happily use it.

Stock image companies don't know which section of the population to appease and pander to, but more than anything, they don't want to be left behind by other photo libraries using AI to their advantage.

So you get this comical situation where they're straddling both camps with a foot in each and wobbling around wildly. Still, at least they can turn plants green and baths pink. And what more can you really ask for?

You might be interested in our guide to the best photo stock sites.

If I’m out and about on my daily business and unexpectedly see a great photo opportunity, I’ll automatically reach for my smartphone, it being the camera I always have with me. But when I’m heading somewhere, or to meet someone, that I know will end up making for a great photograph, I’ll make sure I pack my interchangeable lens camera – even if said camera is a Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i DSLR, also known as the Kiss X4 in Japan.

Outdated for video and action photography and improved upon since it may be, but this 16-year-old DSLR is still my go-to as a very capable 18-megapixel APS-C sensor camera that consistently produces excellent results, even when ‘just’ equipped with the standard 18-55mm f/3.5- 5.6 lens it came with. Relatively compact and lightweight too at 530g with battery and SD card, it may not meet the craze for low-resolution plastic-y fixed lens snapshots, but at the time of writing this DSLR can be picked up second-hand for essentially the same as what a very basic point-and-shoot will cost me new.

I believe this makes it an excellent choice for anyone seeking to learn the art of photography who wants a fully featured camera with enough functionality that I’m able to see the effects of manually changing settings in real time as I thumb buttons and spin the top-plate command dial. My nieces have both borrowed it when learning photography as students.

I also love the way that the DSLR’s eyelevel viewfinder removes peripheral distractions – and, when compared with an Internet-connected phone, additionally removes a whole load of other distractions with it. Yes, I could call using the DSLR a ‘purer’ form of photography compared to using an iPhone if I wanted to sound fancy. And while results from the DSLR may look a little flatter in comparison, having not already undergone heavy in-phone processing, I’m quite happy adjusting contrast and retrieving shadow detail myself, thank you.

And here we get down to the crux of the matter as to why a DSLR, even an old one, will still be better for ‘proper’ photography than a smartphone. Yes, my DSLR has a physically bigger sensor than my phone, allowing it to collect more light, plus utilises high-quality optical glass – that’s a given.

But this combination also produces a result that feels more authentic – something we’re all striving for in the current age of digital images not always being as they seem – without the need to rely on digital guesswork or AI to fill in any gaps, or the artificiality of digital smoothing to produce an acceptable result in low light.

OK, so maybe we need to know a bit about what we’re doing to get the best results from a DSLR… compared with just needing to point and shoot with our iPhone and achieve acceptable ones.

But that’s an integral part of the real enjoyment of photography, right?

Recreating the look of a photo from a 1980s mall studio has become a viral AI trend. But one photography duo is taking “high-quality bad photos” without AI and with a heaping serving of humor – and the response has been overwhelming.

M4LL PH0T0 (@m4llph0t0) is a pop-up photography booth visiting festivals and events and re-creating the 80s and 90s studio portraits popularized by “mall photos” like Sears.

While photographers Leeanna and Aaron DiGruccio say that M4LL PH0T0 started from boredom, the two Ontario, Canada-based photographers have more than just decades of photography experience to build on.

Leeanna DiGruccio was working for CPI in the US, the company behind store-based portrait studios inside Sears and Walmart, when the company went under. That day, she stayed for 12 hours just to make sure everyone received their photos.

Fast forward, and now asking AI to generate a photo that looks like it came from an 80s mall portrait has become a viral trend. The DiGruccios are taking those photos the traditional way, without generative AI – though the Sony A7 IV bodies and 24-70mm f/2.8 used for the portraits are far from 80s tech.

“When you use AI to generate an image, that is not that person. It's not you,” Aaron said. “We photograph you. That's the only picture like that of you that exists. It's not this amalgamation of every image that's been fed into an AI model.”

Part of M4LL PH0T0’s success comes from the experience. The duo sets up a booth at festivals and events, often punk and music festivals. The photographers joke with their portrait subjects, and at the end, guests choose from a treasure chest, like going to the dentist in the 1990s.

Everyone who walks into the M4LL PH0T0 booth at a festival gets three different photographs, all themed after the “floating head” style of photography that was popular in the 1980s: A plain background, a laser background done in Photoshop, and a surprise third set.

“We are characters. We don't take ourselves seriously,” Leeanna said. “Sometimes photography can be very serious. Everybody always says, like, "Oh, I look bad in photos." I always say back, ‘But we take them professionally.’”

