larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question.  The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?

Truman Prevatt wrote:Street_Photography wrote:This thread is about as useful as complaining that some people don’t like silver cameras. People have different tastes, wants and needs. 🙄Or as my beloved Grandpappy would say - "useless as tits on a bore hog." We see if that makes it past our censors.I think those hogs are boars. (Lived in Iowa). 😉

Truman Prevatt wrote:larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question. The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?It's the same artform as it ever was, only with more possibilities and greater access.The fact that most photos are rubbish is the same as it ever was, but there are some amazing modern photographers who are pushing the new limits.

57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question. The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?It's the same artform as it ever was, only with more possibilities and greater access.The fact that most photos are rubbish is the same as it ever was, but there are some amazing modern photographers who are pushing the new limits.But they are pushing limits not because of the gear but because of their vision.  The advent of digital photography has opened up new horizons in art in allowing for extensive manipulation of digital images - producing "graphics arts" pieces not easily done prior to digital.  On the other hand Andy Warhol didn't do such a bad job and he didn't have digital.  However, such works belong in the genre of graphics arts - not photography since they are products of traditional graphics arts manipulations of existing images.  But at the end of the day graphic arts are no more photography than video is photography or a lithograph is a oil painting.

Truman Prevatt wrote:57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question. The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?It's the same artform as it ever was, only with more possibilities and greater access.The fact that most photos are rubbish is the same as it ever was, but there are some amazing modern photographers who are pushing the new limits.But they are pushing limits not because of the gear but because of their vision. The advent of digital photography has opened up new horizons in art in allowing for extensive manipulation of digital images - producing "graphics arts" pieces not easily done prior to digital. On the other hand Andy Warhol didn't do such a bad job and he didn't have digital. However, such works belong in the genre of graphics arts - not photography since they are products of traditional graphics arts manipulations of existing images. But at the end of the day graphic arts are no more photography than video is photography or a lithograph is a oil painting.Graphic art has always been separate and it still is. I don't get your point.Digital cameras can capture more detail at lower exposures in cheaper and more portable equipment without the cost of film and developing.There is no downside, other than the fact that a smart 10 year old can take really good pictures if she has the eye and a 50 year old with a $5000 camera still can't if he doesn't.The upside is that there are many more creative opportunities available to far more people who would never have been able to afford to explore them previously.

Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Obviously there was a lot more real estate on those old film cameras .One XE4 Dpreview review comment even asked if we humans had lost our ability to hold on to a camera with our fingers.All that said , it IS nice to have the option to add a grip on a camera.I`m expecting my XE4 /w 27mm to arrive early next week.I quite like how my camera can be a transformer to meet different requirements.I dislike a grip always being there because in most of my shooting situations I simply don't require it. I understand that to others this feels like an extra cost on top of an already expensive hobby or something else to carry around in a kit. I get that. If I were super into big zooms and something like birding I might want a bigger grip.It is kind of mean I think to be dismissive of those that might require/desire a bigger grip. Some folks have mobility issues or grip issues due to age. Photography should be inclusive and I am glad fuji is offering a few different designs for different users.

