6 ms·
Fujifilm X half: Is it the perfect family camera?
- duxup 1y agoI was curious so I looked at the price, it's absurd. $850, that price point is dead in the water to me. I may as well move up to other Fuji cameras that provide far more for not that much more money. It's a "perfect family camera" if you don't consider the price...
- boromi 1y agoThe price is crazy for the sensor size.
- brcmthrowaway 1y agoCrazy good or bad?
- mynameisvlad 1y agoThe article's author didn't like the quality of the photos, so seemingly crazy bad.
- moolcool 1y agoThe X Half's selling point is all of it's software and hardware gimmicks. Strictly going by the numbers, you really aren't getting much camera for the money.
- stronglikedan 1y agocrazy by itself is always bad. crazy good is a different thing that was added later
- xboxnolifes 1y agoNot true. There is crazy (interesting), crazy (neutral), and crazy (I don't care).
- kemayo 1y agoA camera that costs as much as a flagship smartphone shouldn't need a "setting expectations" section. Particularly when those expectations are "this is going to take worse pictures and be harder to use than your smartphone"... It might be an okay intro-to-"real"-cameras device, since it's far less huge-and-clunky than an equivalently priced DSLR. But even there the tradeoffs don't look great.
- mbreese 1y agoExactly. Phone cameras have completely absorbed the middle-ground for cameras. You either can find a cheap one where you don't care as much about the quality (for kids, or times when the phone could get damaged). Or you can find expensive ones like this where the fact that it's not a phone is the main feature. Any middle-range point and shoot has been out competed by the the phone you probably already have with you. That leaves the higher end DSLR style camera as the only other market segment for a standalone camera. My kid recently asked about getting a stand alone camera. I found this one, but at that price, they needed to have a really good reason. In the end, I told them to use their phone anyway. “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“
- maxnoe 1y agoAuthor drops that he owns a Leica M11 in a half sentence. Most people who consider prices don't.
- doctorpangloss 1y ago> The first few weeks everything went ok, until we had to copy the photos to their iPads. > [wifi didn’t work] It’s bad that in 2025, digital cameras do not ship with a way to automatically upload to Apple and Google’s photo libraries, for free, and clearing the local storage as images and videos get uploaded.
- khalladay 1y agoyou expect digital cameras to provide cellular internet access for free?
- boredatoms 1y agoIt could be done over wifi But id really prefer Airdrop
- ginko 1y agoUnironically why not? With how much high-end cameras cost, adding a single-purpose data-plan on top can't be _that_ expensive.
- dewey 1y agoThe battery life of a camera doing basically constant uploads of > 10 MB images over cellular, potentially even in bad reception areas will be awful. It seems much more sensible to just offer a good wifi experience. Kindles offering global reception back in the days for downloading a few kb of ebooks every few weeks are a very different game.
- chamsom 1y agoAccording to this essay, the options for his kids are a $50 toy "camera" and an $850 niche camera possibly targeted at people who usually own the $2,000 line of the same brand. Surely there's something in between? I can't help but wonder if this is a purchase for himself.
- giraffe_lady 1y agoPhotography nerds rarely bring this up but pretty obviously the best camera for kids is an old smartphone. A 2020-era iphone has a better sensor and is cheaper than this thing, assuming they don't already have one around. Photo transfer problem is solved, and the interface is already familiar to kids for better or worse.
- Someone1234 1y agoThat's what we did. Most "kids cameras" sold today just use cheap webcam sensors (e.g. 1 MP, low dynamic range) that are sold for excessively high prices. They have few physical controls, no viewfinder, and are bulky. Instead, why not grab a used iPhone SE, the camera sensor is still fantastic, and it will likely cost you less than most kids cameras. Remove everything except the Camera App, leave it in Airplane mode, and it will last roughly two days on a single charge (over a week idle). PS - You can find deals on used cellphones by looking for "network locked" ones, since you won't be putting a SIM in it anyway.
- addaon 1y agoThere’s also the last-gen iPod Touch, which is getting a bit long in the tooth but as a cell-phone-without-a-cell-radio is nearly perfect for this application, and is an incredibly nice form factor.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Karrot_Kream 1y agoFolks who are into photography and want to introduce it to their family/kids want to gently introduce the skills of photography while enabling their interest in taking pictures. Smartphones are great at just "taking pictures" but don't offer a lot of creative input. Table stakes like depth-of-field and color balance are either impossible to configure or very difficult on a smartphone. Controlling exposure is very difficult as most smartphones try to just aim for neutral exposure. Software can change exposure settings, and on Android I use a paid camera app that gives me control of shutter speed and ISO to control exposure. But you're correct that if picture quality and ease of use are the main points of contention, a used iPhone or used Pixel phone is probably all you need to get sharp pictures and decent auto-HDR. That's not to say that an $850 Fuji body is the only way forward. I'd probably buy a younger kid a used point-and-shoot and buy an older kid one of those cheaper compacts. That Fuji body is almost as expensive as a real mirrorless that I shoot with for paid work.