“We've had people say, ‘hang on, I'm going to run home and get my cat,’ and they'd run home and come back out of breath with their cat over their shoulder for a photo with their cat in the floating head inset,” Aaron said.

He added that people have also asked to use portraits of deceased loved ones in the floating head inset, while one couple used the portraits as a pregnancy announcement. “As much as it’s a humorous premise, people have used these for actual sentimental purposes,” he said.

A typical M4LL PH0T0 portrait session takes about 90 seconds – though pets will often take longer – and costs CA$25 a person (about $18 / £13). That price point isn’t by accident – it’s also the number Leeanna found on old Sears advertisements for sitting for a session.

The couple also runs an event photography business, but M4LL PH0T0, along with being built for humor, makes real photography more accessible by running short, affordable sessions in high-traffic venues.

Adding an 80s-themed portrait booth during festivals came with unique challenges – chiefly, lighting the shot inside a small booth outdoors. The couple works from a tent with three walls in order to have the most control over the light, working with Godox V1 flashes off-camera with umbrellas.

The response to M4LL PH0T0 has been overwhelming, the couple says, with a long line to the booth at many festivals and daily messages asking what event they’ll be at next. Several guests have traveled from outside of Ontario – and even from the US – to get a photo.

In addition to working as photographers, the duo also works in tech: Aaron in IT support and Leeanna as an industrial engineer, including installing Apple devices for the Artemis II mission.

Leeanna says she’s built AI systems that ended up making her position redundant. “We’ve seen the tragic outcomes of what AI does, and we absolutely believe AI should not be in art,” Leeanna said.

“We've had people come up to us like with huge Pit Viper sunglasses and lightning bolt windbreakers be like, ‘We're ready.’ And it's like, ‘I've never met you, but you know us,’” Aaron said. “We love these little interactions. Photography is about relationships for us. It's not just get you and get you out, unless that's what you want. We are here for you.”

The name M4LL PH0T0 even has a dash of humor with its hidden Easter eggs. The numbers come from 400, the error code for a bad request, while replacing letters with numbers is part of early internet culture that Millennials – like the DiGruccios – will recognize.

M4LL PH0T0’s event schedule is available on their website.

You may also like

Take a look at the best lenses for portraits.

There are few cameras that are quite as much fun to give as a gift as a Polaroid. And right now, the Polaroid Now Generation 3 bundle has dropped to just $134.99 at Amazon, down from $159.99, saving you a very welcome $25.

For me, this is exactly the sort of camera gift that works whether you are shopping for a photography enthusiast, someone who simply loves taking pictures, or, quite frankly, yourself. Part of the appeal is that the Polaroid Now keeps instant photography wonderfully simple. This is a proper analog instant camera that produces those unmistakable full-size Polaroid photographs, and there is still something wonderfully satisfying about pressing the shutter and watching a physical photograph slowly appear in front of you.

The Generation 3 model also brings a few useful improvements that make it considerably easier to get good results. Polaroid has given it an upgraded two-lens autofocus system, while there are self-timer and double-exposure modes for when you want to get a little more creative.

But I think what makes this particular deal especially appealing is that this is a bundle rather than simply the camera on its own. You are getting the black Polaroid Now Generation 3 alongside 16 shots of color film, meaning whoever unwraps it can actually start shooting rather than immediately having to go out and buy film. And that makes a huge difference if you are thinking about this as a gift.

Instant cameras are one of those rare photography products that you don't necessarily need to be a photographer to enjoy. Take one to a party, family gathering, vacation, or Christmas celebration and suddenly everyone wants a photograph. Better still, rather than disappearing into a smartphone camera roll, you actually have something physical to hand over, stick on the fridge, or keep in an album.

That is part of the reason I still have such a soft spot for Polaroid. There are undoubtedly more technically sophisticated cameras out there, but that really isn't the point. The Now Generation 3 is about enjoying photography, slowing things down slightly, and creating something tangible from the moment you press the shutter.

At $159.99, I already think the camera-and-film bundle makes an attractive gift. At $134.99, saving you $25, it becomes considerably easier to recommend. If you have someone in your life who loves photography, nostalgia, or simply taking pictures with friends and family, I think this would make a brilliant gift.

Of course, there is also absolutely nothing wrong with gifting one to yourself. At $134.99, I certainly wouldn't judge you.

There are some cameras that just make brilliant gifts, and I think the Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo is right up there with the best of them. Even better, Amazon has just dropped the gorgeous brown version to $199, down from $234.95, saving you a very welcome $35.95.

And while I think this would make a fantastic gift for a loved one, I wouldn't blame you in the slightest for buying one for yourself.