57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question. The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?It's the same artform as it ever was, only with more possibilities and greater access.The fact that most photos are rubbish is the same as it ever was, but there are some amazing modern photographers who are pushing the new limits.But they are pushing limits not because of the gear but because of their vision. The advent of digital photography has opened up new horizons in art in allowing for extensive manipulation of digital images - producing "graphics arts" pieces not easily done prior to digital. On the other hand Andy Warhol didn't do such a bad job and he didn't have digital. However, such works belong in the genre of graphics arts - not photography since they are products of traditional graphics arts manipulations of existing images. But at the end of the day graphic arts are no more photography than video is photography or a lithograph is a oil painting.Graphic art has always been separate and it still is. I don't get your point.Digital cameras can capture more detail at lower exposures in cheaper and more portable equipment without the cost of film and developing.There is no downside, other than the fact that a smart 10 year old can take really good pictures if she has the eye and a 50 year old with a $5000 camera still can't if he doesn't.The upside is that there are many more creative opportunities available to far more people who would never have been able to afford to explore them previously.So you made my case.  Technology has nothing to do with producing a image that stands the test of time.  Of course we won't know if the image from a 10 year old can stand the test of time for about 50 years.It is wonderful that more people have access.  That has been the goal of camera companies.  Kodak invented some nice easy to use camera to promote that, e.g., the Instamatic.  Of course that was to sell film.However, much of what we see today, advertised in packages like Luninar AI, etc., stimulated by the computational aspect of the smart phones such as "sky replacement," easily editing out objects, easily adding objects a.k.a. photoshopping - is graphic arts.Of course none of this has nothing to to with grips - except the march of the demands from gear head spec hounds demanding all cameras be the same.  No technical innovation is going to produce better images when the person behind the camera does not know how to create emotion within an image.

Truman Prevatt wrote:57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:57even wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:larsbc wrote:Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial. The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.Cameras also used to have dim finders, no metering, no AF, backs that had to be removed completely in order to load film, etc. Our expectations have changed.But that is not the question. The question is has this change in cameras made a positive change in photography as an art form?It's the same artform as it ever was, only with more possibilities and greater access.The fact that most photos are rubbish is the same as it ever was, but there are some amazing modern photographers who are pushing the new limits.But they are pushing limits not because of the gear but because of their vision. The advent of digital photography has opened up new horizons in art in allowing for extensive manipulation of digital images - producing "graphics arts" pieces not easily done prior to digital. On the other hand Andy Warhol didn't do such a bad job and he didn't have digital. However, such works belong in the genre of graphics arts - not photography since they are products of traditional graphics arts manipulations of existing images. But at the end of the day graphic arts are no more photography than video is photography or a lithograph is a oil painting.Graphic art has always been separate and it still is. I don't get your point.Digital cameras can capture more detail at lower exposures in cheaper and more portable equipment without the cost of film and developing.There is no downside, other than the fact that a smart 10 year old can take really good pictures if she has the eye and a 50 year old with a $5000 camera still can't if he doesn't.The upside is that there are many more creative opportunities available to far more people who would never have been able to afford to explore them previously.So you made my case. Technology has nothing to do with producing a image that stands the test of time. Of course we won't know if the image from a 10 year old can stand the test of time for about 50 years.It is wonderful that more people have access. That has been the goal of camera companies. Kodak invented some nice easy to use camera to promote that, e.g., the Instamatic. Of course that was to sell film.However, much of what we see today, advertised in packages like Luninar AI, etc., stimulated by the computational aspect of the smart phones such as "sky replacement," easily editing out objects, easily adding objects a.k.a. photoshopping - is graphic arts.Of course none of this has nothing to to with grips - except the march of the demands from gear head spec hounds demanding all cameras be the same. No technical innovation is going to produce better images when the person behind the camera does not know how to create emotion within an image.Of course not, but greater capabilities allow talent and imagination to push new boundaries that were previously unattainable.The fact that a minority of camera owners have much of either is beside the point. I don't have to be Lewis Hamilton to enjoy driving a Mercedes AMG GT-R, but there's no way I would ever get close its limits without having an accident.But I could go a lot faster than I ever could in a 1967 Jaguar E Type or Corvette, probably without breaking a sweat.

The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.

icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.After reading all the posts I got to the most recent to find the point I was going to make!I find a grip important because I want to be able to hold my camera at my side when not taking a photo and not feel like I'm going to drop it. I don't like looking like a tourist with my camera around my neck. I also prefer a battery grip as I take most my photos in portrait orientation and without a proper grip to comfortably hold it that way my wrist is garbage after walking around taking photos for a couple hours.

icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.I feel the same way... Back in my film days I always used a strap. Nowadays I prefer not to.

