I agree, but the GR IV does not have an EVF, which is a dealbreaker for many people, so it’s in a certain category of camera, which is somewhat niche.
I agree with Emily that we’re stuck with larger cameras for now, and the M43 “dream” is dead or at least in hibernation… for now. But I definitely don’t agree 100% that smaller bodies couldn’t be made. I think it’s primarily a marketing decision because manufacturers don’t want to take the same risks that Ricoh has.
It will be interesting to see if Sony does something like another RX100 because Sony are very good at creating compact products when they want to.
From what little I’ve read about it, it’s the same sensor as the GR III from eight years ago, and doesn’t match the speed of modern sensors. 1080p video? Four frames per second stills? For better or worse (probably worse), influencers would tear a product like that apart if it came under the Lumix name.
I hate that this is where we are, but I don’t think Panasonic would release a camera like that.
I have the Lumix twins, the G9 II and the S5 II, that share the same body in two different formats. In most situations I use the smaller sensor camera. The trade-offs in sensor size come with advantages in speed. And the lenses are smaller enough to make a difference if it’s an “also-carry” on a work trip. They won’t reach the shallow depth-of-field or low light performance of their larger counterparts, but there’s no such thing as a perfect all-rounder system. The G9ii is the more responsive of the two by a long shot, and with active kids, dogs, and wildlife it makes a difference.
With other situations like macro, when I’m stopping down past f/7 even on m43, I have no desire to use a full frame camera at all.
The full-frame absolutely shines for indoor and evening low-light photography, even with a modest f/1.8 prime. It’s a guilty pleasure, but if I had to sell one of my systems, I just don’t get enough use out of it. I turn the “advantage of FF is the versatility” argument on its head.
(My guilt runs even deeper: I own the full-frame Lumix 50mm/1.8, but I also own the m43 Olympus 25mm/1.2, which I bought used. The Olympus is not quite as sharp, less shallow depth-of-field and low light ability, vignettes more, and is incredible in every way. I was supposed to sell it and will never be able to. It gets more use than the 50.)
Ha, you are correct. Now I can’t for the life of me find whatever it was that lead me wrong. Should teach me not to comment on things I know poorly.
The thing is, it’s only the bodies that are the same size. Lenses still differ. It should be noted, that’s not out of technical necessity, we could build small, small aperture FF lenses, but don’t, probably for marked segmentation.
This comment (once again) sparked an introspection into why I ended up with APS-C. At the end of the day, I think Fuji APS-C simply was the first system I encountered that cleared my dynamic range threshold. The Nikon D7000 was still very noisy, as was the GM1. But the 24 MP sensors were as good as I needed them. I tried a full frame camera for a while, but it didn’t provide a meaningful improvement. Thus I stayed where I was.
That said, the X-T5/16-80 is just about as big and heavy as I’ll ever want my camera to be. Perhaps therein lies a secondary threshold of size and weight. It might be fun to plot dynamic range moderated by aperture vs size and weight in a big old chart for various camera/lens archetypes.
Sure, but FWIW, the argument is that the market does not want another GM5 from Panasonic, given the sensor tech that fit into that form factor. (The vocal people who ask for a GM5 are not the market. The market are the people willing to buy the number of units that would justify the R&D, the supply chain and the assembly line setup).
Some people claim that the GRiv’s sensor is the one in the Sony A6700 or Pentax K3iii. Sure, tried and true tech, and plenty for most purposes, but at least two generations behind what Panasonic currently offers in their top cameras. Which is, again, one generation behind the flagships from Sony.
Posting this because it’s the first demonstration I’ve seen of setting the L10 custom switch on the lens to different focal lengths and how quickly or otherwise it is to move between those. Seems easier than just using the rocker switch. Also he goes on to suggest setting different LUTs in the same switch. I presume you can load different settings to different custom functions, though he doesn’t detail that. I’ve asked in the comments.
Personally this makes the camera a bit more compelling though not at this price.
Edit: As expected, you can store the custom settings for different fixed focal lengths or different LUTs/Picture Styles onto the C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 custom functions.