The Instax Mini Evo has always stood out to me because it takes the fun of instant photography and makes it considerably more flexible. Rather than taking a photograph and immediately committing it to film, this is a hybrid instant camera, meaning you can see your shot first and decide whether it is actually worthy of using one of those precious Instax prints.

That alone makes it a much easier instant camera to live with, particularly if you're buying it for someone who loves taking photographs but doesn't necessarily want to burn through packs of film every time they press the shutter. But the Mini Evo is also just enormous fun to use.

Fujifilm gives you 10 different lens effects and 10 film effects, which can be combined to give you 100 different looks. You can play around with everything from soft focus and light leaks to monochrome, retro and vivid looks, giving the whole experience much more of that tactile, creative feeling that makes instant photography so enjoyable.

Then, when you have something you really like, you pull the wonderfully old-school print lever and turn it into a physical Instax Mini photograph.

There is also another reason I think the Mini Evo makes such a good gift: it isn't only useful as a camera. Connect your smartphone, and it can effectively become an Instax printer as well, allowing you to take photographs already sitting on your phone and turn them into physical prints.

That means even when you aren't actually shooting with the Mini Evo, it still has a reason to come out at parties, family gatherings, vacations, or just those occasions where having a real photograph feels that little bit more special than leaving another image buried somewhere in your camera roll.

And I particularly like this brown version. The combination of its retro-inspired design, physical dials, and classic-looking finish makes it feel like something you would actually be excited to unwrap.

At $234.95, the Instax Mini Evo was never the cheapest way into instant photography, but at $199 the equation changes considerably. You're saving $35.95 and getting a camera that combines digital photography, instant printing and smartphone printing in one rather lovely little package. That is exactly why I think it makes such a brilliant gift.

If you have a photographer, teenager, traveler, or simply someone who loves keeping physical memories in your life, I would have absolutely no hesitation putting the Instax Mini Evo on the gifting list. Although at $199, you might want to add your own name to that list as well. Sometimes the best gifts are the ones you end up buying for yourself.

There aren’t many lenses that could make me seriously consider changing camera systems, but the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM is one of them.

I have always had a huge amount of respect for this lens. Yes, it is getting on a bit now, and yes, Canon has newer RF glass that can outperform it technically, but photography isn’t always about which lens produces the best laboratory results. Sometimes a lens has character, and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L has bags of it.

That is why seeing it drop to just $1,349 at Amazon, down from $1,548.01, saving you $199.01, has caught my attention.

In fact, this is one of those rare deals that makes me look across the fence at Canon and think, perhaps I could be persuaded.

The appeal is obviously that f/1.2 maximum aperture, but for me this lens has always been about much more than simply letting in lots of light. There is a particular look to images shot wide open with the EF 50mm f/1.2L. The transition from sharp to out of focus can be wonderfully smooth; backgrounds simply disappear, and subjects seem to have that almost three-dimensional quality that is so difficult to describe until you see it.

It isn’t clinical, and I think that is precisely the point. There are newer 50mm lenses that are sharper. There are lenses with more sophisticated autofocus systems and optical designs that will undoubtedly look better when you start comparing charts. But there is a reason photographers still talk about this lens after all these years. It has personality, and in an age where modern lenses are becoming increasingly perfect, I actually find that rather refreshing.

And I think that makes this deal particularly interesting for Canon RF shooters, too. You might look at the EF mount and immediately dismiss it as an older DSLR lens, but I wouldn’t. Stick Canon’s EF-to-RF adapter between it and an EOS R-series body, and suddenly you have one of Canon’s most celebrated 50mm lenses sitting on a modern mirrorless camera.

Even allowing for the cost of the adapter, I think this represents some of the best value available if you specifically want that f/1.2 look. More importantly, I wouldn’t see the adapter as some unfortunate compromise you have to tolerate just to save money. This is a lens that deserves the respect of being used on modern cameras. The mount might belong to Canon’s DSLR era, but the images certainly haven’t suddenly become irrelevant because RF arrived.

There is also something rather appealing about putting a legendary piece of EF glass onto a modern EOS R body. You get the benefits of Canon’s current mirrorless cameras while still having access to a lens whose reputation was built over years of professional portrait, wedding, event and documentary photography.

At $1,349, it certainly isn’t an impulse purchase, but I think that misses the point. This isn’t a cheap 50mm that you buy simply because everyone should own a nifty fifty. It is a serious f/1.2 L-series prime with a distinctive rendering that photographers have loved for years.

And that $199.01 saving makes it considerably easier to justify. I don’t shoot Canon as my main system, but this is exactly the sort of lens that makes me want to convert. There are plenty of technically brilliant lenses around, but very few have built the reputation and character of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L.

