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?

The iPhone Duo looks gorgeous in the company's pictures, but that's before you experience third-party apps or use the compromised cameras yourself. There are definitely problems. The question is, are they going to last weeks, or until the next version?

The answer, of course, is a bit of both.

For cameras, though, let's not make a mistake. The lack of a tele camera was obvious before handing over the money and, if you're used to having really good zoom (like, say, the iPhone 17 Pro), be prepared to come up against a physical hardware limitation.

That, though, isn't actually the most annoying one.

That is authentication.

I've grown very used to Face ID – the camera and 3D scanner system Apple tucked into the notch and then cut out, which unlocked previous generations of the iPhone.

Now I have to use a fingerprint scanner on the side, which isn't so bad when using the phone folded (it's bound to rest where my thumb is as a right-handed user), but to get the best use of the 'mini iPad' that is the open phone you'll find yourself rotating the pad, which may well confuse.

Apple's solution is to have the button slightly raised from the outside so it's easier to find when an app insists on more authentication, which is, er, okay, but not quite as magical as the 'anyway is fine' solution of the iPad Pro.

The other thing I've been coming to get used to is the apps. At first it's easy to be optimistic because you encounter Apple's carefully re-created apps.

There are limits, though. The Apple TV app and Netflix's app have both been given the top-tier treatment in terms of excellent browser views with the phone closed or open, but neither can change the face that most TV is 16:9 – perhaps even 16:10 – leading to black bars, which means that, as standard, the open iPhone Duo view is not noticeably bigger than the one you see on an iPhone Pro Max 18 (or 17 come to that).

Soon after you realise that all your other old apps are going to open with giant black bars down either side unless and until the developer does something about it.

On the plus side, web browsing and exploring still images is impressive on the larger screen.

I imagine it could be very useful on the move, and is already starting to make me wonder about my actual need for an iPad (it's worth knowing that I'm the kind of person happy to carry a stupidly heavy MacBook Pro 16 where most people would take the iPad, just in case!)

Still, Apple has improved Safari on the iPhone Duo still further with a hint of the desktop experience – draggable tabs feel 'proper', and a lot of the apps I enjoy in the day seem to have been adapted already, giving me hope for the future.

Photography with the iPhone Duo

On the down-side is that pictures taken with the telephoto are frankly disappointing, and, for me, I used that nearly as much as the main camera (and far, far more than the wide-angle lens).

The loss of the tele/zoom camera is apparently a necessity to make the design so small, but I find myself thinking that I wouldn't actually mind a slightly wider handset either.

Photo management with the iPhone Duo

So one of the reasons for having a big screen in your pocket is to be able to review your images, and the inner display is surprisingly good. Perhaps I've gotten too used to shiny phone screens and iMacs with their apparent contrast, but the matte finish looks good. I get the point of Apple's pricey nano-texture now!

Importantly, the Apple photos app also benefits hugely from the power of the A20 processor. Scrolling, swiping, and pinch-zooming is so fluid and natural it's a joy. It makes me want to spend more time looking at the photos I've taken!

Honestly, in the past, with my phone at least, I often just took photos to document events.

In either view, a single tap on the pic reveals or hides the control icons.

Overall first impression of iPhone Duo

The weight – criticised by some – feels fine for me. I suspect slightly bigger hands and a tendency to use jeans pockets for my phones make these comfortable for me.

That means that it's already clear to me that Apple ought to be considering a 'Max' variant that is slightly bigger and also brings the 'Pro' camera arrangement. That'll be a problem for their naming and pricing structure, of course.

Until then the question is whether I can put up with a phone with a significantly lesser camera, and a slightly irksome authentication system (which I will get used to) in exchange for a very cool screen?

That, too, is the question you should be asking yourself as I spoke to Apple staff today who told me that the rush to snap up devices hadn't been quite as rapid as anticipated – see how i got an iPhone Duo without a pre-order.

That might well mean that Apple's shipping dates for pre-orders turn out to be a bit pessimistic and – even if you've not thought about it yet – you'll be able to wrestle with the idea of having your own foldable iPhone very soon.

LAST UPDATED: Oct 24 10:22

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.

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.

DRONES

Chris Gurton is a photographer from Suffolk who received an honourable mention in the Special Night Photography category of the International Photography Awards last year for his ‘Harvesting at Night’ image. He also came second in this year’s Lumearth photo awards, in the Agriculture and Rural category.

“Although photography has become a huge part of my life, I don’t currently do it full-time,” Chris told our colleagues on Digital Camera World magazine.

“Every opportunity to photograph farming has been built around my day job, which makes the support I’ve received from farmers and the recognition my work has gained even more rewarding. My ambition is to make agricultural photography my full-time career one day, continuing to tell the stories of the people and landscapes behind our food production.”

What got you into shooting farming or agricultural photography as a subject?
I’d always been fascinated by aerial images, particularly the work of French photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand. His book The Earth From the Air had a huge influence on me, showing how a change in perspective could transform familiar landscapes into something extraordinary. That style of photography felt out of reach because it relied on hiring helicopters or light aircraft. Consumer camera drones completely changed that, giving photographers like me the

Have you developed good relationships with farmers to capture them at work? Building good relationships with farmers has been one of the most rewarding parts of my photography journey. Trust is incredibly important because I’m often photographing people while they’re concentrating on complex tasks with large machinery. They need to know that I’ll work safely, stay out of the way and never interfere with what they’re doing. I think those relationships also help me to create stronger images. Spending time on farms has also given me a much deeper appreciation of the skill, dedication and long hours that are involved in producing our food, and I hope that understanding comes through in the images I make.

What camera equipment do you use?
My main camera is a Nikon D7500 DSLR with a selection of lenses, including a wide-angle and 35mm prime to a 500mm telephoto lens, depending on what I’m photographing. For my aerial work, I use a DJI Air 2S camera drone, which has been an incredible tool for capturing the patterns, textures, and scale of the agricultural landscape. Neither is the latest or most expensive piece of equipment on the market, but I’ve never believed that creating a great photograph is simply about owning the newest camera. It’s far more important to understand light, composition, timing, and the story you’re trying to tell.

Living in rural Suffolk, I’m surrounded by farmland, so it felt natural to start exploring the agricultural landscape from above. I became fascinated by the skill, precision and sheer hard work involved in producing our food, and that’s what I try to capture in my photography today.

What made you interested in covering this subject?
What really drew me to agricultural photography was the opportunity to tell stories that many people never get to see. Most people only see the finished product on the supermarket shelves; I wanted to capture what takes place right at the start of the food production process.

I’ve been incredibly fortunate to receive fantastic support from the farming community. The farms that I’ve worked with have trusted me to document their work in an authentic way, and those relationships have grown over time. As well as creating images for my own portfolio, I’ve also produced photographs for farmers to use across their social media, websites and promotional material.

Chris Gurton's top five tips

1: Ensure safety always comes first
Harvest is one of the busiest periods of the farming year, with multiple machines working together. Never assume you can simply walk into a field with a camera – always ask the farmer or landowner for permission first. If you want to get closer, you have to respect that they’re running a business. Always stay aware of your surroundings, keep well clear of working machinery and never distract operators.

2: Learn how harvest works
Understanding what’s happening in the field makes a huge difference. If you know when a combine is likely to unload, where tractors will position themselves, or how the crop will be worked, then you can anticipate these moments.

3: Make the most of the light
Some of my favorite harvest photographs have been taken during golden hour or even after sunset. Dust hanging in the air and low-angle light can completely transform a scene, so don’t pack away your camera when the sun starts to disappear.

4: Tell a story, don’t just show a machine
A combine harvester is an impressive machine, but the strongest photographs include the wider story. Look for leading lines in the crop, dramatic skies, birds following the machinery or people working together. These details add context and help viewers connect with the image.

5: Be patient and enjoy the process
Harvest rarely goes exactly to plan. Weather changes, machinery breaks down and the light doesn’t always cooperate. The best photographs often come after hours of waiting, so be patient and keep looking for new angles. If the conditions aren’t right, don’t be afraid to call it quits and return on another day.

Website: www.chrisgurtonphotography.com
Instagram: @chrisgurtonphotography

Read more…

This interview appears in the October 2026 issue of Digital Camera World, the world's favorite photography magazine. Every issue is packed with the latest technique tutorials, photo tips, inspiring images, news, reviews, and expert buying advice.

The magazine also comes with a downloadable selection of bonus gifts including video lessons, tips cards, and much more. It aims to help photographers of all skill levels to improve their images.

I have very fond memories of the Canon EOS 750D, known in the US as the Canon Rebel EOS T6i and in Japan as the Canon EOS Kiss X8i.

You'd be forgiven for not instantly recognizing the Canon EOS 750D (or its namesakes) among the company's long and increasingly convoluted alphabet soup of model names, but trust me – this stood out as one of the best beginner cameras on the market for a number of reasons, many of which still make it worth picking up today.

For starters, with its 24.2MP APS-C sensor, the Canon EOS 750D boasted the highest resolution of any entry-level model in the company's lineup. While 24MP might be the baseline for APS-C resolution today, back when this camera launched in 2015, 18MP was the norm for a starter system.

At that time I was still doing a lot of workshops and photographic education, and one of the most common questions I'd get would be, "What camera should I start with?"

Obviously pixels aren't everything – and indeed, the Canon EOS 750D offers more than just pixels. But given the choice between a starter camera with 18MP and another with 24MP, it was pretty easy to recommend the 750D as the place to begin a photographic journey.

Resolution aside, the camera also boasted plenty of features that made it even more appealing. Canon's Hybrid CMOS AF III imbued it with phase detect autofocus, something that even some expensive cameras at the time were shy to offer. It may be hard to remember in 2026, but back in the day the leap in reliability from contrast-detect AF was a pretty big deal.