For the record, I’m not a complete FF convert. My comment about why choose anything other than FF was more as a question for debate because the market does seem to suggest we could end up in a situation where FF bodies and lenses are very similar in size to what the crop sensors are currently doing (or vice versa, where the crop lenses become bigger in their quest to be faster).
In fact, since getting my FF body, it’s made me even more appreciative of APS-C in particular as hitting that sweet spot in terms of size and the image quality characteristics I value, especially for travel. My main issue with the format though is that it’s treated as the beginner line by everyone except Fuji. And Fuji has its own issues with durability, AF performance, increasing prices and expensive lenses for the best ones.
I’m definitely hesitating with selling my Fuji gear because I have a feeling I will regret it. I might sell my X-T5 because it’s rather large and doesn’t really offer me anything better than the Sony a7R IV. But I could see myself getting one of their smaller bodies again at some point. I do really like their 40MP sensor, although I find the micro contrast a bit lacking in certain situations.
I’m also interested in what Sony do with their APS-C line. If they bump up the resolution of their a6700, that could be a compelling option. I’ve realized that I like high MP cameras. I really miss the cropping ability whenever I go to something like 20MP. I know that’s a just personal thing and not something everyone should care about. But for me, I feel it gives me that extra versatility in lens choice and reduces the need to constantly swap lenses, which I generally don’t enjoy doing.
Rumor says that a refresh is coming… but it has been that for years. Sure it would make sense.
In the meantime, 3rd party manufacturers are coming up with affordable APS-C lenses almost every week.
I agree that APS-C is kind of a sweet spot — technically APS-C is very close to micro 4/3 (about 20% linear difference), but designing the optics for an APS-C lens means entry into 4 different contemporary mounts, not one, so from an economic perspective it makes more sense.
Yes, totally. I really don’t think there’s too much difference between the two crop formats in terms of the usual image-quality metrics such as DR, noise…
APS-C has a bit more DR at around ISO 100-200, but then there’s very little to differentiate them after that. And in terms of depth of field, it’s actually less than a full stop on the aperture dial.
But unless OM and Panasonic step up their game, the M43 format is stagnating whereas APS-C is flourishing and receiving more R&D. That’s really the only reason why I would prefer it. I read today that APS-C outsells 35mm worldwide by quite a wide margin in terms of bodies and lenses. And that’s really because there are a lot more enthusiasts and hobbyists than there are professionals. So, it’s probably a much “safer” format to invest in for longevity.
Yes, I heard this too, but Sony are notorious for being quite rigid with their product ladder, so it’s hard to imagine they will risk hurting their FF sales by making an amazing crop body. Still, the a6700 is very well regarded, and they know that they are competing against Fuji in that segment, so they can’t afford to nerf it too much if they want to stay competitive.
I am not sure I fully agree with this. First, I always approach these questions from the perspective of lenses. Second, lens designs are truly for decades, so we should not look at the past months or even years, but longer timespans.
The only APS-C lens I would consider a good fit for my shooting habits is still Fujifilm’s famous 16–80mm f/4. Everything is so right about that lens: the range, the size, the weight… I see no generic APS-C equivalent at the moment. It is true that there are a lot of great new lenses, f/2.8 constant aperture gigazooms and whatnot, but that’s not what I would EDC.
I still see the PanaLeica 12–60mm as an amazing lens, something that would be hard to replace in other mounts (given the size and the IQ).
In general, Panasonic came out with some pretty innovative f/1.7 zooms a couple of years ago, and OM System has been quite active on the wildlife/tele market, with some innovations that are literally unrivaled if you care about size/weight/weather sealing.
What I miss is Chinese AF lenses entering micro 4/3. But that will probably happen soon once they figure out the manufacturing. Even if a lot of these will be just repurposed APS-C lenses, not originally designed for micro 4/3.
The RX100 VII seems like a great do it all camera for those who can’t be bothered with MILC or fixed focal lengths (X100, GR). That zoom quality on such a tiny sensor is really impressive.