Even if I were already shooting RF, I think I would still be looking at this deal rather than automatically reaching for the newer alternative. Add the adapter, embrace the fact that you’re using an EF classic on a modern mirrorless body, and enjoy one of those lenses that reminds you why we become attached to particular pieces of glass in the first place.

Some lenses are simply tools. This one deserves a little more respect than that.

The first iPhone launched in 2007, $499 – far less than the recently announced iPhone 18 Pro's entry price of $1,199. By contrast, the price of a quality camera has hardly changed – a Digital Rebel XTi was $899 ($1,445 adjusted for inflation) in 2007 while a broadly equivalent modern camera – the Sony ZV-E10 II – comes in for less, allowing for inflation, at $1,099.

In both cases, the cameras produce better results than the iPhone then and the iPhone 18 Pro now.

And there has been a marked – and you'd think off-putting rise – in the price of the iPhone. Despite that, I think photographers should be a lot more worried about the future of the cameras in this class than the phones – I know I am.

Why?

Because the iPhone started from close to zero when it came to its camera. That first iPhone had a 2-megapixel camera – that's 1600 x 1200 pixels. The low-light capabilities, as I recall, were little more than the ability to produce noise.

It was fixed focus and didn't even have digital zoom in the standard Camera app (not that it'd be much use at that resolution).

The camera was kept flush against the back of the relatively small phone, in a design which felt very much like Apple prioritised the form and style over the camera's functionality, but in fairness no one was sure what a camera in a phone was for.

In fact, no one really knew what a camera in a phone was going to be capable of.

There was also not even an App store at the time, let alone tons of social media apps to create pristine content for. There was no Instagram until 2010. No SnapChat until 2011. Let alone TikTok (2016).

Now the iPhone 18 Pro has an entry price of $1,199. There are much cheaper ways to get hold of a phone, and a camera.

But the new iPhones (and they're certainly not the highest megapixel counts), sports a 48-megapixel main camera with a variable aperture, and (as is common now) not just a digital zoom but a 48-megpixel camera with 4x native telephoto lens.

Combined with a 'Center Stage' front camera and ProRes RAW, Log 2 video recording and – simply but usefully – a Night Mode there are far fewer cases for reaching for the still technically better 'real camera'.

Real camera v iPhone: the value difference

I think that consumers understand the difference isn't what it used to be, and that there is one more enormous factor: speed.

A huge number of creators want their images to be immediately available on their phone to post, or to edit in a user friendly app and then post.

Plenty of cameras can transfer them via Wi-Fi and the like, but nothing is as convenient or quick as coming from the phone's own camera.

So, for most creators, most of the time, it's a battle of "good enough" versus "good".

I speak to YouTubers and other content creators all the time, and premium phones are winning that battle for them more often than not.

You’re probably aware of that old film-era wheeze of rubbing Vaseline petroleum jelly over your UV filter to create a hazy, diffuse effect in your photos. Why not take that basic idea further and experiment with putting other custom diffuser elements in front of your lens? Only without getting everything sticky this time.

The two ideas I’ve used here are bubble wrap and stockings. One creates an interesting out-of-focus vignette effect; the other adds a layer of diffusion and tints it according to the color of the hosiery.

All you need is a rubber band to hold your diffusing element over the lens so that you aren’t trying to hold it still while taking the photo. Whether you use a wide-angle or telephoto lens changes how it registers, but be aware that there’s an element of hit-and-miss in this. How the light falls onto the lens affects the final result as well.

01 Attach the wrap

There are two ways of doing this. The first method is to put the bubble wrap completely over the lens, which gives a very diffuse effect. Also, when facing into sunlight, it shows up much more in the image. The second idea is to attach the wrap, but then poke a hole through the middle of it, so that the middle area of the frame will be clean and sharp.

02 Set up the camera

The only parameter here to really be concerned with is the aperture, which was set as wide as possible for the main photo on the previous spread. It doesn’t have as much effect as the focal length, but it’s still better to go wide. That means that the out-of-focus area behind where the bubble wrap covers is even softer. The key element is to experiment until you find an effect you like.

03 Wide-angle effect

For this image, the aperture was set to f/8, so you can see how much more of the scene is in focus. The key point is that with a 24mm wide-angle lens, the bubble wrap is now more apparent and the effect appears to be like looking through a pane of broken glass. Use this effect for more deliberate framing of the photo so that the viewer is looking into the image.