A key one for me was that the Canon EOS 750D offered WiFi connectivity, enabling it to work with Canon Camera Connect. People are quick to dump on camera company's smartphone apps, and indeed some of them are pretty dire, but I've always found Canon's to be one of the best (behind Olympus / OM System's app).

But perhaps the biggest deal with the 750D was the fact that it boasted a fully articulating rear screen, with touch controls. There's a misnomer that these kinds of "flippy screens" are only good for video, but I use them just as much for photography.

I'm certainly not shy of going prone to get a shot, but trust me – it's way easier to get a low-angle (or even a high-angle) portrait-orientation shot using an articulating screen rather than going belly-down on the ground and getting mucky!

But the Canon EOS 750D certainly catered to video as well, offering FullHD 25p capture, and it even had a microphone jack. Again, there are plenty of expensive midrange and high-end cameras that don't give you a mic jack even today – so the fact that you had all this tech on a beginner camera in 2025 really was quite special.

Today, the landscape is very different. But for an entry-level Canon camera with a flippy screen, you're looking at the Canon EOS R50 – which will cost you around $629 / £729. While it's an objectively better camera in every respect, compare that to the cost of a Canon EOS 750D / Rebel T6i – which is available from $341 at KEH or £239 at MPB.

The Canon EOS 750D was ahead of its time – so much so that, even a decade later, it's still a very respectable place to start your journey.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Canon cameras on the market today, along with the best Canon lenses for DSLRs and the best Canon RF lenses for mirrorless models.

Nikon has finally released its first camera of 2026, and it’s the Nikon Z5IIC. And as the name suggests, it’s a camera that riffs off the popular Nikon Z5II, not just a little, but a lot. In fact, many are calling it a Nikon Z5II without a viewfinder, but that’s a slight oversimplification, because there are a few other small differences.

Nikon has stated that the ‘c’ stands for ‘casual’ and, together with the lack of a viewfinder, the Nikon Z5IIC is clearly aimed at camera phone photographers stepping up to a serious camera for the first time. Or, more casual users who want a powerful camera at a good price, but don’t need premium specs such as dual card slots and EVFs.

For anyone left scratching their head, I’ve combed through each camera’s hardware and software specs to bring you all of the differences that matter, so you can make an informed decision about which is the best Nikon camera for you.

Let’s get into it…

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Core specs

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Viewfinder and screen

Let’s start with the most obvious difference: the Nikon Z5IIC doesn’t have a viewfinder, and the Nikon Z5II does. This brings with it some pros and cons. Without the viewfinder ‘bump’, the Nikon Z5IIC is lighter and has a slimmer profile than the Nikon Z5II, but an EVF brings with it two major advantages: No reflections means you can accurately monitor your exposure in bright conditions, and holding a camera up to your eye allows you to cradle it with more stability, reducing camera shake.

Both cameras have 3.2” fully-articulated rear LCD screens, but the Nikon Z5IIC’s has a 1.04-million-dot resolution screen in comparison to the Nikon Z5II’s 2.1-million-dot screen. I wouldn’t call this a dealbreaker, but it is very disappointing considering the lack of an EVF.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Size and weight

Having lost the viewfinder, the Nikon Z5IIC is unsurprisingly lighter and slimmer than the Nikon Z5II, but maybe not quite as much as you’d think. It weighs in at 538g (body only) in comparison to the Z5II’s 620g.

When it comes to the dimensions, the Nikon Z5IIC is the same width and depth as the Nikon Z5II (W 5.3”, D 2.9”). The difference is the height, with the former reaching 3.2” to the Z5II’s 4”. Personally, that’s not as big a difference as I expected. Sure, losing the viewfinder ‘bump’ does make this camera more compact, but it’s still a large hunk of camera.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Color options

A difference between these two cameras that might not matter to some, but I think will have huge ramifications on the Nikon Z5IIC’s desirability are the available colors. Historically, only the retro Nikon Zfc and Nikon Zf have been available in a color other than all-black, meaning the Nikon Z5IIC bucks the trend for mainline Z-series cameras.

It’s available in silver or black, with the former being a two-toned silver-and-black design, where the top plate is silver, and the rest of the body is black. Complete with Nikon’s signature red stripe, of course. I’ve yet to see the camera in person, but from the promotional imagery, the silver variant really does look rather fetching. And while I’m a fan of all-black retro cameras, I’d definitely be plumping for a silver Z5IIC.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Controls

The control layout of these two cameras is very similar indeed, but subtly different. On the top plate, the Z5IIC has added a Scene Mode setting, but to make way for it, it only has U1 and U2 user settings, whereas the Z5II has three user settings.

On the back there’s a rather crucial omission as far as I’m concerned. The Nikon Z5IIC doesn’t have a joystick, but the Nikon Z5II does. I’m honestly baffled by this decision, because it’s such a backwards step. There are pros and cons to adding/removing a viewfinder, but a joystick is such an innocuous addition; I can’t think of a reason to remove it.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Storage

The Nikon Z5IIC has one SD card slot, while the Nikon Z5II has two SD card slots. This isn’t really surprising given that dual card slots are a more premium feature and the Z5IIC is aimed at a more casual market after all. This likely kept the cost down slightly, and if you’re on a budget, you won’t be tempted to fill the slots and buy more memory cards.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Software

The Nikon Z5IIC might technically be the less-premium camera, but it comes with a couple of technical upgrades. First up is Scene Modes. These allow you to cycle through various automatic modes that are tailored to a specific genre. This is an entry-level appointment, so it’s not surprising that the Nikon Z5IIC is the first full-frame Z-series camera to get it, and it’s not available on the slightly higher-tiered Nikon Z5II.

The Nikon Z5IIC is also the first Nikon camera to add fish to the AF’s subject detection. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Nikon Z5II got this as a firmware update relatively soon. The ability to add film grain to images, like the Nikon Zf, is another boon for the Z5IIC that hasn’t made its way over to the Nikon Z5II yet.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Price

The body-only price for the Nikon Z5IIC is $1,399.95 / £1,349 / AU$2,399, while the Nikon ZII’s RRP sits at $1,849.95 / £1,599 / AU$2,699. You can find it cheaper during sales and promotions, but still, the Z5IIC is a great price for a current-gen full-frame mirrorless camera in 2026, and when the discounts eventually begin to roll in, that value is going to get even better.

Nikon Z5IIC vs Z5II: Conclusion

The Nikon Z5IIC is remarkably similar to the Nikon Z5II. So much so that if the only thing putting you off the Nikon Z5II is the price, Nikon’s latest release is a great way to save money. However, the viewfinder isn’t the only big difference. The Nikon Z5II also cements its position as the more premium offering with a higher-resolution LCD screen, a joystick and a dual card slot. And while the Nikon Z5IIC is marketed as being a more compact solution, it’s not all that smaller and lighter.

What it does bring to the table is a lovely silver colorway and beginner-friendly Scene Modes. You also get Film Grain and Fish subject detection, although I’d expect the Z5II to get the latter at some point in the future via a firmware update. I’ll be looking forward to testing the Nikon Z5IIC out in the Digital Camera Review to deliver the final verdict.

You might also like...

If you're looking for a camera a little like the Nikon Z5IIC but with a viewfinder, then check out the Sony A7C II. If you're looking for a full-frame camera that's incredibly compact, take a look at the Panasonic Lumix S9. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

October 2026 is a transitional month for astrophotographers. Darkness arrives earlier, nights grow longer, and the sky becomes easier to work with again after summer's compressed twilight. At the same time, the Milky Way’s bright core is making its final appearances in the Northern Hemisphere’s evening sky, marking the end of its most photogenic season. The month is anchored by Saturn at opposition, a well-timed new moon, the rise of a supermoon and the peak of the Orionid meteor shower — though the latter suffers from moonlight this year. Here’s everything you need to know about astrophotography in October 2026:

Read: 10 must-shoot events for astrophotographers in 2026

October 3-13: Dark sky window

With new moon on October 10, the surrounding nights — from last quarter moon on 3 October through to a brightening crescent moon on 13 October — provide excellent dark-sky conditions (use a light pollution map or find a Dark Sky Place for maximum impact). This is essentially the final opportunity in 2026 to photograph the Milky Way’s core from the Northern Hemisphere. The Galactic Center now sits low in the southwest after sunset and sets quickly, so timing is critical. Use a wide-angle lens (14–24mm), ISO 1600–3200 and exposures of 10-20 seconds. Because of its low altitude, atmospheric haze can reduce contrast, so seek out the darkest possible location with a clear horizon. Consider including a strong foreground to balance the composition or switch to shorter exposures for sharper detail.

Read: The best star tracker camera mounts

October 4: Saturn at opposition

Saturn reaches opposition on October 4, meaning it is directly opposite the sun in the sky. Just like a full moon, it will rise in the east at sunset, remain visible all night, and set in the west at sunset. This is when the ringed planet is closest to Earth and at its brightest, making it the best time of the year to photograph it. While Saturn appears star-like to the naked eye, a telescope reveals its rings clearly. For imaging, use a telescope or a long-focal-length lens (800mm or more) and an astro or planetary camera to capture short video clips rather than single exposures. You can then stack frames from these videos in software to boost detail and reduce atmospheric distortion. Even under modest conditions, this technique can reveal ring structure. Practically speaking, a week either side of any planet’s opposition is also perfect for close-ups.

Read: The best cameras for astrophotography

October 6: Moon occults Jupiter

During the early hours of Tuesday, Oct. 6, a roughly 20%-lit waning crescent moon will pass directly in front of Jupiter, causing the giant planet to disappear for up to about an hour for observers across much of eastern North America, according to In-The-Sky. Exact times vary by location — Jupiter disappears at about 4:22 a.m. EDT in New York City, returning at 5:26 a.m. The planet will disappear behind the moon’s lit side and emerge from its dark side. A small telescope may spot Jupiter’s Galilean moons disappearing and reappearing around the planet.

