GFX100RF size argument

[Lukacs85]

The main complaint about the 100RF the lack of IBIS and the f4 maximum aperture. I don't intend to provide a conclusion, just my point of view. One of the main reason I bought this camera is the portability. What are the main factors when we consider easy to carry around? Weight, size, and resistance against potential damages.

Each of them has a personal preference limit. That's the reason of Ricoh GR3's popularity, because in all of three aspects it's unbeatable on market.

So how a good portable camera looks like? Like a brick. The ideal carry around camera is like a thin brick, without any extensions, because easy to slide in-out an everyday carry sling, there are no extending parts prone to stuck or damage. Other advantage is the weight distribution, when you grab the camera, mass center is in your grip.

The practical purpose of a fixed lens camera, giving up the ability of using different lenses is the construction, the lens is on the sensor literally, so there is a 20-30mm size cut from the lens extension. But here is the catch, when the lens is 40-60mm long this size saving is significant. But longer the lens it's become losing the advantage. My problem with Leica Q3 is the lens bump. Yes the lens still smaller than a possible ILCE version, but beyond the limit when it doesn't matter for me anymore, because of the lens size I wouldn't take into a EDC sling, just into a dedicated photo bag.

The argument about where is your limit. Maybe Q3 is perfectly fine for everyday carry, and perhaps the GFX100RF is already too thick, even also the X100VI. But the question is, if Q3, or GFX100RF with at least 30-40mm longer lens and ruined weight distribution is acceptable for you, what is the point compared an ILCE option? Sure it's still bit smaller, has leaf shutter, but I don't think it's worth giving up the availability of different lenses.

Here is my EDC sling and the GFX100RF with lens cap, and in comparison with the adapter ring for modelling a brighter lens or stabilisation:

With only lens cap closed bag

With only lens cap:, it's on the edge of portable thickness, the hood and protection filter on left side in clothing

With adapter ring, it's too big lens bump, and worse if I consider the added weight of glass elements.

 

[DavidMillier]

I have never really been able to find a satisfactory "compact" camera. It's a set of contradictions.

• I want a camera that is big enough so that the controls are not miniaturised or get in the way of holding it. That rules out almost every RX100-style mini camera.
• I want a proper grip but I also don't want a camera that snags on a pocket, ruling out most cameras with sticky out lenses and grips
• I want a decently wide ranging zoom that doesn't take up much space
• I want mechanical zoom, hate motorised lenses and power zooms
• I want a decent viewfinder
• I want speedy operation
• I want light weight
• I want something with good enough image quality to do A3 prints

The biggest contradiction of all: I don't really do photography on a 'just in case' basis - I do my photography in a dedicated photo trip way.

Over the years I have tried a fair number of compact carry everywhere options and not found anything that fits the bill. Failures include: Nikon Coolpix CP950, CP3100, Canon Powershot G7, Fuji X10, Konica-Minolta A200, Fuji S4000.

Of these, the closest I got was the Minolta A200, a very small superzoom bridge camera, and the X10, both nice cameras with 2/3" sensors and mechanical zoom, but neither really met the snag-free shape test.

One camera I never tried which looks like it might get close was the Nikon P7800.

I ended up giving up on the idea of compacts and instead use a Lumix GX7 with a pair of collapsible pancake zooms. It's smallish and competent and not that much bigger than compacts.

Only thing is that, because I don't really need a carry-anywhere camera, I rarely use it!

 

[Lukacs85]

It's not just about EDC camera, I also don't need a camera always with me, but I want a camera I can put inside my EDC bag when I want with me, but I don't intend to carry a second camera bag.

My utter failure was the Fuji X10, the IQ was total disappointment. I adapted to APS-C sensor that time (Nikon D50 and D200). DP2M however was one of my favourite, small brick with exceptional IQ in most conditions I'm expecting shooting with a carry around camera. The GR3 is better in every way, but the size is just too small for my hands.

 

[DavidMillier]

It's not just about EDC camera, I also don't need a camera always with me, but I want a camera I can put inside my EDC bag when I want with me, but I don't intend to carry a second camera bag.

My utter failure was the Fuji X10, the IQ was total disappointment.

Surprised you didn't like the X10 image quality, I thought it was fine, although I used it as a 6MP wide dynamic range camera, rather than as a 12MP camera. IQ was the last of my complaints about it, good enough for A4/A3 prints. The zoom was a bit short for my tastes but stuck out too far, the viewfinder was better than the Canon G series but has no display, battery life was terrible.

Some pics from that camera:

I adapted to APS-C sensor that time (Nikon D50 and D200). DP2M however was one of my favourite, small brick with exceptional IQ in most conditions I'm expecting shooting with a carry around camera. The GR3 is better in every way, but the size is just too small for my hands.