04 Blur it with telephoto

With the focal length now at the telephoto end – 85mm – the bubble wrap is much more opaque and indistinct, and the gap in the middle forces attention onto whatever is in focus in the main area. So with just a change of focal length, you have two different ways of framing the subject. This outcome is most similar to that old Vaseline trick.

Try a soft-focus portrait capture

These projects can also be used for taking soft-focus portraits. With a little trial and error, you can achieve great results without the expense of having to buy all manner of soft-focus filter attachments for your camera.

A second and rather different set of effects can be created by using hosiery over the lens. No, your gran’s thick woollen tights won’t do – you will need to use a fairly low denier so that you are able to see through and record the image. Changing the color and the thickness of the hosiery will have different effects, as you can see below...

Attaching to the lens

One option is to pull the hosiery tightly over the lens, which makes it easier to see through and reduces the effect. Hold it in place with an elastic band as before, making sure you can still use the zoom. The other option is to use a little slack, which creates waves and patterns in the image. Also, if you’re using any kind of colored hosiery, you might want to set the white balance manually, otherwise Auto White Balance may attempt to counter it.

Which tights? Three different results from different colored hosiery

01 Using a tan color

For this shot inside a chapel, a tan color was used, which has given the image a diffuse and warm glow. It perfectly suits the light coming through the window and the building’s gloomy interior.

02 Bring the gloom

For this image, facing into the bright light, a nearly black fabric was used. This has created more of a pinhole effect with the coloring and opacity. It has also significantly reduced the contrast.

03 What about white?

White-colored hosiery was used on this exterior shot of flowers, which has made the image softer and more diffuse in what was very bright, harsh light. Try to match the colors of your tights to those of the main subject in the frame.

SEND US YOUR PHOTOS!

If you have been inspired by any of these projects and have had a go yourself, we’d love to see your results. Email us your high-res shots: digitalcamera@futurenet.com

The Pentax 6x7 (later simplified to the Pentax 67) was one of the great medium format cameras, combining the handling of a 35mm SLR with the image quality of 120 roll film.

For many photographers, it offered the ideal balance between portability, simplicity, reliability and exceptional image quality. Even today, almost 60 years after the system's introduction, it remains one of the most sought-after film cameras.

Development of the camera began in the mid-1960s as Asahi Optical (now Pentax, a brand owned by RIcoh) wanted to build a medium format SLR that would feel familiar to photographers accustomed to 35mm SLRs.

Rather than copying the square 6x6 format used by Hasselblad, Bronica and others, Pentax chose the 6x7cm format, producing negatives approximately 56x70mm – about 4.5 times the area of a 35mm frame and, more importantly, a 4:5 image ratio, a perfect match for the standard 8x10-inch print.

It was first shown as a prototype at the Photokina trade show in Cologne, Germany, in 1966, but was called the Pentax 220 – as Pentax wanted to emphasize that it could use the new 220 film introduced by Kodak the year before.

Unlike most medium format cameras, the Pentax 6x7 was intentionally designed to resemble an oversized 35mm SLR. It featured a right-hand shutter release, a film-wind lever, a focal-plane shutter and interchangeable lenses.

Someone familiar with a Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon F or Canon F-1 (or virtually any modern 35mm SLR) could begin using the Pentax almost immediately. It is a big, heavy camera, but one that balances well in the hand.

It made 10 exposures on a roll of 120 film or 20 exposures on 220 film (21 on the later 67II). The Pentax used a cloth focal-plane shutter, with speeds to 1/1000 sec and flash sync at 1/30 sec. This meant simpler (lower cost) lenses with larger maximum apertures.

The first production Asahi Pentax 6x7 appeared in 1969, while the final version, the Pentax 67II, remained in production until 2009, giving the system an exceptional 40-year life.

The four versions were a fairly straightforward evolution. The 6x7MLU followed in 1976 and was identical except for the addition of a mirror lock-up, to eliminate the mirror-slap (desirable as it greatly reduced mirror-induced vibration during long exposures and close-up work).

In 1989 the electronics were updated, it was given a cosmetic overhaul and its name was shortened to the Pentax 67. The last version, introduced in 1998, provided better ergonomics, added an LCD display and improved the metering in the form of an autoexposure prism. The 67II was made until 2009 – well into the digital era!

One of the Pentax 67's greatest strengths was its remarkable lens lineup. More than 40 lenses were eventually produced, covering focal lengths from the 35mm fisheye to a 1,000mm mirror lens.

But it was its standard 105mm f/2.4 lens that made the Pentax 67 famous – and its history is almost as fascinating as the camera itself.