October 21-22: Orionid meteor shower

The Orionid meteor shower peaks overnight on 21-22 October, but with a bright moon present, conditions are not ideal. Even so, brighter meteors may still be visible, particularly after moonset or when shooting away from the moon’s glare.

Use a wide-angle lens (14-24mm), ISO 800-1600 and 20-30 second exposures, shooting continuously for several hours. Position your camera away from the moon to maximise contrast. While results may be limited, the Orionids can still produce fast, bright streaks that stand out even under less-than-perfect conditions.

Read: How to photograph a meteor shower

October 26: Full ‘Hunter’s Moon’ rises

October’s full moon, known as the Hunter’s Moon, turns full on October 25, but will be best seen rising on October 26 As with all full moons, the most photogenic moment is moonrise closest to sunset, when it appears large and takes on warm tones near the horizon — allowing photographers to capture it above a still-lit landscape. As a supermoon, albeit a small one, it will be slightly bigger and brighter than average.

Use a telephoto lens (200-600mm) to capture detail or incorporate a foreground subject for scale. Because the moon is so bright, use low ISO and fast shutter speeds to avoid overexposure. Planning is essential — use tools like The Photographer's Ephemeris and PhotoPills to align the moon with foreground element features (a tall building or a mountain) for maximum impact.

Read: How to photograph the full moon

Astrophotography shot of the month: Star trails

As the Milky Way season draws to a close, October is an excellent time to try a star trail. Set up a wide-angle lens (14-24mm) on a tripod and take a sequence of 20-30 second exposures over several hours, using ISO 100-400 to minimise noise. You can then stack these images to create circular trails around the celestial pole or sweeping arcs across the sky. Alternatively, a single long exposure can work, though it risks overexposure in brighter conditions.

Point your camera toward Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere to create concentric circles, or experiment with different directions for varied patterns. Include a strong foreground element to anchor the composition. Star trails are a great way to visualise Earth’s rotation — and they’re easy to create.

Read more:

• Astrophotography tools: the best camera, lenses and gear

• The best lenses for astrophotography

• The best star tracker camera mounts

The new Canon EOS R8 Mark II was released this month, and it’s a fantastic lightweight full-frame camera in a travel-friendly package that builds on the original EOS R8. While the R8 Mark II has fixed a fair few of the flaws of its predecessor with some tasty tech updates as we mention in our hands-on review, the restrictive battery life remains the same. In polite terms, this can be a bit challenging!

This is the downside to travel camera bodies being small. To fit in a 24MP full-frame sensor, DIGIC X processor, IBIS, and other tech packed inside… Something’s gotta give. So there’s less space for the battery, which means a smaller battery and less battery life.

The rechargeable Canon LP-E17 battery in the EOS R8 and R8 Mark II is only good for 220 photos when using the EVF, or 370 in power-saving mode. In the real world, we found we could take around 350 photos and still have a good chunk of battery power left. But the fact remains, this isn’t many shots if you’re out for a day’s shooting and only have one battery.

In comparison, the Canon EOS R5 Mark II battery can manage 630 shots with the LCD, or 340 when using the EVF.

However, I actually have found having less battery life to play with makes you a better photographer, especially when it comes to travel photography.

I was using an EOS R8 on a city break in Madrid this summer, and I was forced to be thoughtful and economical when taking photos. Rather than the ‘spray and pray’ technique many tourists adopt, shooting everything and anything, and hoping for the best.

Instead, armed with the EOS R8 tucked in my little camera backpack, I had to plan ahead more, researching locations and working out the viewpoints for the best shots. I also took test shots on my iPhone to see how scenes looked, before using the R8 to get better hi-res images...

The added bonus of less battery means fewer images on your card, and that means less time at the computer when you’re back home editing your images.

Another bonus was, in the extreme summer heat of Madrid, less time shooting meant more time relaxing and cooling off with an Aperol Spritz or two in the shade!

It was 1966 and Canon had a problem. During the 1960s, Canon had become successful with enthusiast SLR cameras such as the Pellix and FT series, but professional photographers overwhelmingly favored Nikon.

Canon realized that professionals wanted more than just a camera – they wanted an entire photographic ecosystem that could withstand heavy daily use.

Canon had learned a bitter lesson in 1959 with its Canonflex, which while beautiful was somewhat odd in it’s features and to say it was a commercial failure would be putting it mildly.. The months between introduction and being discontinued could be counted on the fingers of one hand, with digits to spare!

It had been developed by engineers, not photographers. In addition to its odd, bottom wind, it lacked the lenses professionals needed, and those it did have lacked the features professionals wanted. So, in 1966 they began, in earnest, to create their answer to the Nikon F. The Canon F-1.

The objective was ambitious: to build a camera to challenge the Nikon F and achieve reliability under the harshest conditions. . They wanted to develop an extensive array of accessories to fill almost any imaginable need. It was no small undertaking and, according to Canon, it consumed resources comparable with the development of ten conventional cameras!

During 1967, the project expanded to give the new body interchangeable eyelevel and waist-level finders, focusing screens, motor drives (note the plural, here), bulk film backs and remote control systems.

Unlike other makers, Canon intended to have them all available for purchase on the day of the launch, rather than add them over several years, as Nikon had done.

By 1969, working prototypes were undergoing extensive testing. They evaluated shutter durability, film transport reliability, viewfinder alignment, light-meter accuracy, resistance to dust and humidity and most of all, the camera’s ability to operate in extreme temperatures. The camera had to work, without modifications for approximately 100,000 shutter cycles in temperatures from –30°C to +60°C, no matter what the humidity. While these specifications may sound a bit hum-drum, today, they were remarkable at the time.

A small number of trusted professional photographers were invited to test prototype equipment and provide feedback. Many ergonomic details—including the placement of controls and finder designs were refined.

By March 1971, it was ready. But still, Canon did things differently. They had designed the more capable FD lens mount but kept compatibility with the older FL mount lenses photographers may already own. And the camera launched with 14 FD mount lenses available, covering focal lengths from 17mm to 300mm. The full array of 180 accessories was also available on day one.

The Canon F-1 was unusual among professional cameras because Canon deliberately promised that the basic camera would remain in production for ten years, allowing professionals to invest in the system with confidence. It was a promise Canon kept.

In fact, despite a minor tweak in 1976 (still called the F-1 by Canon) it did not launch a new pro-level camera until the “New F-1” in 1981. And they didn’t change the lens mount until the EOS autofocus system introduced in 1989!

The camera itself was truly professional-grade, with a fully mechanical shutter (battery required only for the light meter), a titanium-foil horizontal-travel focal-plane shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/2000 second plus Bulb, mirror lock-up, depth-of-field preview, Interchangeable viewfinders and screens and extremely rugged all-metal construction. Remarkable, for the era.

The F1 immediately established Canon as a serious competitor in professional photography. Even so, Canon did not surpass Nikon in the professional market, until somewhere around 1992–1993, after the introduction of their EOS-1 with autofocus.

Canon never published production numbers for the F1 and variants, but the commonly cited estimate is about 750,000 bodies over the 10 year run. While this is still slightly lower than the Nikon F’s eventual numbers, it reflects the smaller market and much higher price for pro-level gear.

One interesting footnote: the 1992 Barcelona Olympics are often cited as the moment when the balance of power shifted. Television coverage of the sidelines showed a striking increase in the number of white Canon super-telephoto lenses—a visible sign that many elite sports photographers had migrated from Nikon to Canon. By the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Canon's lead in professional sports photography was widely recognized.

In 2003 Canon became the world's largest seller of interchangeable-lens digital cameras and have never looked back, though Nikon is now nipping at their heels.

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 is something wonderfully ridiculous about the Kodak Charmera. At a time when we are surrounded by cameras capable of recording astonishing levels of detail, computationally rebuilding our photographs and practically deciding when we should press the shutter for us, one of the cameras that has stolen the hearts of photographers and non-photographers alike is tiny enough to hang from a keychain. Better still, its photographs are technically pretty terrible – and I think that might be exactly why people have fallen in love with it.

The Kodak Charmera arrived in 2025 as a miniature digital camera inspired by Kodak’s past, particularly the carefree spirit of the Kodak Fling from 1987. Manufactured by RETO Production under license from Kodak, the Charmera is quite literally designed to be both a charm and a camera, something you can attach to a bag or keyring and carry everywhere. Its original launch proved just how powerful that idea could be, with the little camera reportedly selling out within a day before pre-orders reopened for another batch.

And yet there is almost nothing impressive about its specification sheet. The Charmera uses a tiny 1/4-inch CMOS sensor and produces 1.6MP images measuring 1440 x 1080 pixels, paired with a 35mm-equivalent f/2.4 lens. This isn't a camera chasing resolution, dynamic range or perfect corner-to-corner sharpness, and nobody is going to mistake its photographs for something captured on a Leica M11 or Fujifilm GFX. That, however, completely misses the point. The Charmera is about pressing a button and seeing what happens, rather than worrying about whether your shadows are recoverable by three stops in Lightroom.

That simplicity appears to have struck a nerve. The original Charmera was offered in collectible blind-box packaging with seven possible retro designs, turning buying the camera into part of the experience, while its intentionally lo-fi photographs look closer to something recovered from an old family album than an image captured by a modern smartphone. Reviews have repeatedly described the camera as viral, popular or even something of a cult hit, despite simultaneously acknowledging that its actual image quality can be extremely rough. Somehow, those imperfections have become part of its personality rather than something that needs fixing.