- grouchomarx 1y agoignoring the silly locked vertical aspect ratio, the samples shots are awful. The clipped highlights in the left corner or first picture look worse than an iPhone's. Assume that's Fuji's poorly-applied film emulation making the picture of the running track look muddy and terrible
- dsego 1y agoI doubt that it does any advanced HDR stuff like modern phones do so it's going to clip unless exposure is controlled. It's a shame that in this day and age camera companies can't achieve as great instant results as modern phones even though they have much larger sensors and better optics.
- lokl 1y agoUsed cameras and lenses can offer tremendous value.
- yazantapuz 1y agoThis. My humble setup is a Sony a100 with some good old Minolta lenses.
- CobaltFire 1y agoMy first SLR was an A100. Fond memories, I carried that camera all over the world for 6 years.
- jcynix 1y agoExactly. And the "sensor size myth" is nothing a kid should (or would) care about. There are some very good YouTube channels talking about micro four thirds cameras, which are still a good choice, especially when used as a camera to carry every day. Disclaimer, own and use full frame, APS-C, and even Ixus and Powershot cameras which all can produce decent images if one knows how and when to use them. Oh, smartphone, of course.
- alistairSH 1y agoYep, an online acquaintance gifted me an Olympus 35 RC he hadn’t touched in decades. My 35 DC was <$200 last year. My E-M5ii was <$500 years ago. Yeah, the first two are 35mm film, but they’re phenomenal cameras within the scope of what they are (fixed lens rangefinders - basically the 1970s version of today’s Fuji X100). The E-M5 hasn’t let me down, and the latest models from OM don’t offer enough to make me upgrade (and I have little desire to switch mounts).
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI'm more excited about their "medium format" digital cameras. Yeah, okay, $4K, but I've been pining for larger CCD's and Fuji are going there.
- buildbot 1y agoNitpick, technically they are CMOS, not CCD sensors ;) A modern CCD camera would be neat though
- analog31 1y agoWhat do you prefer about CCD? Note where I'm coming from, not a photographer but a user of scientific image sensors.
- buildbot 1y agoNothing of technical merit haha. It’s a bit like vinyl vs CD for me, the analog component is cool. I also like the idea of swappable ADCs, not that any camera has actually done that.
- lamp_book 1y agoPersonally I think an updated camcorder would be incredible. CCD with global shutter and in a pocketable format with modern stabilization, a video analog to the rx100. Way too niche though.
- diamondtin 1y agotbh, Camp Snap sounds like the best choice for this use case. It's cheap, with long battery life, a real viewfinder and decoration-friendly for kids.
- drcongo 1y agoI'd never heard of these, they're very pretty. What's the image quality like?
- naet 1y agoI actually have a ton of toy cameras and I love them, so I bet I would love that Fuji too. It's right up my alley in terms of what I like: something a little silly and fun that is easily portable and can take pictures. The only thing is price is way too high for what it is. As much fun as I would have with it, $800 is too much for what it is. And that is definitely too high for something you're handing to your kids. Anyone with kids knows that kids tend to break things or lose things pretty frequently. I have a "camp snap" camera that costs something like $50 (was even less when I bought it) and operates similar to the Fuji in that it's one button to take a picture, no screen so you don't see it until later. Yeah, the quality isn't as high as your $10,000 body only Leica M11... but as it says here "the sensor is too small, but the kids didn’t care". I also have a thermal print kids camera that my two year old son loves to carry around, although he more or less just snaps random photos of the ground and doesn't point it at anything. It's a blast for me to take out with friends sometimes too, since the cost of receipt paper makes it maybe two cents for an instant printed photo with a nice black and white dithered look. The battery does go pretty quick when the printer is on but the camera was less than $20. For a more adult camera, you can get a decent something used for maybe $200 that will take fairly high quality photos (much better than the Fuji in question).
- thejarren 1y agoJust a word of warning, thermal printer paper has dangerous levels of BPA.
- naet 1y agoI have heard that so I buy a BPA free one. Not 100% sure it is better but it claims to be. The one I get is actually a little large for the camera so I take a minute to unroll half of it and split it into two rolls that will actually fit inside.
- thejarren 1y agoThat’s great to hear, definitely worth the effort for the kids.
- rfwhyte 1y agoNo, it's a stupid, overpriced, gimmick camera designed to part fools and clout chasers from their money.