From the beginning, the company wanted a standard lens that would equal or exceed the quality of Zeiss Planar lenses on Hasselblad cameras, be fast enough for available-light photography, provide excellent edge-to-edge sharpness on the large 6x7 cm negative yet remain reasonably compact and affordable.

Those requirements were difficult to reconcile.

Simultaneously with the development of the Pentax 6x7, Asahi began investigating multi-layer coatings and negotiated the rights to the technology from a California company, Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.

Asahi's achievement was inventing an industrial process that could apply those coatings consistently and economically to photographic lenses.

Applying up to seven ultra-thin layers uniformly to every air-to-glass surface of a complex photographic lens was extremely difficult in the late 1960s. But it enabled Asahi to upgrade all its lenses with its now-famous Super-Multi-Coat (SMC) standard in 1971.

On any camera, the focal length of a "normal" lens should be roughly the diagonal of the negative in order to give a perspective equivalent to the human eye (not counting peripheral vision).

For a 35mm camera, the diagonal is 43.3 mm. Thus, manufacturers have used anything from a 40 to 58mm lens as standard; with the longer focal lengths used on early SLRs where the length was needed to enable the rear element to clear the mirror without resorting to more complex retrofocus designs.

The diagonal of the Pentax 67 negative measures roughly 89.5mm, so a 90mm lens should do it. But Asahi selected 105mm because it provided a slightly narrower field of view than a 90mm (about equal to a 52mm lens on a 35mm camera) for a more flattering perspective for portraits.

This was enough working distance for general photography and room for a relatively large f/2.4 aperture without making the lens gigantic.

The optical formula comprised six elements in five groups. Rather than chasing extreme sharpness at every aperture, the designers struck a careful balance between high center resolution, excellent correction of spherical aberration, smooth transition from sharp to out-of-focus areas (bokeh), and low distortion.

This balance is a major reason for the lens' enduring reputation. But curiously, the lens did not achieve instant legendary status in the 1970s.

It was respected as an excellent standard lens, but its near-mythical reputation grew in the digital era when high-resolution film scans revealed just how much detail the lens could resolve. As a result, prices for clean examples have risen dramatically since the 2010s.

In the digital era, the Pentax 67 has enjoyed a resurgence among portrait, landscape and fine-art photographers, with its large negatives scanning exceptionally well and producing images with a distinctive depth and tonal richness that many photographers prize.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Hasselblad cameras of today – which are still among the best medium format cameras on the market.

There aren't a lot of devices I refuse to leave home without. There's my phone and camera, obviously, and a PocketTalk translator if I'm working somewhere that English isn't the first language. But there's one more device that I always slip into my camera bag or pocket, no matter where I am: the Lexar Professional Go Portable SSD.

I'm shooting more and more video these days, both as a dad with a six-month-old and as someone who covers press events and shoot a lot of social media content. I still shoot all my photos on a mirrorless camera, but for video my phone is infinitely quicker and more convenient – and when I take my iPhone, I can record in ludicrously good ProRes RAW if I want to.

But the one area where a camera would beat my phone is storage. Yes, shooting 4K 60p in ProRes RAW looks great, but it gobbles up the space on my phone faster than Pac-Man on a power pill binge. Lasy year I actually had to buy a duplicate phone, because I'd run out of space even after playing my usual hokey-kokey with apps and files.

This is where the Go has become an invaluable part of my workflow, both personally and professionally. This teeny tiny portable SSD is about half the length of a stick of gum, but it gives me two terabytes of lightning-fast storage that I can record directly to – even when I'm churning through PreRes footage flubbing my lines and repeating take after take.

It's hard to be precise, because I'm usually juggling a lot of files when I'm using this in the field, but I've comfortably shot about a couple of hours of ProRes on this thing before I figured I'd better transfer everything to my computer – which I could never dream of doing with just my phone!

With read and write speeds of 1,050MB/s and 1,000MB/s, I don't have to worry about frame drops or any kind of impact on my footage at all – it's like capturing natively to my phone, which gives me peace of mind while I'm focused on filming.

I'd assume you can do exactly the same thing if you've got a fancier phone that shoots 8K, but mine doesn't so I didn't get to test that – and you'd also have to be mindful about overheating, which wasn't a problem for me, but obviously you're going to generate more heat the more resolution you're pumping through.

I recently discovered just how tough it is, too, as an errant cup of coffee in a café gave it a bath I hadn't intended. While I was less than thrilled to have wasted almost ten bucks on my undrunk mocha, the Go survived completely unscathed thanks to its IP65 rating for dust and water (and apparently coffee) resistance.