I had a DP2M, I considered it one of the better Foveon cameras, but hopeless as a general purpose compact. No viewfinder (I used a carbuncle clip-on optical) and so slowwwwwww..

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

 

[jhunna]

I ended up giving up on the idea of compacts and instead use a Lumix GX7 with a pair of collapsible pancake zooms. It's smallish and competent and not that much bigger than compacts.

Yeah, that's a classic setup. I had the GX85 with the same two lenses 1232 and 35100. That was really a do everything setup.

 

[Rob de Loe]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

 

[BobsYourUncle]

Because of my severe scoliosis—and having carried extremely heavy loads over the years with both backpacks and shoulder bags—not to mention shrinking from 6'2" to 5'10" (and still going), I’ve had to rethink how and what I carry, and for what purpose.

Day to day, I can easily fit either the X100VI or the GFX100RF into my Travelon Anti-Theft Classic Waist Pack. I bought the Travelon years ago, and it’s served me well.

For travel, now that I’ve added the GFX100RF to my kit, I can fit both the RF (with an Arca-Swiss compatible half case) and the X100VI (also with a half case) into the larger of the two compartments. My IDs and three 4TB portable SSDs fit comfortably in the front pocket. I also use my very light tripod as a walking stick when needed. It’s a bit on the heavy side, but my waist and hips are fine with it, and it keeps weight off my back. The only annoyance is lens caps and filters, but so far that hasn’t been much of a problem.

Unfortunately, shoulder bags no longer work for me. If I don’t have far to walk, I can still manage a small one—and for short gigs, I get by. But as the years go by, I find myself thinking more about where I’m going and how best to strike a balance: do I want to relax and not worry about gear? Or go all in for the best image quality? More and more, I’m leaning toward less burden.

Less of a squeeze without the cases but I prefer them... even less if the Cams are the only contents.

--
Bob aka BobsYourUncle
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X and Medium Format Forums

 

[Smogg]

I recommend trying the Peak Design Outdoor Sling 7l with different inserts.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

I have never really been able to find a satisfactory "compact" camera. It's a set of contradictions.

Of these, the closest I got was the Minolta A200, a very small superzoom bridge camera, ....2/3" sensors and mechanical zoom, but neither really met the snag-free shape test.

One camera I never tried which looks like it might get close was the Nikon P7800.

I ended up giving up on the idea of compacts and instead use a Lumix GX7 with a pair of collapsible pancake zooms. It's smallish and competent and not that much bigger than compacts.

Just as I type this am out with m4/3 Gx7 + 14-140 (28-280 in 35mm) still too bulky.

This Oly Stylus constant f/2.8 28-300 collapsable zoom 1/1.7" sensor easily jacket pocketable would been just the ticket.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/compacts/oly_stylus1s

Handled this 1S and previous Stylus 1 when they were released. Neat mix of manual controls evf flippy screen.

Had Minolta A200 back in the day took favourite photographs of beach pebbles shells with it. Even though 2/3" sensor could do creamy background at 200mm f/3.5

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[JimKasson]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

 

[Rob de Loe]

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

That's exactly the one I was thinking of. What a beast!

 

[Rob de Loe]

Because of my severe scoliosis—and having carried extremely heavy loads over the years with both backpacks and shoulder bags—not to mention shrinking from 6'2" to 5'10" (and still going), I’ve had to rethink how and what I carry, and for what purpose.

We will all have to "do the math" on what we can manage sooner or later. You're farther down this road than me, but it's on my mind a lot these days.

Your setup looks like a nice balance. I'm crossing my fingers that Fuji keeps going with the concept behind the 100 RF and puts out a version with a 'normal' focal length.

 

[AndyGordon]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

Was that the one that looked and weighed like a sewing machine when it had its case on?

 

[JimKasson]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

Was that the one that looked and weighed like a sewing machine when it had its case on?

Yup. The keyboard was the 'Lid'.

 

[Oren Grad]

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

That's exactly the one I was thinking of. What a beast!

A mere 28 pounds... Refresh your recollection of the Byte magazine review here (starts on p. 30 - be patient, the link loads the entire magazine, slowly):

https://vintageapple.org/byte/pdf/198301_Byte_Magazine_Vol_08-01_Looking_Ahead.pdf

 

[dbateman]

I have never really been able to find a satisfactory "compact" camera. It's a set of contradictions.

• I want a camera that is big enough so that the controls are not miniaturised or get in the way of holding it. That rules out almost every RX100-style mini camera.
• I want a proper grip but I also don't want a camera that snags on a pocket, ruling out most cameras with sticky out lenses and grips
• I want a decently wide ranging zoom that doesn't take up much space
• I want mechanical zoom, hate motorised lenses and power zooms
• I want a decent viewfinder
• I want speedy operation
• I want light weight
• I want something with good enough image quality to do A3 prints

The biggest contradiction of all: I don't really do photography on a 'just in case' basis - I do my photography in a dedicated photo trip way.

