what the article said about its successor:

The best camera for street photography Ricoh GR IV: Ricoh GR IV

This camera looks like a classic soap-bar-style point-and-shoot but packs a big APS-C sensor and a seriously sharp lens. But it shoots only wide-angle photos, and it lacks a viewfinder.

The Ricoh GR IV is the Platonic ideal of a street-photography camera, especially if you like to shoot quickly and covertly. Its minimalist design won’t catch anyone’s attention, you can easily slip it into and out of a pants pocket, and its wide-angle field of view and unique Snap Focus feature let you quickly shoot from the hip. If you want to take more time with your compositions, it’s a great all-around travel camera, too.

But skinny-jeans pocketability comes at a cost: This camera lacks an electronic viewfinder (an optical viewfinder is available separately), its rear display doesn’t tilt, and its wide-angle lens doesn’t zoom.

If you like the idea of the Ricoh GR IV but prefer a field of view closer to that of a classic “normal” lens: Ricoh is still producing last generation’s GR IIIx. It’s almost exactly the same camera as the discontinued GR III, but with a 40mm-equivalent lens.

Compared with the GR IV we recommend, it has a very slightly lower resolution sensor (24 megapixels), uses an older (but still effective) version of shake reduction, has a slightly different control scheme, and doesn’t include the Cinema Yellow and Cinema Green film modes. However, the overall shooting experience is quite similar.

what’s your price point? did you consider the article’s “disposable film camera” suggestion? the article mentions some high-end compact cameras at $1500 and links their review of point-and-shoots, which includes “The best camera for capturing distant subjects: Panasonic Lumix FZ80D, $435 from Best Buy”

the article does address the “distinct look” part:

If you want noisy or blown-out photos on purpose, plenty of apps can fake it for you.

here’s a photo from their review linked there:

the point is that 2000s digital cameras are even more mediocre (except the high-end kind it mentions at the end that aren’t seeing a revival)

i don’t think the amount we think about what we just did changes depending on the weight that’s in your hand, as you stare off into the scenery and hit the shutter

could you elaborate?

the iPhone has all of that built-in, except actual aperture settings which i’ll grant you. it’s also much cheaper to buy an app once than a digital camera

edit: why does basically the same comment about Android have infinity more upvotes lol

This is what the article says on the “early 2000s aesthetic” point:

If you want noisy or blown-out photos on purpose, plenty of apps can fake it for you.

hmm, i’ve never had problems with background objects in phone pictures.

doesn’t have to be an iPhone. you could also use an Android with OldRoll, or as the article mentions a disposable film camera.