Sample images

I think that tells us considerably more about photography in 2026 than the Charmera's specification sheet ever could. We have spent the past decade making photographs cleaner, sharper, and more technically perfect, while smartphones have made taking a technically competent photograph almost effortless. The inevitable reaction appears to be a growing desire for photographs that actually look imperfect again. People are buying old compact cameras, rediscovering film, adding date stamps, embracing blown highlights and chasing the unmistakable aesthetic of early digital cameras. The Charmera compresses that entire movement into something that weighs almost nothing and can hang beside your house keys.

More importantly, it makes photography feel disposable again in the best possible sense of the word. Not disposable because the photographs are meaningless, but because every frame doesn't have to become a masterpiece. There is no pressure to perfectly expose the scene, select the right autofocus mode, or spend twenty minutes editing the resulting RAW file. You point it at your friends, your dog, an interesting street corner, dinner, a night out, or something completely mundane and press the shutter. Sometimes the photograph works, sometimes it doesn't, but that unpredictability is precisely what we seem to have engineered out of modern photography.

That might explain why this little camera has managed to reach people far beyond traditional photography circles. One recent account described using the Charmera while traveling with friends specifically because it allowed everyone to put their phones away and remain more present, while other users have talked about the enjoyment of transferring and curating its deliberately imperfect photographs afterward rather than allowing thousands of smartphone images to disappear into an endless camera roll. It transforms photography back into an activity rather than another feature buried somewhere inside the device we already use for absolutely everything else.

There is also something particularly fitting about the Kodak name being attached to it. Kodak is inseparable from generations of family snapshots, vacations, birthdays, and photographs that were rarely technically perfect but became priceless simply because somebody remembered to take them. The Charmera taps directly into that emotional history without pretending to recreate film perfectly. It instead offers something much simpler: a tiny digital camera that encourages you to photograph without thinking too hard about photography.

And perhaps that is the real reason the Kodak Charmera stole so many hearts. It isn't because 1.6MP suddenly became good enough, nor because photographers collectively stopped caring about image quality. It is because this tiny keychain camera reminded us that image quality and photographic enjoyment have never been quite the same thing.

Sometimes the photograph that makes you smile isn't the sharpest one, the cleanest one or the one with the greatest dynamic range. Sometimes it is the slightly blurry, strangely colored photograph taken on a ridiculous little camera hanging from your keys – and I rather love that photography has rediscovered the joy in that.

Shop the Kodak Charmera

Meta VR smart glasses could be the biggest announcement in the world of smart glasses for some time. Not because they're the best, the most powerful, or the most innovative, but because they're pushing for a balance that others haven't yet seemed to manage – a balance including the price.

Meta has already grown a popular – if controversial – market, dominating the best smart camera glasses thanks to variants of its Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3, the latest version of which was also just announced. These are essentially sunglasses with a camera and a voice-based A.I. assistant built in, and sold in good numbers at around the $300 price.

Apple, of course, went for a carefully tested, refined, technically incomparable device (not wholly without flaws, but it did impress me when I tried the Vision Pro). There were two key downsides: it cost the wrong side of $3000 and it looked like really nice ski goggles, so it was never going to be something that consumers bought and wore every day.

So, what if you want more than the camera glasses but less than the Apple's Vision Pro? What if you actually liked the idea of the Vision Pro but feel that it has 'failed'. Sure, Apple is still updating the OS and adding productivity features, but there is a lack of momentum and, as we have covered here, the company has also reduced manufacturing orders for the Vision Pro.

Well, the Meta VR seems to be pitching itself as the solution.

The company already had the Meta Ray-Ban Display, which is a variant of these glasses that features an internal display that appears 'projected' over the wearer's view. The view can be interacted with using a wristband. This extends the capabilities, not in a way that would trouble Vision Pro users but definitely in a way that'd impress owners of the first Google Glass (remember them?)

The fact Meta had a means of interaction – the wristband – the beginnings of an on-screen operating system, and a market for glasses (as well, sorry Apple, but a cooler brand tie-in) put it in a good place to deliver the Meta VR glasses.

These ARE a lot closer to being a Vision Pro-like concept, obscuring the eyes with a big opaque black goggle-like cover. There are cameras on the outside and a virtual world is projected onto what you see, so, like Vision Pro, everything you see when wearing them is the result of computation (even if it is just a camera image passing through).

Pass-through, by the way, introduces all the 'qualities' you'd expect of a small digital camera, and the slight delay of computation.

The upshot is that several images can be displayed in your field of view – a giant cinema, or multiple 'windows'.

Like Apple's device, or the FPV goggles I've been using for years as a drone fan, there is a cable and 'puck' where the 'power' is stored. Power is a key word here; the glasses are only 100g, so power as Meta uses it refers to compute power as well as the battery. (It remains to be seen if this is problematic when topping power up.)

In fact, these look a lot more like glasses when you consider they're actually VR devices – which usually come with a headstrap because of the weight. That's pretty exciting.

This seems a little odd from a company that only a few months ago scaled back its Meta Quest gaming glasses, but, presumably that is because it knew it was attempting to expand further with more capable hardware.

On which subject, the Meta VR also doesn't come with the wristband that the earlier glasses relied on, instead having mastered the ability to detect pinch controls in the way others (Apple, Samsung, Snap SPECS) seem to have.

If you need some productivity on the go, Meta's system will detect a flat surface – perhaps a table in Starbucks – and put a "keyboard" there for you.

The system has no confirmed specs and won't be available until "Spring 2027" – but the other detail Meta has shared is perhaps the most crucial: a price of $1,299 (just under £1,000 were it translated directly).

Given the price of the Apple Vision Pro and the SPECS announced a few days before, not to mention the cost of chips, this is a surprising commitment, but one that might well buy the market.

Nikon has officially launched its first camera of 2026, and honestly, I’ve got mixed feelings. As the name suggests, the Nikon Z5IIC is essentially a Nikon Z5II without the viewfinder. And apart from a couple of very small differences (fish AF anyone?), that’s about it.

Its biggest appeal is the price. The body is launching for $1,399.95 / £1,349 / AU$2,399, which is very competitive for a full-frame camera, especially one of this caliber. I’m also pleased to see that Nikon has broken ranks by offering the Nikon Z5IIC in two colors: all-black or black-and-silver. Retro cameras aside, this is the first Z-Series camera to offer a choice of colors beyond the Z-series’ traditional black.

No viewfinder, no problem

Let’s address the elephant in the room; this camera doesn’t have a viewfinder. And you know what? I don’t mind. If this camera was a huge departure from the norm, I might selfishly care because I prefer to use a viewfinder, but since it’s almost identical to the Nikon Z5II, arguing about the viewfinder is futile. If you don’t like it, get a Nikon Z5II.

We know that plenty of creators spend 95% of their time shooting through the rear screen, and if it works, it works. The bigger problem for me is that I’m struggling to understand the camera’s identity, beyond being a viewfinderless Nikon Z5II.

Let me explain…

‘C’ is for… casual?

Had I not seen photographs and reviews of the camera alongside the launch, I would have assumed that the ‘C’ in Nikon Z5IIC stood for ‘compact’. I was surprised to learn that it’s actually meant to represent ‘casual’.

And yet, this isn’t a casual camera. It’s a $1,400 full-frame lump that can shoot RAW video. This seems like an identity crisis to me. Think about it: what casual creator needs RAW video? Plenty of pro creators don’t need RAW video. And you’re not capturing this demanding bundle of data onto a CFexpress card, because there’s only a single SD card slot.

Despite having a high-end feature in RAW video, the Z5IIC maxes out at 4K / 60p (cropped). Compare that to the Panasonic Lumix S9 with 6K open-gate and no ability to record internal RAW video. Personally, I think that's much more useful.

What does fit the 'casual' bill is that the Z5IIC is the first full-frame Nikon Z-series camera to have beginner-friendly Scene Modes, so you can set the genre and the camera will automate the settings accordingly. See what I mean? The specs really are a mixed bag.

Then you’ve got the form factor. Sure, the lack of an EVF means it’s smaller and lighter than the Nikon Z5II, but it’s still built around largely the same beefy body and weighs 620g (with a battery and card). Compare that to the Panasonic Lumix S9 at 486g, and the Sony A7C II at 514g (which has an EVF), and the Nikon Z5IIC is a serious hunk of camera.

What I most certainly am disappointed in is the 3.2-inch flip-out screen. It’s only 1.04m dots, a downgrade from the Nikon Z5II’s 2.1m dots. As somebody who was tentatively hoping that a full-frame viewfinderless Nikon would borrow the Nikon ZR’s massive 4-inch rear LCD, the downgrade from the Z5II is a real shame. Especially for a camera with no EVF.

A full-frame Nikon Z30?

The Nikon Z5IIC launch reminds me a lot of the Nikon Z30 launch. After all, the Nikon Z30 is essentially a Nikon Z50 without a viewfinder, and I can remember feeling similarly underwhelmed. And yet, the Nikon Z30 has sold very well in Japan, a market that isn’t afraid of quirky, pocketable, viewfinderless cameras.

As such, I think the Nikon Z5IIC will live and die by its performance on the Japanese domestic market. I worry that, unlike the Nikon Z30, it’s simply not compact enough. But only time will tell. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a camera has proven me wrong. And it very well could…

It’s a darn good camera

But beyond the Z5IIC’s murky identity lies an incredible camera. I’m talking about a full-frame 24.5-MP sensor, Nikon’s latest Expeed 7 processor, top-notch autofocus with subject detection for 10 subject types, Nikon’s trendy Imaging Recipes, up to 7.5 stops of in-body image stabilization, 14-fps burst shooting (mechanical shutter), 4K / 60p (cropped) and internal RAW video output.