- smugglerFlynn 1y agoI think what most replies miss is the emphasis this article makes on the experience, not the pricing. There might be whole new market in between X-half, toy cameras and iPhones. Try shooting anything except your phone, and you will drown in ISO settings, different photography modes, and dealing with sloppy "effects" if you want to adjust any colors in-camera. Experience just is not there. If what author is describing hits home for more families, and someone can make the same package for quarter of the price, it could be an instant hit. Now it is just an empty niche with a single [and arguably overpriced] solution in it.
- LeoPanthera 1y agoI don't know about "family", but those looking for a camera for kids should consider an old iPhone with "assistive access" turned on. This is what the Camera app looks like in that mode: https://support.apple.com/guide/assistive-access-iphone/camera-dev7b42b41aa/ios https://support.apple.com/guide/assistive-access-iphone/came... Assistive access is an amazing mode for kids and adults with accessibility problems and I'm constantly surprised that Apple doesn't promote it more.
- MarkusWandel 1y agoMy own kids are far from neurotypical, but I imagine this is universal: Their preferred photo taking device is any kind of old smartphone or tablet. Nothing can beat the huge viewfinder and frankly, the ease of use. And that's not "monkey see, monkey do" either. Daddy still uses real cameras. This is their own, natural preference.
- kylehotchkiss 1y agoIt's so cute. I love the touch of analog on the rear display. I have a XPro3 myself, which was another line they tried these analog features on, and it has been a wonderful camera! If I had to upgrade, the X-E5 is the only other model that appeals to me for now. Also: iPhone cameras don't seem like they're ever going to replace a hard camera for me. They can take incredibly photos, but the processing is just so HDR heavy and approaching Canon's sterile level of accuracy, they don't have the character I want in photos I'd print and display around my home.
- neepi 1y agoYeah that. Phones are awful. I have an iPhone 15 Pro which is supposed to be quite good. It's not. I got so fed up with it I dug out my now ancient Nikon D3100 and took that around for a few days. Suprisingly it still works fine. It was incredibly better than the iPhone is which was painful. So I bought a new Nikon Z50ii mirrorless which is the indirect successor. Doubt I'll use a phone for anything again other than utility photography. As for this thing in the article, urgh. Old cameras were designed badly and had poor ergonomics because of mechanical constraints. Why do we keep copying shitty old designs?!?
- b0a04gl 1y ago[dead]
- incomingpain 1y ago>It certainly doesn’t justify a price tag of $850. For that price you can get a cellphone with 200megapixels. That uses a ton of magic protocols that arent well explained to produce better pictures than any handheld.
- CobaltFire 1y agoEveryone here keeps touting an old phone, and I have to heatedly disagree. But a Kodak Pixpro FZ55 or FZ45. Brand new for $130 or less, beats even the best smartphones, and are Japan's top selling cameras for a reason.
- tuatoru 1y agoI disagree as well. One of those instant print cameras (and a limited budget) is probably best for teaching people to see, which is the core skill in photography. The pain of having to pay for refills is a major part of that learning experience.
- chris_wot 1y agoI'd love a lower cost camera that can do geotagging.
- duffyjp 1y agoI have a Sony DSC-TX100V that does GPS tagging. When I first got it in 2011 or so it was vastly superior in every way to phone cameras. Most of the photos and videos of my first kid were taken with this camera. I liked it so much that when it broke I bought another one. I just checked eBay and they're going for 2x what I paid for my replacement a few years ago. I bet a seller would take a more modest Best Offer though, there are a ton of listings.
- jackvalentine 1y agoThe perfect family camera is a OM System TG-7 tough camera - waterproof, crushproof, drop proof and not excessively expensive. I have no qualms giving kids from 2+ this camera to wander around shooting with.
- TheJoeMan 1y agoI have the Olympus-brand TG-6, and absolutely love it. Just got back from a tropical vacation and had no worries about shooting at the beach.
- curtisszmania 1y ago[dead]
- culebron21 1y agoApart from noting that this costs $800+, I think serious camera won't work for kids of any age. Under 8, they just want anything and may break things by curiously pressing everything. At ~10 they may want to just take pictures, not bother with the tuning at all. By ~18, sure they go into details and want some perfection. But they'll decide for themselves what they need. To let them try and see if they like photography, anything that doesn't break will work. I bought an old (~40 years) used film camera ( https://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Zenit-E-360deg.html https://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Zenit-E-360deg.html ), overpriced at $10. A 36 Kodak film roll costs more. It takes time to end the roll and carry it to a photostudio. But it has a lot of charm - sometime it applies overexposure filters on the edges, sometimes I miss the focus. Blur is plenty, because the lens has low light power. Plenty of grain and yellowish hue. I let the kids play with it when empty.