I’m not entirely sure which part you don’t agree with, but wouldn’t you say there is more momentum with APS-C right now than M43? This is strictly in terms of what has been produced in recent years rather than looking at the ecosystems as a whole on a decades basis.
I’m not necessarily saying that APS-C has the better lenses, but it seems to be receiving more R&D right now, largely because of 3rd parties who want to get their lenses into as many hands as possible. And that means Fuji, Sony, Nikon (and Canon to a lesser extent). Whereas with M43, it’s just OM and Panasonic, with big questions over the latter’s commitment to the format.
I do think M43 is in a period of stagnation, and many of the lenses are due for a refresh. I hope it’s just a phase and that it will pick up again.
As for the XF16-80 F4, I own it and it was my workhorse lens for a while. On paper, it’s almost perfect, but I was never really wowed by it, and it’s actually the next lens I’m considering selling. I think it’s a great compromise lens, but I tend to be a bit more min-max these days, i.e. a truly small lens for travelling/EDC, and a lens with more range or reach for my more serious sessions, like my XF70-300 or Tamron 50-300.
It’s a personal thing, but I find the 16-80 a little too big and heavy for what it offers, and my copy isn’t particularly sharp either. Knowing me, however, I’ll probably miss it if I sell it!
My impression is that at the moment, 3rd party manufacturers are focusing on full frame when it comes to AF lenses, and especially zooms. AFAIK Tamron announced one APS-C lens in 2025, Viltrox had a few new primes, Sigma a new APS-C zoom. I am pretty sure I missed something… but in comparison, the focus is still on full frame for almost all manufacturers. In comparison, in 2025 only OM System came out with lenses, a total of 3, but one of those is an outstanding wildlife zoom.
I think APS-C deserves a lot more attention from lens manufacturers. But I also understand that FF has higher margins.
Yes, completely agree, but when they do make a crop sensor lens, it’s usually APS-C rather than M43 I find, especially with up-and-coming manufacturers like Viltrox. It makes sense from a business perspective because apparently APS-C bodies are the most purchased cameras worldwide.
But creating lenses for FF first is probably a business decision to establish their reputation because that’s what the pros use. It might also be easier to create these lenses (I’m not a manufacturing expert).
Yes, 100%. Instead of repurposing FF lenses or advocating FF lenses on APS-C bodies, it’s great when a dedicated APS-C (or M43 for that matter) lens is made.
I want more pancake zooms, any format please!
“Built-in lens digital camera shipments have outpaced 2025’s numbers in the first four months of 2026. 2026’s monthly numbers have thus far been 136%, 117%, 119%, and 148% of 2025’s numbers,” Jeremy Gray writes in his report from this morning. “Built-in lens camera shipments in April, not historically a super strong month for overall digital camera shipments, would have bested 11 months in 2025.”
Manufacturers shipped an astounding 246,430 fixed-lens compact cameras in April alone — that is 25% of all cameras shipped in that period. There are not very many fixed-lens cameras currently available new on the market, so seeing them continue to grow and represent a significant portion of all camera shipments is really telling of what photographers in 2026 want: small.
This trend is unlikely to slow down, meaning the camera industry is going to start seeing even more compact camera options enter the market in the coming months and years. There will always be a place for something like a Fujifilm GFX or a Nikon Z9, but the mass market wants something much, much smaller.
I have this crazy idea… what if someone made a camera with 1/4 the sensor area of full frame… maybe 4:3 ratio. With lenses scaled down accordingly. And maybe design a shared mount standard multiple companies could use. We could call it something like “smaller four to three”.
Random thought but it would be nice if someone made a TLR/waist level viewfinder style camera, maybe in m43 mount if it could be cheap enough. OLED screens nowadays are incredibly powerful, some phones can reach 4000nit peak brightness. I know Hasselblad has done this, sort of, with the 907X 50C, but it’s not the same thing. My Fujis let me turn the screen in a way that allows waist level shooting, but the screen is still before the camera, rather than on top.