I’m yet to use the camera, but based on using the Nikon Z5II and pretty much every Nikon Z-series camera in existence, Nikon makes fantastic cameras. Call me biased – I’m a long-time Nikon shooter – but I firmly believe that Nikon offers the best blend of build quality, image quality, autofocus and optics on the market.

If the price is right and you don’t mind the form factor, there is no doubt in my mind that the Nikon Z5IIC will capture anything other than gorgeous full-frame photographs. The question remains whether or not the Nikon Z5IIC can separate itself enough from the rest of Nikon’s lineup to court interest.

I can't wait to get my hands on a review sample!

You might also like...

Check out the best Nikon cameras and the best mirrorless cameras. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

I’ve been shooting stills on my Sony A7 III for roughly four years now. And when you combine that with the fact that I spend my days researching and writing about cameras, I think it’s fair to say I know a thing or two about them – at least Alpha cameras.

However, sometimes, even photographers in my position need a little help choosing the right gear. This time, I’m not switching to a new brand, like I did when I upgraded from my Nikon D3500 – an excellent beginner’s camera, by the way – to my current A7 III.

I’m sticking with an Alpha model, but, as one of the main reasons for the upgrade is that I’m planning to get into videography, I can’t decide between the Sony A7R IV or A7 IV.

Now I know that, according to Sony, the A7 lineup is the true hybrid series geared toward both shooting stills and filming. And I’ve also taken the time to read my colleague Rod Lawton’s expert opinion on the whole A7 IV vs A7R IV debate.

But despite Sony’s and Rod’s respectable thoughts, I need more to make my decision. So, I’m asking all who read this plea and who have real-world experience with the A7R IV and/or A7 IV to chime in with your thoughts in the comments section below.

To some people, it might seem obvious: if I want to shoot both stills and video, then go with Sony’s own guidance and get an A7 IV. But my predicament is that I don’t want to forgo the A7R IV’s monster 61MP sensor, even more so as the two cameras are now priced fairly equally.

Sensor resolution isn’t everything for me. After all, I’ve happily been making do with my 24MP A7 III for some time now. Plus I shoot with top-tier G Master glass; lens quality arguably being the more important factor in this respect.

But I do want to take advantage of the monster image fidelity on offer, especially as this would enable me to crop images aggressively while retaining the quality, something 61MP would much better enable than the A7 IV’s 33MP.

Although, as I’m planning on getting into video, I also know that I need to consider how a 61MP sensor would affect filming.

I’m aware that higher MP counts degrade video quality, as downsampling can produce visual artifacts and slower sensor readout speeds can introduce harsh rolling shutter distortions. I also know that forcing a 61MP sensor, for example, to compress resolution into a 4K stream 60 times per second can strain camera hardware and cause overheating.

And then there are the LCD screens. Obviously, the A7R IV only boasts tilting, rather than the A7 IV's vari-angle movement. This is something that, at the moment, I don’t think would bother me too much when it comes to recording video, but perhaps I’m being naive.

Hopefully, though, as people with real-life experience of shooting videos with either of these cameras, you can tell me how often the potential issues I’ve mentioned occur and how much they affect your workflow.

Will I really see negative artifacts and degraded performance in all of my videos if I buy the Sony A7R IV? Or am I living in a fantasy land even thinking about risking it? I’d appreciate your first-hand, experience-based thoughts below.

You might also like

Here's our expert pick of the best Sony cameras

The Fujifilm X100F might be nine years old, but in a world where the X100VI comes at a premium price point and can still be difficult to get hold of, and the X100V is so expensive on the used market, it’s hard to justify; the Fujifilm X100F arguably represents the sweetest spot between specs and affordability in the entire X100 Series.

A video by Rareș Gheorghiu entitled ‘Fujifilm X100F or X100VI in 2026’ (below), is a great watch for anyone who wants to pick up one of Fujifilm’s social-media-famous compact cameras but is confused about which one to get.

Fujifilm X100F, X100V and X100VI

The gist of Rareș’ opinion is that the Fujifilm X100F, V and VI all “kind of do the same thing” when it comes to their stills photography capabilities. However, the X100VI is the clear winner for content creators who require video or anyone looking for the most advanced specs and/or image quality.

And sure, there are plenty of differences between these cameras, but what I’m getting from the video is that they’re all everyday cameras in which to snap the world around you. With that in mind, different sensors, processors, weather sealing, and IBIS are all very nice specs to have, but the Fujifilm X100F still embodies the core ethos of the X100 Series. It’s beautiful, compact, and captures great images. For many photographers, that’s all they need.

You might also like...

Check out the best Fujifilm cameras and the best retro cameras. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

Modern cameras may take photographs in times measured in fractions of a second, but early photographs once took anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours to take a single photograph. Then, in 1840, an English chemist and pioneering photographer made a discovery that shortened the time required to take a photograph to a minute or less.

William Henry Fox Talbot was one of photography’s early pioneers – some suggest that, had he shared his work just a few weeks earlier, he could have been known as the founder of photography. Talbot’s early work in the mid-1830s created photogenic drawings on light-sensitive paper that used a salt and silver nitrate solution.

Talbot presented his idea of “photogenic drawing” to the Royal Society just three weeks after Louis Daguerre first displayed the first daguerreotypes in 1839. But at the time, Talbot’s paper-based process fell short of the sharp details from Daguerre’s silver plates.

But where Daguerre returned to his work as a painter after the introduction of the daguerreotype, Talbot continued to refine his paper-based process. Less than two years later, Talbot patented a process that would drastically change how a photograph was taken.

The earliest photographs from Nicéphore Niépce’s heliography took several hours – and some may have even taken days. The daguerreotype sped up that process considerably, but still required exposing the silver plate for three to fifteen minutes.

Sometime between September 21 and 23, 1840, Talbot realized that while exposing the light-sensitive paper for just a few seconds did not leave any visible changes, putting the image into a gallic acid solution allowed the image to appear on the paper. Some records suggest that Talbot discovered that an invisible photograph still existed on the paper by accident.

Mixing Talbot’s earlier work to create images on light-sensitive paper with the additional step of rinsing those images in a developing solution drastically reduced a photograph’s exposure time from minutes to seconds. He initially called this part of the process using an “exciting liquid.” While modern photography no longer uses gallic acid, analog film development still uses a developer.

Talbot’s earliest images, however, faded quickly. Talbot’s friend Sir John Herschel later proposed a hyposulfite solution to stop the paper from continuing to be sensitive to light, introducing the idea of a fixer into the film developing process.

Talbot called his paper-based photographic process the calotype and patented the process in February 1841.

Talbot’s work didn’t just shorten the exposure time for early photographs, however. Daguerreotype photographs could not be duplicated, but calotypes created a negative image that could be duplicated by placing the negative over another light-sensitive paper.

The calotype introduced three concepts that became a longstanding part of film photography even as it evolved through different forms: developing, fixing, and then printing or reproducing from those negatives.

Despite the problems that the calotype solved, the daguerreotype remained more popular for its sharper, detailed portraits. The calotype was also patented and required licensing fees, whereas the daguerreotype did not require those fees.

While the daguerreotype may have been the more popular form of early photography, the calotype’s use of developing a negative, fixing the image, and creating prints remained a key part of analog photography even as the calotype was replaced by the albumen silver print in the 1850s.

You may also like

For more photographic history, read about who invented the camera and when. Or, browse the best film cameras.

There is something slightly amusing about seeing the Leica name attached to an action camera.

Leica, after all, is a company we associate with beautifully engineered rangefinder cameras, expensive glass and a photographic philosophy built around slowing down and concentrating on the image.

Action cameras traditionally occupy almost the exact opposite end of photography: tiny boxes strapped to helmets, handlebars, cars and occasionally places where no sensible camera should ever go.

Yet the Insta360 Ace Pro 2 has been developed with Leica involvement, pairing its 1/1.3-inch sensor with Leica optics and promising image quality that goes considerably beyond what we once expected from this category.

That got me thinking: are these great images for an action camera or are they simply great images, period?

There was only one sensible way to find out, so I took the Ace Pro 2 into the field alongside my own Leica M240 to see whether a camera engineered with Leica could really stand beside one actually made by Leica.

Before anyone reaches for the pitchforks, this is absolutely not a scientific comparison. We already know which camera should win.

My Leica M240 uses a 24MP full-frame sensor, while the Ace Pro 2 is built around a much smaller 1/1.3-inch sensor capable of producing 50MP still images alongside 8K video. The lenses, sensor areas, image processing, shooting experience and frankly the entire purpose of these cameras are completely different.

I was never expecting the Ace Pro 2 to suddenly make my M240 redundant. What interested me far more was seeing just how close an action camera could now get to producing an image I would genuinely be happy to call a photograph, rather than simply a frame grabbed from an action camera.

Viewed through that lens, the comparison becomes much more interesting – because it demonstrates just how ridiculously far these little cameras have come since the early generations.

The biggest thing that changes the Ace Pro 2 experience for me is the fantastic Xplorer Grip Pro.

This substantial metal-bodied grip wraps around the Ace Pro 2 and connects directly via USB-C, adding extra battery capacity alongside a proper shutter button, zoom control, and a rear dial that can be used for exposure adjustment. Suddenly, this little action cam starts feeling remarkably like a compact camera.

That might sound like a cosmetic difference, but in use it completely changes the way I approached it. I began holding it like a camera, composing with it like a camera and actually going out looking for photographs rather than thinking exclusively about video.

Combine that with the ability to apply Leica-inspired looks such as Leica Vivid directly to JPEGs, while still having the option to record a DNG RAW file for editing later (I used Affinity) and the boundaries between action camera and traditional compact camera start becoming surprisingly blurry.

Hats off to both Insta360 and Leica, because this is where the collaboration starts feeling like more than a badge on the front.