This clever little cookie is more than just small and caffeine-proof, however; it comes with a brilliant hub that enables me to expand to a full shooting setup when I need to. It has four USB-C ports, including a 30W PD charging port, meaning I can slap in a light and microphone receiver without having extra cables trailing all over the place.

I try to avoid doing that whenever possible, otherwise I may as well use my camera to film video, but when needs must this really does change the game – for starters, I'll never have to use the huge horrible rig I used to be stuck with ever again.

And once I'm done shooting, I can connect it straight to my laptop and transfer all my files for editing – or to my wife's phone if we're overseas and I want to use her 5G coverage which is somehow better than mine even though we're on the same network.

The Lexar Professional Go Portable SSD has been a real revelation. I've been testing it ever since CP+ in Japan earlier this year, where it was such a life saver when working in cramped press rooms and on the show floor. If you're someone who creates content on your phone – or who just wants a tiny SSD that's the same size as the eraser in your kid's pencil case – this one comes highly recommended.

You might also like…

Check out the best portable hard drives and SSDs for creating content on the go.

The 2026-27 soccer season is now in full swing, so for anyone looking to start shooting the beautiful game – or sharpening their skills – it's time to get inspired.

Chantelle Cook is studying photography at Edinburgh College in Scotland UK.

She only picked up a digital camera for the first time as recently as 2023, but has quickly built up her range of photographic skills.

With a particular interest in commercial photography, Chantelle is also keen to broaden her repertoire, so put her hat in the ring to shadow a pro soccer photographer for a day – to be the reader in a Digital Camera magazine Apprentice feature.

Her mentor was Raymond Davies, the club photographer of Motherwell FC, a team which plays in the Scottish Premiership, and Chantelle would get the chance to show her chops in a local clash with Falkirk football club.

Chantelle and Raymond are both Canon shooters, but while Raymond uses the pro-grade EOS R5 Mark II, Chantelle favors the EOS R50 – an entry level body with a 24.2 megapixel APS-C sensor.

So how did Chantelle fare on the day under Raymond's expert guidance? Let's find out – and get some of Raymond's insights for shooting soccer like a pro…

"I'm hoping to figure out how to approach different styles of shots. In particular, I'm keen to learn how to capture dramatic images of football," she says.

"I roughly know how it's done – I understand the basics – but I've never actually tried it before. So I'll enjoy learning more about the exact shutter speeds to choose and put them into practice!"

It's great that Chantelle understands the importance of knowing the game and that the required techniques will differ from one sport to another.

As her main photographic interests are in commercial imagery – fashion and portraiture, in particular – sport is quite a departure from her comfort zone. So why has she chosen to branch out?

"I am drawn to the excitement of sports photography; you never know exactly what's going to happen next.

"You're right in front of the action pitchside. It's the exact opposite of studio-based photography, where everything is planned," she says.

How Chantelle got her super shots – technique assessment

Set the subject

Modern cameras have myriad subject-detection AF modes, so make sure yours is set up for the correct subject.

For football images, this will probably be people or athletes, depending on the specific camera make and model that you are using.

Adjust AF sensitivity

Set Servo or Continuous AF mode so you don’t have to refocus for each shot.

Then, turn down the sensitivity of your camera to objects passing between the lens and subject, which is common during a match and can cause misfocusing.

Use lens function buttons

Use AF Stop buttons to pause autofocus during play. This is useful if there’s a risk of focus racking to the background or the subject is going to remain at the current focus distance, increasing your hit rate.

Read more from Digital Camera magazine

This content appeared in issue 308 of Digital Camera magazine.

Every issue of Digital Camera magazine is packed with tips, techniques, pro advice, reviews, news and inspiration.

Don’t forget that you can subscribe to Digital Camera magazine and get the magazine delivered to your door every month. Choose between a print or digital subscription, or a bundle of the two.

All subscribers to Digital Camera magazine can now access digital back issues dating from 2009 (when using iOS) or 2012 (when using the Pocketmags Magazine Newsstand app or the Pocketmags website).

You can buy limited back issues of Digital Camera magazine in print at our Magazines Direct secure store.

Alternatively, there is a range of different digital options available, including:

• Apple app (for iPad or iPhone)
• Zinio app (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• PocketMags (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• Readly (digital magazine subscription service)

Like many fans of cutting-edge tech, smart glasses with a camera and AI assistance have held appeal for me for some time.

If you can forgive a little tech nostalgia, I still remember using my Google Glass in the early 2010s. Everyone I knew was fascinated by them. Soon, though, I realized for myself that they weren't actually very useful and, worse still, the wider world was a lot more hostile than the optimistic nerds at Google might have expected.

Now things are very different. Cameras in glasses frames are still the subject of debate, but – thanks to Meta's non-display variants – have to some extent been normalized.

