Same Price

Well, that was fun. I enjoyed running down all the many interesting comments and cogitating in passing on the matter of the camera grip. I hope you had fun wading through it all. When all the dust cleared (and we raised rather a lot of dust), Francisco Cubas and ronin, in their Featured comments, cut to the core of it: cameras before autofocus, when slow films were the norm, didn't need a right-hand grip because we weren't using our right hands to hold the camera. Pretty much every instruction book recommended supporting the camera and adjusting the focus and aperture ring with your left hand under the lens, and cocking the winding lever and releasing the shutter with the right hand. And because of the often slower shutter speeds we had to use with film, we were encouraged to have a light, gentle touch on the shutter button and no tension in our right hands. Remember all the admonitions not to "stab" at the shutter button, but to press it smoothly and gently? So of course you didn't need a right-hand handgrip, because you weren't gripping the camera with your right hand—you were supporting its weight with your left hand and trying to remain relaxed in your right hand.

It was only after AF, AE, and integral, powered film-winding took over the operational functions, and, later, when digital matured and ISOs and hence shutter speeds got much higher, that one-handed shooting became feasible and we began supporting the camera with the right hands and not worrying about moving the camera when pushing the shutter button.

I might point out, not that it really matters, that I handle my B&W Sigma in the old, two-handed way, because it's almost always set on manual focus and I use my left hand to focus. (You do have to take your left hand completely off the focus ring, because if you even touch it you get the magnified view with in-focus objects outlined in red.)

Anyway.

When I wrote the last two posts I didn't have a few things sorted, quite: first is that the new OM-3 has pretty much the same guts as the current flagship OM-1 mark II, and second is that the two cameras are the same price. At least at B&H Photo currently, where the OM-1 mark II is on sale for $400 off.

Camera on the left: more features and control flexibility; big, comfortable integral hand grip: $2,000.

Camera on right: simpler configuration; lighter; lower-resolution viewfinder but with higher eye-relief; no front hand grip: $2,000.

Same sensor and IQ in both.

So take your pick. Kristine Hinrichs mentioned that the OM-1 mark II has gotten pigeonholed as a specialty bird-and-critter camera, and that the purpose of the new OM-3 might be to decouple OM System's best camera from that reputation and suggest the product anew to those who want an all-purpose, general-use body. That does make some sense. Thom's opinion is that retro is a fad and that the fad is probably weakening, but others such as Tom R. Halfhill pointed out that the new OM-3 isn't actually "real" retro (if you will): it doesn't try to recreate traditional exposure-triangle dials so you can see the settings at a glance, like the Fuji X-T[x] cameras or other retro bodies do. Retro beauty is only skin-deep on the new OM-3. I don't see anything to complain about in its appearance, quite the contrary in fact, but we all have our own tastes.

Next-to-last observation: the new OM-3 weighs 17 and a half ounces. By coincidence, that was the number I picked many years ago as the optimal weight for a camera body.

My final comment: OM System should have officially called the new OM-3 the "New OM-3." (It's been done before: you might be old enough to remember Canon's New F-1.) Somebody else—no, I can't locate it at the moment—noted that it's a bad idea to call a new product by the same name as an old product. I agree. It confuses search engines and creates confusion in discussions.

Plus, I will admit that I like the gentle humor of calling an apparently retro camera "New."

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Richard Sloves: "With regard to the gripping grip controversy. On 35mm film cameras of yore, the film wind lever was the grip. I would insert my right thumb between the camera body and the film wind lever, which was cantilevered about 20 degrees off the body, with my index finger on the shutter release. As you correctly noted, the left hand both focused and cradled the body. When speed was required, a right-handed, flesh and blood anatomical rapid-fire approach was initiated: fire, shutter cock, fire."

Mike replies: As I read that, I could feel what it felt like. I used to carry bare cameras around in my hand a lot. No strap, no grip, no nuthin', just carried it.

Comments

[Dan Khong]

Re-badging anything out of date with the word "NEW" can help boost sales to some extend. Done that with car models, food menus, "New Formula" gasoline , and "New Balance" shoes (just sayin' only), films and ("new") management.

[David Brown]

Fifty-five years of SLRs, DSLRs, and now mirrorless. I still use the same shooting grip. I appreciate a good RH grip, however, for carrying the camera as I'm shooting. I use a wrist strap now rather than a shoulder strap.

[Stephen S.]

Mike, it's fascinating that you say "cameras... didn't need a right-hand grip because we weren't using our right hands to hold the camera."

When I switched long ago from using neck straps to wrist straps, I simply assumed the right-hand side was the best place for them, as I would carry my camera when not in use by the grip, in my right hand. I've only recently begun to challenge that assumption, switching the wrist straps on some of my cameras to the left, and carrying them mostly by the lens with my left hand, and my hand slightly wrapped around the camera body it it's small enough. This has worked out better for me for many cameras, from small (Pentax Q with a prime) to large (Olympus E-M1X with zoom.)
In fact, with the Pentax Q, it's easier to hit the power button with my left thumb as I bring it up to shoot and grab the grip with my right hand than it is to hold it in my right hand and have to shift my right hand around to reach the power button and then back to a comfortable grip. It's something I plan to try with more and more of my cameras as time goes on.