Then there is the sheer flexibility of the files. Using the full 4:3 sensor gives you a 50MP image measuring 8192 x 6144 pixels, which is frankly a slightly bonkers number to be discussing when we are talking about an action camera.

Switch to 16:9, and you are naturally cropping into that sensor area, but you are still left with a roughly 37MP file, which is hardly something to complain about.

More importantly, having that resolution available gives you freedom when editing, cropping, straightening and reframing afterward. It also means the Ace Pro 2 does not feel like a device where photographs are simply an afterthought beneath the video specifications.

The photography side of the camera feels genuinely developed, particularly once you start treating those RAW files like you would images from any other camera rather than assuming everything has to come directly out of the box and onto Instagram.

So, what happened when I put the photographs next to those from my Leica M240? Well, spoiler alert: the Leica won. Of course it did.

The larger full-frame sensor produces a completely different quality to the image – and there is a depth, tonality, texture, and natural rendering that the tiny Ace Pro 2 simply cannot replicate.

But that really was not the surprising part of this experiment. What surprised me was just how good the Insta360 images looked beside it.

They did not suddenly fall apart the moment they were placed alongside photographs from a “proper” camera. There was plenty of detail, the colors looked excellent, and the Leica Vivid and Leica Eternal looks are almost cheat codes if you want polished images ready to share within seconds.

Yet traditionalists are catered for, too, because taking that DNG file into a photo editor gives you a genuinely useful amount of latitude to work with. Considering this image came from a camera that can also be thrown onto a mountain bike and record 8K video, that is remarkable.

And that, ultimately, is what I took away from this slightly ridiculous exercise.

No, the Insta360 Ace Pro 2 is not going to replace my Leica M240, and I suspect nobody at Insta360 or Leica seriously expects it to. But that was never really the point. What it proves is that the term “action camera” is becoming increasingly restrictive for devices like this.

Fit the Xplorer Grip Pro and the Ace Pro 2 becomes an incredibly capable little compact camera that happens to be rugged, tiny, capable of shooting 8K video and able to go places I would never dream of taking an M camera.

Its still images are not merely good because they came from an action camera; in the right conditions, they are genuinely good photographs.

So, can Leica engineering help make an action camera feel like a “proper” camera? After using the Ace Pro 2 this way, I think the answer is yes.

And right now, when it comes to taking still photographs with an action camera, I think Insta360 might just be leading the pack.

You might also like…

Want to dive further down the rabbit hole? See how the best action cameras from all brands compare to the best Leica cameras around!

It has now been five months since I did something I honestly never thought I would do: I completely walked away from Adobe Photoshop.

After using Photoshop as my photo-editing software of choice for around 15 years, I went cold turkey, cancelled my reliance on Adobe’s ecosystem and moved my entire photography workflow across to Affinity Photo. Five months later, I have absolutely no desire to go back.

That is probably the biggest compliment I can give Affinity. This is not a piece of software I have opened a few times, played around with and decided was “good for something free.”

I have actually used it. I have edited JPEGs, TIFFs and DNG RAW files from multiple camera systems, put it through the sort of everyday photographic work I would previously have handed straight to Photoshop, and so far it has never presented me with a problem that has made me wish Adobe was still sitting on my computer.

For my workflow, Affinity has effectively replicated every single action I regularly performed in Photoshop – and in many cases I have found the transition far easier than I expected.

And that is before we get to the rather extraordinary fact that Affinity is completely free. Not free for seven days. Not free with a heavily restricted feature set. Not free until you export your image.

Canva says the new Affinity is free to use with its professional pixel, vector and layout tools included, with free updates and new features continuing over time. You need a free Canva account to download and activate it, but there is no subscription required for the core application.

There is one caveat, and for me it barely qualifies as one. If you want to use Canva’s generative AI tools inside Affinity – including features such as Generative Fill, Generative Expand and generative editing – you will need a premium Canva subscription.

But I never really used those features when I was paying for Photoshop anyway. I edit photographs rather than reinvent them, so losing access to generative AI has had practically no effect on how I work.

If you can live without that side of modern image editing, what remains is an extraordinarily capable professional photo editor that costs absolutely nothing.

That distinction is important, because free photo-editing software has historically come with compromises. There is normally a missing feature, an awkward interface, limited RAW support or something else lurking around the corner that eventually sends you back toward paid software.

Affinity simply has not felt like that to me. Layers, masks, curves, selections, adjustments, retouching, resizing, sharpening, color work and RAW development are all there. And once you have spent a little time arranging the interface around the way you work, the experience becomes remarkably familiar.

This is not Affinity attempting to be a lightweight Photoshop alternative. For the photography work I actually do, it has become my Photoshop replacement.

And perhaps the most encouraging thing is that Affinity is not standing still. Version 3.3 has just arrived, with Canva describing it as Affinity’s biggest photography update yet, paying particular attention to RAW development.

Reusable RAW presets can now be carried across an entire shoot and into workflows including panoramas and focus merges, while the RAW tools themselves have gained broader controls over detail, color and tonal adjustments.

There are improvements to sharpening and detail refinement, hue and saturation curves, wider lens and camera support, Wavelet Denoise and updates to HDR workflows. There is even now a dedicated Astrophotography Studio for photographers working with stacked night-sky images.

RAW presets are probably one of the additions that interests me most, because this is precisely the sort of seemingly straightforward feature that begins to matter when software becomes part of a serious workflow.

Being able to create a look and then carry it across a series of photographs makes Affinity considerably more practical when you are processing larger shoots rather than working on one photograph at a time.

Likewise, additions such as Wavelet Denoise, improved RAW refinement and the new saturation and hue curves show that Affinity is not merely chasing flashy features for a press release. There is quite clearly an effort being made to improve the fundamentals that photographers use every day.

The full 3.3 update is considerably larger than that, but I think that is almost the point. Affinity keeps receiving meaningful updates without suddenly presenting the user with another bill.

Canva says Affinity will keep getting free updates and new features, and that makes the whole proposition feel very different from the subscription model I had become accustomed to over the years.

I spent so long paying for Adobe because Photoshop was simply part of my photographic life. It was the software I knew, the software I trusted and, perhaps more importantly, the software I did not really think about replacing.

Affinity has made me question why I accepted that recurring cost for so long.

Another part of this story still excites me: the iPad. Affinity says a new iPadOS version is in development and coming soon, although there is currently no announced release date. When that arrives, I think Affinity could become an even more disruptive proposition for photographers.

Put genuinely capable RAW development, layers, masks, retouching and professional photo-editing tools onto an iPad without attaching another mandatory monthly fee to them, and suddenly you have something that beginners can download simply because there is nothing to lose, while experienced photographers can install it because they already know exactly what those tools are capable of doing.

That is where I think Affinity could genuinely change the game. Free software removes the hardest part of convincing somebody to try something new. There is no purchasing decision and no subscription calculation. You download it, throw a RAW file into it, and see what happens.

And having spent the last five months doing exactly that, with files from different cameras and in different formats, I suspect a lot of photographers who download Affinity will end up leaving it installed.

I certainly have. After 15 years with Photoshop, I expected leaving Adobe to involve compromises, workarounds and probably the occasional moment of admitting that I had made a mistake. Instead, Affinity has been a breath of fresh air.

It does what I need it to do, it has handled everything I have thrown at it, it continues to get better and, most importantly, it has finally freed my photography workflow from a software subscription I had come to assume was unavoidable.

Five months ago, I went cold turkey on Photoshop. I thought Affinity would have to prove that I could survive without Adobe. Instead, it has left me wondering why I did not leave sooner.

You might also like…

See more of the best Photoshop alternatives and the best free photo editing software.

The Olympus PEN is such a legendary design concept that it has survived the transition from film to digital and, nearly 70 years later, lives on as the new OM System PEN mirrorless camera.

Yet, after the introduction of the original Olympus PEN in 1959, Yoshihisa Maitani – the designer behind several legendary Olympus cameras, including the PEN – had actually called the original PEN “a huge failure.”

The reason that the designer dubbed the first PEN a failure is that the half-frame film camera was so radically different in order to create a smaller, lighter SLR that other camera makers couldn’t copy it.

“Because we took all the patents, no other company could manufacture this type of camera, and there was no boom,” he said.

While the PEN didn’t inspire copycats, the first half-frame camera made in Japan did spark a wider movement for half-frame film and was unexpectedly popular.

But despite labeling the original Olympus PEN as a failure for failing to spark a wider movement for compact designs, the PEN survived, undergoing many iterations from the film PEN F to the digital PEN E-P7.

Had Maitani seen the evolution from the Olympus PEN in 1959 to the OM System PEN in 2026, I have to think that he wouldn’t have called the camera a failure. Despite the 67 years between those two cameras, the original PEN and the modern equivalent are still built prioritizing the same three things: size, simplicity and price.

A camera built for anyone to enjoy

Maitani’s original concept for who the original PEN camera was built for remains right in the name. The designer described the camera as “a tool that allows everyone to enjoy photography easily, just like a paper and pen.”

The name has stuck through several decades and iterations, but the series remains committed to simplicity. The new OM System PEN may have a retro design inspired by the original, but the camera still has a classic mode dial with easy access to auto mode.

Part of being built for everyone is the compact size, meant to be easy to carry around. Size was a focus for Maitani when he first started working for Olympus in 1956. The original PEN was unusual in that it was half-frame – which feels appropriately not unlike Micro Four Thirds cameras today.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the PEN then and the PEN now is that the original 1959 camera was a fixed-lens compact, not an interchangeable-lens camera. While Maitani continued to develop small fixed-lens cameras like the PEN EE, he saw the growing demand for small but advanced cameras.

The key challenge to creating a smaller SLR at that time was the mirror box.

