>>3472654>its marginally more pocketableX100 won't fit in a pocket.
GRIII will.
The margin you speak of is the difference between "Not pocketable" and "pocketable". The GRIII will fit comfortably in a regular pants pocket; the X100 series will not.
See this size comparison, with the extra NEX-C3 thrown in which I've personally found to be juuuust barely pocketable (but uncomfortably) with a pancake lens. If it didn't have a lens on it, it's comfortably pocketable, and almost exactly the same size as the GRIII with lens retracted.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#118.84,819,705,ha,t>meme, just shoot faster than 1/30"Just don't do the thing that makes this feature useful" is a weird response that could be used for literally any criticism of any camera.
>more annoying than usefulHow much experience do you have with the touchscreen implementation on the GRIII to make that call? I haven't used that many cameras with a touchscreen (pretty much just the Canon 70D), but I found it more useful than annoying. Obviously each camera's implementation is different, and each person's preferences is different, but you can't just state definitively that it's more annoying than useful.
>x100f [is also low key]Ehhh. They're low-key in different ways. The X100 line looks like an old-school rangefinder and draws people's attention because it looks like an antique (based on my experience carrying around an X-T1, which has a similar aesthetic).
The GRIII looks like a shitty point & shoot digital that's gonna get outclassed by a phone these days. You don't look like a real photographer carrying one, so people won't really pay as much attention to you. I.e., the fact that it's "walmart-looking shit" can definitely be an advantage.
And yeah, if those don't actually matter to you, then you should just get an X100F and be happy with it. But there are a lot of people that those *do* matter to, and that's the target market of the GRIII.