Fuji Maine wrote:icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.After reading all the posts I got to the most recent to find the point I was going to make!I find a grip important because I want to be able to hold my camera at my side when not taking a photo and not feel like I'm going to drop it. I don't like looking like a tourist with my camera around my neck. I also prefer a battery grip as I take most my photos in portrait orientation and without a proper grip to comfortably hold it that way my wrist is garbage after walking around taking photos for a couple hours.Got news for you - a camera in you hand at your side especially with a grip on - you are not stealth.  You are not incognito.  You look like a tourist or someone creepy trying to look non-creepyby hiding what you are doing.Grips arose for a reason.  Camera companies needed room for batteries.  It had nothing to do with ergonomics.  We see how good the marketing spin machine is, "we were doing you such a favor."  If there were any truth to ergonomics, then cameras would be offered in two versions - one for left handers and one for right handers.I find it somewhat amazing -probably a quirk of human nature - people try to rationalize their behavior or preferences with logical explanations.  You want a grip - you want a grip.  It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks.  But to spin all sorts of rationalization - that takes humans.  When  I visit my psychologist  sister or she visits me and we sit down over a beer or six she often says, that such human nature and behavior is why she has a nice house in Indiana and one in Florida, retired full time early but still consults regularly with the Indiana State Police and the local FBI field offices where she lives.

Adding a grip the the xe4 is ridiculous. You like the camera as it is or you dont. Adding bulk, weight and an aftermarket grip at more expense to make the camera more acceptable just means you bought the wrong camera.Buy a camera with a better grip if you want to add a grip to the xe4.Having to pinch grip a camera with a medium heavy lens is just horrible. even tiny cameras like the Ricoh GR have significantly better ergo than xe4 and fits in your pocket..mini rant over..

icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.Hey, that’s me now!

Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial.The heavy brick Pentax K1000 as well as so many others weighed so much more and were larger and bulkier than most current digitals. The $8K full frame leica M10 is considerably bigger , bulkier, and heavier than the XE4 and IT lacks a grip.The M10 has a thumb grip.  If anyone could have stuck to their legacy design and not have it hurt their sales, it is Leica, but they thought it was better to add a built-in thumb grip.One XE4 Dpreview review comment even asked if we humans had lost our ability to hold on to a camera with our fingers.What changed is our expectations of a camera's ergonomics.  It's not that we can't hold a non-ergonomic camera; but given the choice, we'd prefer the ergonomically designed one.

Truman Prevatt wrote:Fuji Maine wrote:icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.After reading all the posts I got to the most recent to find the point I was going to make!I find a grip important because I want to be able to hold my camera at my side when not taking a photo and not feel like I'm going to drop it. I don't like looking like a tourist with my camera around my neck. I also prefer a battery grip as I take most my photos in portrait orientation and without a proper grip to comfortably hold it that way my wrist is garbage after walking around taking photos for a couple hours.Got news for you - a camera in you hand at your side especially with a grip on - you are not stealth. You are not incognito. You look like a tourist or someone creepy trying to look non-creepyby hiding what you are doing.Grips arose for a reason. Camera companies needed room for batteries. It had nothing to do with ergonomics. We see how good the marketing spin machine is, "we were doing you such a favor." If there were any truth to ergonomics, then cameras would be offered in two versions - one for left handers and one for right handers.I find it somewhat amazing -probably a quirk of human nature - people try to rationalize their behavior or preferences with logical explanations. You want a grip - you want a grip. It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks. But to spin all sorts of rationalization - that takes humans. When I visit my psychologist sister or she visits me and we sit down over a beer or six she often says, that such human nature and behavior is why she has a nice house in Indiana and one in Florida, retired full time early but still consults regularly with the Indiana State Police and the local FBI field offices where she lives.My desire to not have a camera hanging around my neck that I referred to looking like a tourist was my nice way of saying looking like a tool. I'm not trying to be stealthy my holding my camera at my side. I've never been into the creepy street photography of people thing. If I want to take a picture of someone I walk up to them and ask like a proper human. There's no spin needed for my own personal preference. Good to know about the FBI connection though. I like to make it a practice to keep a healthy distance from spooks!