Miaitani built a smaller mirror box that was turned on its side, but this created issues with the traditional shutter. So he built a rotary shutter design made from titanium and the first interchangeable lens camera in the series, the PEN F, was born in 1963.

A camera meant to head outside

OM System’s commitment to Micro Four Thirds feels true to Olympus’ history of compact designs – and particularly the PEN – but size isn’t the only one of Maitani’s priorities that continues in modern designs.

One of OM System’s key focuses is creating cameras built for the outdoors. The new OM PEN is the first in the series that has full weather-sealing, including a new sealed kit lens: the OM System M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 III.

This, too, could perhaps be inspired by another one of Maitani’s famous quotes: “A camera is meaningless unless you take it outside.”

OM System says the new 2026 PEN is meant to be an everyday carry camera – and that rain resistance goes a long way in making that possible.

But one of the key features that the 1959 PEN was known for was price. While designing the original PEN, Maitani had a strict target of ¥6,000; that was a fraction of Olympus' cheapest consumer camera at the time, which cost ¥23,000.

Using the exchange rate of the time, that meant the camera cost about $17 / £15. Adjusting for inflation, that’s about $196 / £315 today.

The PEN may not come close to that original price, but the new mirrorless iteration is the most affordable OM System camera (though the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV remains available and is cheaper).

It sells for $999 / £849 / AU$1,499, making it one of the few mirrorless cameras under four figures that still has in-body image stabilization, weather-sealing and an electronic viewfinder – and a retro design that harks back to Mitani's vision, all those years ago.

You may also like

Browse the best Micro Four Thirds cameras or the best retro cameras.

In 1966, a customs officer in New York looked at a passport and commented that the bearer had the same name as a famous camera. The visitor just smiled and said, “I am the camera.”

Born in 1906, Victor Hasselblad was raised in a family that ran a large trading (import / export) business, including a small division that distributed Kodak products throughout Sweden.

He eventually joined the family business, but was more interested in photography than commerce. He became an accomplished bird photographer and camera expert, studying photographic manufacturing in both Europe and the United States.

Early in World War II, the Swedish military presented him with a captured German reconnaissance camera and asked him to build something similar for them. His famous reply was: "No, not one like that, but a better one".

He formed a new company, Ross AB, to build this new camera. Nobody is sure why that name was chosen – though the best bet is that as a defense contractor in neutral Sweden, "Ross AB" was a nondescript name that did not reveal its purpose.

Building on his experience with the HK-7 aerial reconnaissance cameras, after the war the avid birdwatcher set about designing his dream camera: a waist-level SLR that made 6x6 photographs on 120 film, the Rossex.

By 1948 it was ready and the company was renamed Victor Hasselblad AB. It was a beautiful camera, designed by Sixten Sason, who also designed the original Saab car.

It was modular with interchangeable lenses, film backs and viewfinders. It had a focal plane shutter of stainless steel foil, speeds up to 1/1600 sec. It had an array of fine Kodak Ektar lenses and was now called the Hasselblad 1600F. It was the world’s first SLR for 120 film, yet smaller and lighter than most medium format cameras of the day.

It was so far ahead of its time that it stood alone for a decade, though its general design was later copied by Bronica, Mamiya, Rolleiflex and, eventually, Arsenal in Kyiv (then part of the Soviet Union) as well.

When the 1600F’s shutter proved not to be as reliable as hoped, Hasselblad reduced the top shutter speed to 1/1000 sec and, critically, redesigned the internal “gear stack” that controlled it, creating the more reliable Hasselblad 1000F of 1952.

While testing the 1000F for an article in the December 1954 issue of Modern Photography, the editor, Herbert "Burt" Keppler and the magazine's staff ran some 500 rolls of film through the camera and, during that time, accidentally (some reports say deliberately) dropped the camera onto a hard floor – twice!

The camera continued to function well enough for the tests to be completed – and the incident became one of the stories that established Hasselblad's reputation for ruggedness. Ironically, over time the 1000F's shutter also turned out not to be as reliable as expected.

Sadly, even the 1000F’s redesigned focal plane shutter was still not as reliable as Hasselblad wanted. So, in 1957, Hasselblad introduced the 500C, replacing the focal-plane shutter with a Compur leaf shutter built into each lens. This made them more expensive, but totally reliable – a practice that continues with the best Hasselblad lenses today.

The 500C became one of the most successful professional cameras ever made, because it offered exceptional reliability, flash synchronization at all shutter speeds and outstanding image quality, thanks to the large 6x6cm negatives and superb Carl Zeiss lenses.

In the 1960s, US astronaut Wally Schirra was a fan. Owning a 500C himself, he suggested that NASA use the cameras in space – which started a long cooperation with Hasselblad and NASA.

Custom-modified Hasselblads first flew with Schirra on his Mercury 8 mission, on October 03 1962. The success of Schirra's photographs established the Hasselblad as NASA's still camera of choice for the remaining Mercury flights, and all flights of the Gemini and Apollo programs.

When Apollo missions were to go to the moon, NASA considered the lighter Leica cameras. The Saturn rocket had lots of power to reach the moon, but the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) did not, and every ounce counted.

Then some bright soul figured out that if they simply left the camera body and lens on the moon, the film back alone could be returned to the earth.

That said, during Apollo 15 (1971), astronaut James Benson Irwin used a modified Hasselblad 500EL on the lunar surface. Although it was intended to be left on the moon with the others, to save weight for lunar samples, he brought the camera home.

For years it remained in private hands, eventually becoming the subject of debate over its provenance because NASA records indicate that other lunar Hasselblads also came home.

Mission transcripts show, for example, that Alan Shepard was instructed to bring his camera back and evidence suggests that Eugene Cernan also brought his home. When the Irwin-associated camera was auctioned by WestLicht in Vienna in 2014, it sold for $940,000 (around £571,000 / AU$1.2 million).

So, if you really want a Hasselblad and you've not got the budget, there are up to 12 (some say 16) very lightly used ones on the moon. All you have to do is go and pick one up!

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.

As a professional photographer and tech writer, I tend to have more than a few cameras to choose from when packing for a trip. But on my last vacation, I made an unusual choice for someone who makes a living writing about the latest cameras: I dug a 20-year-old compact camera out of my closet and packed it in my bag.

I took the 2006 Canon PowerShot A540 on a short camping trip. But the A540 isn’t a camera that I bought on eBay because single-digit-megapixel retro compacts are making a comeback.

The camera was my grandmother’s. For a long time after she died, I was too grief-stricken to even look at it – but when I eventually pulled it out of the closet, I realized it still had an SD card inside. While the camera had a few photos of her garden and family, the memory card was largely filled with her travel photos.

Inspired by my grandmother’s travel photos and the resurging popularity of early digicams, I packed the 20-year-old PowerShot for my camping trip.

The compact wasn’t the only camera that I brought along – I also brought a mirrorless with a telephoto zoom, knowing I would be doing some birding – but I took more photos with the Canon PowerShot than I did with my iPhone.

The PowerShot A540 isn’t just unusual compared to today’s cameras because it houses the older CCD sensor technology. I was surprised that, despite being compact, the camera still includes manual modes and a viewfinder – and not the modern electronic type but the classic, old-school optical kind.

My goal in bringing a camera that’s two decades old on vacation wasn’t to take better photos, but to spend less of my vacation on a screen.

The optical viewfinder was a big part of that, enabling me to shoot photos but stay off my iPhone, even when I didn’t want to grab my mirrorless camera, like on a bike ride or heading to the less picturesque parts of travel, like the laundromat.

The photos that I captured have that imperfect but charming feel of early digital camera technology. The colors from the CCD sensor felt true to my memories, with perhaps a bit more punch.

The best part of the images, however, didn’t stem from that sensor but the lens. The images are much softer than the sharpness standards of modern cameras. The photographs look like I used a diffusion filter – one of my favorite accessories for my mirrorless camera – with a softer look.

That imperfect lens created a glow from bright light sources. I was particularly fond of that glow when photographing the sun sparkling off the lake.

Using a 20-year-old camera also reminded me of how far camera technology has come – shutter lag is an issue and getting the timing perfect was a challenge. There were also inevitably shots with missed focus.

And the 6MP sensor doesn’t capture as much detail – but that means the 2GB SD card, which I refuse to delete my grandmother’s photographs from, still has room for over 500 more images.

Photographs are tangible emotions. I believe that when the camera in my hands evokes a particular emotion – even when that emotion is grief – I have a stronger connection to those photographs. Emotional cameras create emotional images.

I could have taken better photos with my modern mirrorless camera – but I don’t regret digging a two-decade-old camera out of my closet to capture snapshots of my vacation. When it comes to memories, emotions will always mean more than technical perfection.

Would I take a 20-year-old compact camera on vacation again? Yes, I would do it again, at least for another low-key camping trip. My bucket-list, once-in-a-lifetime trips will certainly require grabbing a modern mirrorless camera. But when I'm away for a small weekend getaway and want to stay off my phone, I'll be digging out my grandmother's old travel camera again.

You may also like…

Don't have awn old digicam tucked in a closet somewhere? These screen-free digital cameras are full of retro charm.

Wildlife is one of the most popular forms of photography. It’s also a genre where having the latest and greatest camera gear, while not essential, really does help. And yet fast autofocus, zippy burst speeds, and high-resolution sensors mean nothing if you’re wrestling with your setup.

You see, we live in a world where photography has increasingly become about making things smaller, lighter, more compact. That was the whole point of the mirrorless era after all. But when it comes to wildlife photography, small cameras are often more of a hindrance than a help.