Over the years I have tried a fair number of compact carry everywhere options and not found anything that fits the bill. Failures include: Nikon Coolpix CP950, CP3100, Canon Powershot G7, Fuji X10, Konica-Minolta A200, Fuji S4000.

Of these, the closest I got was the Minolta A200, a very small superzoom bridge camera, and the X10, both nice cameras with 2/3" sensors and mechanical zoom, but neither really met the snag-free shape test.

One camera I never tried which looks like it might get close was the Nikon P7800.

I ended up giving up on the idea of compacts and instead use a Lumix GX7 with a pair of collapsible pancake zooms. It's smallish and competent and not that much bigger than compacts.

Only thing is that, because I don't really need a carry-anywhere camera, I rarely use it!

 

[AndyGordon]

I share your “brick” philosophy when it comes to portability: height and width are not significant issues, but depth and protrusions are.

I have four categories, which I should probably think of better names for:

• pocketable (there is one camera that stands head, shoulders and frankly an entire torso above everything else in this category: the Ricoh GR in all its forms)
• highly baggable (won’t fit in a pocket, but will go in and out of a tiny bag with minimal fuss: for me this is an X100, or an X-Pro/X-E with a small/pancake lens)
• baggable (eg my 50R with the GF 50 or an adapted F/K Mount lens, which still easily fits in my Bellroy Venture Camera bag, among other bags, but not the smallest slings)
• big (the 50R with a full-size GF lens, which demands a dedicated bag larger than I’d normally carry)

For me the 100RF just about scraped into highly baggable: it wouldn’t fit the smallest of bags, but small enough, and given that it would take the place of additional/adapter lenses for an X100 or X-E/X-Pro it was firmly in the same pigeon hole as those.

In the end I’ve gone back to the X-Pro/X-E approach, but that was down to a couple of other aspects of the 100RF, not its physical size and shape.

At the end of the day, I’d never be without a GR, so having such a tiny option kind of takes the pressure off any other camera when it comes to the last slivers of compactness.

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

Was that the one that looked and weighed like a sewing machine when it had its case on?

Yup. The keyboard was the 'Lid'.

I'd like to say that I had fond memories of that machine, but.....it was good, but s royal PITA to take anywhere

 

[jhunna]

In the early days of computers we distinguished between "portable" and "transportable" -- the latter referring to computers you could move if you had to.

Or, like the original Compaq, luggable. I hated schlepping that thing through airports.

That's exactly the one I was thinking of. What a beast!

A mere 28 pounds... Refresh your recollection of the Byte magazine review here (starts on p. 30 - be patient, the link loads the entire magazine, slowly):

https://vintageapple.org/byte/pdf/198301_Byte_Magazine_Vol_08-01_Looking_Ahead.pdf

Wow that link brought back a LOT of memories.

 

[MyReality]

Because of my severe scoliosis—and having carried extremely heavy loads over the years with both backpacks and shoulder bags—not to mention shrinking from 6'2" to 5'10" (and still going), I’ve had to rethink how and what I carry, and for what purpose.

Day to day, I can easily fit either the X100VI or the GFX100RF into my Travelon Anti-Theft Classic Waist Pack. I bought the Travelon years ago, and it’s served me well.

For travel, now that I’ve added the GFX100RF to my kit, I can fit both the RF (with an Arca-Swiss compatible half case) and the X100VI (also with a half case) into the larger of the two compartments. My IDs and three 4TB portable SSDs fit comfortably in the front pocket. I also use my very light tripod as a walking stick when needed. It’s a bit on the heavy side, but my waist and hips are fine with it, and it keeps weight off my back. The only annoyance is lens caps and filters, but so far that hasn’t been much of a problem.

Unfortunately, shoulder bags no longer work for me. If I don’t have far to walk, I can still manage a small one—and for short gigs, I get by. But as the years go by, I find myself thinking more about where I’m going and how best to strike a balance: do I want to relax and not worry about gear? Or go all in for the best image quality? More and more, I’m leaning toward less burden.

Less of a squeeze without the cases but I prefer them... even less if the Cams are the only contents.

Interesting setup: Two fixed lens cameras. The 100RF has 100 mpx sensor, no need for X100VI unless you are doing video. I do more video now and that would be my kit. I would dedicate the X100VI to video.

If I did not do video, I would go for something smaller and lighter for the second camera. If it was me, I would be using the 100RF for 80% of my shots, because of that large sensor.

I always prefer a nice gourmet meal over fast food. :-D