Fuji Maine wrote:Truman Prevatt wrote:Fuji Maine wrote:icexe wrote:The common practice back then was to have the camera hang around your neck at all times, so there was probably little or no concern about what would happen if you lost your grip on it.After reading all the posts I got to the most recent to find the point I was going to make!I find a grip important because I want to be able to hold my camera at my side when not taking a photo and not feel like I'm going to drop it. I don't like looking like a tourist with my camera around my neck. I also prefer a battery grip as I take most my photos in portrait orientation and without a proper grip to comfortably hold it that way my wrist is garbage after walking around taking photos for a couple hours.Got news for you - a camera in you hand at your side especially with a grip on - you are not stealth. You are not incognito. You look like a tourist or someone creepy trying to look non-creepyby hiding what you are doing.Grips arose for a reason. Camera companies needed room for batteries. It had nothing to do with ergonomics. We see how good the marketing spin machine is, "we were doing you such a favor." If there were any truth to ergonomics, then cameras would be offered in two versions - one for left handers and one for right handers.I find it somewhat amazing -probably a quirk of human nature - people try to rationalize their behavior or preferences with logical explanations. You want a grip - you want a grip. It doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks. But to spin all sorts of rationalization - that takes humans. When I visit my psychologist sister or she visits me and we sit down over a beer or six she often says, that such human nature and behavior is why she has a nice house in Indiana and one in Florida, retired full time early but still consults regularly with the Indiana State Police and the local FBI field offices where she lives.My desire to not have a camera hanging around my neck that I referred to looking like a tourist was my nice way of saying looking like a tool.Why does neck strap make someone a tool? Seems pretty mean. I like my neck strap just fine... I like a wrist strap sometimes too. Or other times it is just in a pack.Even the tourist comment is kinda rude and arbitrary, someone with a camera with a large grip could be seen in the same light... In fact any camera, other than a phone, might be looked at as someone who is "touristy" depending on who you ask.I dunno, it seems possible to say "I like a camera with a grip because X" without making people feel bad about their own choice in how to carry a camera. *shrug*

Veducci wrote:Looking back at the film days when few if any bodies had a grip I have to wonder why it`s so controversial.Add on "grips" provided by third party companies were prevalent for any film camera for at least 50 years. They did not add power as such. They were attached by use of the tripod mount and extended out and away from the body.. They usually had a shutter release cable as part of it that was used as a trigger.Motor drives for automatic film advance at varible FPS were prevalent among pro flagship bodies. I had one with my Nikon F2AS. It did not power the body as such. It just advanced the film. On the F3, the motor drive did power the electronics of the body as well but we aren't talking about the body needing much battery. A little dime sized battery did just fine for a LONG time. The F5 was the first Nikon with camera and motor drive being a single piece.A step down from a true motor drive was a winder. It advanced just single frame at a time with a press of the shutter release. The Nikon FE2/FM2 had winders.Both motor drives and winders had a grip as such but primary purpose was to advance film.With digital, there are add on grips that aids in the holding of a camera like the add on grip for my XPro3. Battery packs with a grip for added FPS and extended power are available for select bodies. I prefer my XPro3 with the added grip.  The first Z series did not have an added battery pack/grip and this was a major gripe of Nikon owners for valid reasons.  The Z2 series does have one now.Conceptually....not much has changed from old film cameras or today's digital cameras when it comes to "grips". It boils down to personal preference.

Many SLRs had grips, look at the venerable Canon T90. It's design was the foundation for the entire EOS series, it was so good that is still alive today. And that was several decades ago.

I started using grips (body & thumb) many years ago with my E-2 & M1, as the lenses i use are mainly the bigger zooms.Last week I bought a lovely barely used XT-20, then a Fuji grip.  Grips simply give more holding options, more security. The thumb rest from my little M1 transferred well, though not the perfect shape.