If you put even a moderately sized telephoto lens on a Nikon Zf, Panasonic Lumix S9, or Fujifilm X-E5, you’re going to struggle because the setup will be both too top-heavy and lacking enough grip. Controls might be an issue, too; wildlife photography is about reacting immediately, and if your camera doesn’t have enough physical controls to adjust your exposure settings in an instant, you’ll struggle.

That’s not to say you can’t use any of the aforementioned cameras for wildlife photography. But if you spend any amount of time capturing wildlife, unsuitable ergonomics will become an increasing problem.

What makes a good wildlife camera?

Obviously, every photographer is different. But generally, good wildlife ergonomics will include a camera that’s heavy enough to balance big lenses so they don’t feel top-heavy, along with a deep grip allowing for plenty of purchase. How big the camera is will depend on the size of your hands.

Some photographers may prefer a smaller, solid camera with a deep grip like the OM System OM-1 Mark II or the Fujifilm X-H2S, while those with larger hands may prefer a chunkier Canon EOS R5 Mark II or Nikon Z8, or an even chunkier Canon EOS R1 or Nikon Z9.

All of the aforementioned cameras also sport really well-placed physical dials and buttons, as well as plenty of customizable buttons so you can set up your camera in the most comfortable way possible.

You might also like...

Check out the best cameras for wildlife photography and the best lenses for bird photography. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

I’m pretty jaded about consumer tech nowadays. In the wide-eyed noughties, tech brands felt innovative and trendy; now everything feels devoid of ideas. This is reflected in how things look, too. Nothing stands out anymore. Apple’s once fresh, now-stale minimalist aesthetic has been regurgitated ad nauseam.

Technology used to be about driving towards the next ground-breaking piece of hardware, but it would look the part, too. Think Motorola Razr, Apple iMac G3, and the transparent Game Boy. Nowadays, technology is more utilitarian. It’s all about eking out what’s on the inside, but what about exciting consumers from the outside?

And yet photography has bucked that trend. There was a point when it looked like the mirrorless camera era was going to be a bit of a visual borefest, but (most) camera brands haven’t rested on their creative laurels. And the reason why, in my opinion, is largely to do with the resurgence of the film camera and how that's affected the rise and rise of the retro camera.

Film cameras are back

I tend to approach the film camera resurgence with a bit of a wry smile, because as much as I talk about it, I don’t actually see that many photographers out and about shooting film. It’s gotten much more popular, but it’s still a very niche area of photography. However, younger generations are definitely more aware of film photography in 2026 than they have been since the digital-camera revolution.

This hasn’t just fuelled appetites for film cameras; it’s fuelled appetites for digital cameras that look like film cameras and digital imagery that looks like film. This has resulted in a modern camera market that’s littered with so-called retro cameras. These devices look like they hail from the golden age of film, but are packed with accessible mod cons under the hood.

Brands including OM System/Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Kodak, Polaroid, and of course, Fujifilm have all leaned into this retro aesthetic to varying degrees. And it’s done something very important. It’s made cameras fun. In a world where the camera phone ‘killed’ the compact camera overnight, shrinking the camera industry exponentially, fun retro cameras have managed to claw back the dedicated camera’s relevance for more casual photographers.

This is because retro cameras offer an alternative experience to a camera phone. They’re tactile, fashionable, and desirable. We’ve all had somebody come up to us while we’re out and about with a camera and said: “I just use my phone; the pictures are great.” But a retro camera isn’t just about the end product; it’s about the experience.

The retro camera experience

I liken photography with a retro camera to visiting a coffee shop. We can all drink coffee at home, but even though it’s cheaper and more convenient, many of us choose to visit a coffee shop. It’s not just about the taste of the coffee; it’s about the experience. What that americano, flat white, or espresso says about you, the human interaction, the comfortable setting, and the opportunity to take a little time out of your day to just sit with a coffee and decompress.

When you buy a retro camera, you’re not just buying into a device that takes photographs; you’re buying into an experience. And it’s not an experience that’s for everyone. Many photographers much prefer the more utilitarian devices that brands like Sony, Canon and Nikon are famous for, and there’s nothing wrong with that at all. But you cannot deny the significant impact retro cameras have had on the industry in recent years. And one brand, above all, deserves the lion’s share of the credit.

The impact of Fujimania

My favorite retro camera is the Nikon Zf. I also adore the Olympus PEN-F and the OM System OM-3. But without a doubt, the brand that’s done more for retro cameras – and quite possibly the bottom of the camera industry funnel – over the past few years is Fujifilm.

If you’ve not heard about the X100 Series, then you’ve been living under a rock. The Fujifilm X100VI is still struggling to meet demand some two years after its launch, and on the used market, its predecessor, the Fujifilm X100V, is as expensive as ever.

Fujifilm has become so popular on social media that used prices of virtually all Fujifilm cameras have increased exponentially. And that’s before you consider the impact of Fujifilm’s Instax range. The instant camera brand has put bona fide instant film cameras in the hands of younger generations in what has to be one of the most surprising tech resurgences of all time.

Another brand that deserves a shoutout is Sigma. While it’s not exactly known for its retro-themed devices, last year’s Sigma BF was a rare release indeed. Rather than a retro camera, it was a future camera. A rare conceptual look into the future of photography that reminded me of the optimism surrounding consumer tech in the ‘90s and 2000s.

So there you have it. The film camera resurgence hasn’t just revitalized film photography; it’s indirectly impacted the entire camera industry. And thankfully, retro cameras show no sign of slowing down. This year we got the gorgeous Panasonic Lumix L10 and the OM System PEN has just been announced, too. Plus, today Fujifilm launched the retro-inspired Instax Pal 2. In a world of uninspiring consumer tech, it really is a good time to be a photographer.

You might also like...

Take a look at the best Fujifilm cameras and the best OM System cameras. Looking for a casual entry point into retro cameras? See what you think of the Fujifilm X Half.

At first, you think the camera is the most important thing in your photography world. Then, you realize it’s the lenses. But if you’re a landscape or macro photographer, you’ll quickly learn that the tripod is just as important (if not more). And you either learn that the easy way or the hard way.

Buying the best tripod for photography is a rite of passage for the beginner photographer. You’ve got the camera and the kit lens, so you go out and buy a camera bag and a tripod. But more often than not, the tripod is a cheap, plasticky implement that’s – for lack of a better word – completely useless…

A beginner might not understand the foibles of a cheap tripod until it’s too late. In fact, they might merrily capture soft shot after soft shot without realizing that they deserve better. I myself made this mistake; I didn’t know what camera shake was when I started, and I certainly didn’t realize it could happen on a tripod. In fact, I blamed my camera or myself when it was my tripod all along.

Cheap tripod, cheap performance

Anything can be bought cheap if you’re in the right place at the right time, of course. When I say cheap, I mean cheaply made. You know, the kind of unbranded tripod you can pick up from Amazon or a department store or comes bundled with your camera. These kinds of tripods might look inviting enough, but they are usually an absolute nightmare to use.

I’m talking about being hard to adjust and refine: knobs that never seem tight enough, axes that stutter as you try to tilt or pan to refine your composition. Weak legs that wobble or don’t even splay wide enough for secure outdoor use. Legs that catch when you try to extend or collapse them. And light payloads that are entirely inadequate for longer zoom lenses or bigger cameras when it comes time to upgrade.

Tripod red flags

Let’s talk about how you identify a cheap tripod.

• Plastic components: The main thing I’d advise you to look out for is an abundance of plastic components, particularly plastic threads. In my experience, plastic threads simply cannot be tightened enough to prevent slippage, and on top of that, they can easily wear or even break over time.
• Leg braces/struts: Another giveaway is plastic struts between the legs. A quality tripod doesn’t need any extra stability; it will stand firm with the legs splayed out. If a cheap tripod has plastic struts, assume that the legs aren’t particularly sturdy to begin with. Don’t get me wrong, some expensive heavy-duty video tripods do feature struts, but they’re designed to be as stable and heavy as possible.
• A poor quality head: Do not ignore the tripod head. A tripod is only as good as its head. You can have a sturdy trio of legs, but if the head is plasticky and cheap and suffers from many of the problems I listed earlier, you’re in for a frustrating ride, and your photography will suffer.

A quality tripod, on the other hand, will just feel effortlessly sturdy. Threads boast good friction to prevent overtightening, joints move smoothly and intentionally, legs can be splayed to varying degrees and are stable, setting up and collapsing the device feels effortless, and it features a quality head.

Is cost the compromise?

You’re probably thinking, great Mike, but what about the cost? I’m not suggesting that you pay hundreds of bucks for a tripod, but I am suggesting that you reframe the way you think about budgeting for kit. A lot of photographers will pay around $100 / £100 for a lens and consider it a bargain. You can pick up a quality tripod for a similar price.

The Manfrotto Element MII Aluminium Tripod is selling for $132.95 at B&H Photo and £99 at Wex Photo Video. This is a tripod I used for years. As long as you don’t exceed the 8-kg payload and are using lenses up to 200mm, it will serve beginner photographers very well indeed. And trust me, the difference between a tripod like the Element MII from a reputable brand and a cheap tripod is huge.

The only reason to spend more is if you’ve reached a point where you have identified specialist needs. For example, general tripod usage tends to favor portability over stability, but a serious macro photographer may wish to invest in a larger, sturdier tripod since the effects of camera shake are more prevalent at higher magnifications. A travel photographer or landscape photographer who hikes may be happy to pay more for a lighter carbon fiber tripod. And so on.

You may also wish to turn to the used market. Most tripods don’t tend to hold their value in the same way that cameras and lenses do, so you could end up with a real bargain on used marketplaces. So, there you have it. Tripods aren’t the most exciting bits of photography kit in the world, but a good tripod is worth its payload in gold.

You might also like...

Check out the best tripods for photography and the best ball heads for tripods. On the subject of tripod heads: Are you using the right tripod head for landscape photography?