[Moose]

"— noted that it's a bad idea to call a new product by the same name as an old product. I agree."

Canon wins the Moose award for most egregious example.

S100, 2000; My first digicam, I still have mine.
S110, 2001
S100, 2011
S110, 2012; Yup, I had one of these too. At least mine had different names, slightly.

[Moose]

"Camera on right: simpler configuration; lighter; lower-resolution viewfinder but with higher eye-relief; no front hand grip:"

Also, other OM-1 II differences, a faster mechanical shutter, more buttons, deeper buffer, and dual card slots.

I find the many buttons useful to go directly into the computational modes. The "3" does have a single direct to comp button, but one must then choose which. One button takes me, for example, directly into and out of grad filter.
OTOH, one must remember lots of buttons.

Haven't pushed the buffer limits yet in winter shooting, but will in the other seasons. I found the limit lost me a couple of images on the Mk I.

I love two card slots. One big difference over other two slot cameras, incl. Oly is that both slots are USH II, full speed.

In Bhutan, using 64 GB cards, I somehow lost one. As it was almost full and I downloaded to laptop every evening, I lost very few shots; still a couple I'd love to have.

With bigger cards, two bodies and two slots in each, even a trip like that so far fit without ever replacing a card. We take 7-8 week trips to multiple countries in the fall. So far, no card changes needed.

[William Lewis]

Mike, when I read you reply to Richard Sloves, I felt that! LOL! Yeah, until the Canon T-90 hit though, that beautiful camera changed my world and I love the new paradigm.

[Omar]

Each of us has different priorities. I hike. Sometimes 4 to 6 hours in the bush. In my group hikes, I have seconds to get my photo so it has to be handy. Cell phones are too slow. I carry a backback that made my shoulder strap uncomfortable (neck straps hurt me...) Some years ago, I discovered that I could handhold my Nikon D7000 (later D7200) without a strap for full day hikes easier than if I had it on a strap. But the key is the grip. The actual shooting is the classic left hand cradling the camera. But I need the grip to get me to the shooting location. Like I said, different priorities, but I can't imagine carrying a camera without a grip for my shooting.

[I seem to remember that camera being particularly amenable for carrying in the hand...something about the way your fingers fit and allows the camera to just hang? I can't quite recover it in my memory, but I do have a memory that I found it good to simply carry. --Mike]

[Bob G.]

What about OM3n? I don’t think the OM3’s film cameras had something extended like that, but the OM2’s had it…

[Nige]

I cringe when I see someone with an overhand grip of their lens!

[Rudy L Mack]

Years ago I saw a Soligor ad showing what the camera of the future would look like. It was a Canon T-90. Were they psychic or did they have inside information?

[KeithB]

Or similar names with different cameras.
Canon released the D30 in 2000 and the 30D in 2006.

[Or cameras with the same name from different companies. Canon and Konica-Minolta both had a 7D.

I'm kind of over "D" in camera names. It was considered cool at first, because it distinguished the new, mod, hip *D*igital cameras from the old fogey film cameras that were all over the place. But those days are looooong gone. --Mike]

[Mark Sampson]

In 1979-81 I used a Bronica ETR to photograph groups and make "candids" for high school yearbooks- the studio I worked for issued me that camera, along with a 70mm long-roll studio camera for the senior portraits.
The Bronica was a 645 camera (15 exposures on a 120 roll) with a right-hand "Speed Grip" attached, which contained the shutter release and film-advance lever. With a big Metz "potato masher" flash on a bracket on the other side to balance things out... the setup handled beautifully for that kind of work.
Although my colleagues and I dreadfully abused our cameras, doing the 'run-n-gun' thing around the schools with the setup carried in our right hands, that grip (which was an optional attachment) never failed me. Oddly I don't recall wondering "why don't 35mm cameras have something like this?" back then.

[Tony Ayling]

Grips? Who needs grips. I carried a Nikon FE with a 55mm macro lens and a separate 24mm wide angle in one hand during long rambles in nature. I never dropped anything. Changing lenses was a bit tricky and usually meant temporarily having one lens gripped under my arm. However, I do love the grips on modern cameras!

[Hank]

In spite of almost all newer cameras having grips, auto-focus, auto-exposure, and (mostly) IBIS, I still cradle the camera/lens in my left hand and keep my right hand as relaxed as possible. My left hand just needs something to do.
If I try the "right-hand-death-grip" method, I get cramps in my hand after a while.
It's an old habit (I was born in the 1960s), but a good one, as I can comfortably hold just about every hand-holdable camera out there. I look forward to trying out the OM-3 at some point. It sure is a pretty camera!