The problem is more that, especially for someone interested in the content they're creating, the process – heavily dependent on checking your phone display – all seems very disjointed. It's not as "smart" as the name implies.

Step forward the Meta Ray-Ban Display – like the Google Glass there is visual feedback, but this time it's in color. Plus there are a lot more means to interact. Is this the solution?

When Meta / Ray-Ban finally offered me the opportunity to try out the glasses, I jumped at it so I could find out.

Even though I've tested a lot of eye-worn displays – from RayNeo's head-worn monitors, through drone FPV goggles with menus, to Apple Vision Pro – the Meta offering still surprised me in a number of ways.

First things first, I'm pretty confident that it is something I'd be fairly happy wearing in public. They are light, and the frames look okay given the tech inside.

My wife was actually pretty complimentary about how they looked (before I showed her the price tag). Sure, it's a bit Buddy Holly – and I'd have felt comfortable on the cover of a Weezer album – but it's not all about the glasses.

The downside is the wrist band – or "neural band" – which is worn on the wrist of your dominant hand and communicates with the glasses.

It detects the movements that form your interactions with the user interface. These are rotating the hand left and right (for example, to handle volume), and gestures of tapping your thumb against different fingers.

It took me no more than a minute to grasp this – but a few more to start to remember which of my first three fingers I should be tapping with my thumb in some situations.

Really it's no more complicated than a computer mouse with a few buttons – but even once you're used to the interface, the band itself is one more thing to keep track of… and take on and off and charge.

What that buys you, though, is not having to look at your phone all the time, which surely is the whole promise of smart glasses.

It also means the glasses are capable of a lot more genuinely cool tricks, like putting subtitles in your view – using AI translation – when someone is speaking in a foreign language, or displaying translations of things you can see.

From the perspective of a photographer, too, it enables you to see your images or video. There is a 12MP camera, set for vertical images – only the new Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 3) have the option of landscape shooting, but they don't have a display.

I don't know about you, but I find a visual interface easier to follow than asking an AI and wondering if it correctly understood me, so a display is incredibly reassuring compared to similar tech.

It is 600 x 600 pixels, which makes it capable of displaying a phone-like interface three icons wide.

That is where things get a little weird, though. The interface isn't exactly the one you're used to from your phone – Android or iOS – but Meta's own.

Interactions with the device are through Meta's AI. Meta is a big player, and it wants to be part of – or dominate – the new face of computing, and that is interaction through AI.

In fact, I strongly suspect this is why the company has invested so much in releasing this range of products and kept them at relatively accessible prices.

Meta's modus operandi is to use the information (not the photos and videos) from user interactions to develop its AI system.

That can include pictures, if you ask the glasses "Meta, what am I looking at?" – but not your personal gallery. It's a significant distinction, but it does technically mean that someone working at Meta HQ may end up seeing more or less what you saw, which might feel a bit strange for some folk.

The cameras on smart glasses have always created privacy concerns, but leaving that aside it is impressively useful.

What I did find myself asking, from a demo that included the camera and some Meta smart functions (including translations of what I could see), was whether these are significantly more useful than either the glasses without the display or the Google Glass of over ten years ago?

To fully answer that, I'd need to spend longer with them. But one of the key demonstrations projected directions onto the display to help me find a nearby subway station.

The thing is, I generally don't need a map – but I know others do, so I can see the use in this. But I suspect I'd feel more comfortable with Google or even Apple Maps.

The camera gets a zoom function, powered by twisting your hand, which I'm sure is great for socials but must involve some compromise in quality. The live preview in the display means you are at least recording what you want, though.

My test was a controlled demo, so I wasn't able to link the device to my own phone and get the full experience, which means I stuck mostly to the photo and translation tools.

Translation seemed futuristic to me. I could see the ability to look at menus and have them converted into an image in my language as much more discreet than having it read out to me, but live subtitles was amazing.

Just quickly reviewing my images without reaching for the phone was a massive step up, too.

Then again, there were limits to this unconnected demo. I tried to play the music of Ariane X (easily found by Siri) by voice, but Meta couldn't – and there was no prospect of linking to my own accounts unless I bought the glasses. I could, of course, use them as headphones, but that doesn't feel as "smart".

So, are they all that they promised from my hands-on?

Well, they're cheaper than Google Glass. In fact, if you're interested in cool tech, they're also cheaper even if you buy a premium phone like an iPhone 18 Pro Max than the iPhone Duo. So while the $799 / £749 might seem a high starting point, there are other ways to look at it.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best camera glasses from other manufacturers.