[HN Gopher] Fujifilm X half: Is it the perfect family camera?
___________________________________________________________________
Fujifilm X half: Is it the perfect family camera?
Author : farslan
Score : 36 points
Date : 2025-06-14 13:01 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arslan.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (arslan.io)
| duxup wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| The price is crazy for the sensor size.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Crazy good or bad?
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| The article's author didn't like the quality of the photos,
| so seemingly crazy bad.
| moolcool wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| crazy by itself is always bad. crazy good is a different
| thing that was added later
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Not true. There is crazy (interesting), crazy (neutral),
| and crazy (I don't care).
| kemayo wrote:
| A 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 wrote:
| Exactly. 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.
|
| "-\\_(tsu)_/-"
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| you expect digital cameras to provide cellular internet access
| for free?
| boredatoms wrote:
| It could be done over wifi
|
| But id really prefer Airdrop
| ginko wrote:
| Unironically why not? With how much high-end cameras cost,
| adding a single-purpose data-plan on top can't be _that_
| expensive.
| dewey wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| According 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 wrote:
| Photography 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 wrote:
| That'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 wrote:
| There'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.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Folks 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.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Kids point and shoot cameras have none of those features.
| In fact, an old smartphone has far more photographic
| controls than almost any kid's camera will.
|
| If the choice is a $50 Kid's purpose built camera or a
| smartphone, the smartphone is the clear winner. Nobody was
| suggesting an old smartphone over an $800+ Fuji.
|
| You have to have used a kid's point & shoot to understand
| how terrible they truly are. My kids had one which couldn't
| even disable the flash entirely. The sensor is a cheap 1 MP
| out of a webcam. The modes are three: Photo, Video, and
| Review. There is no manual controls, no photographic tools,
| maybe MAYBE you might get some fun filters.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Right I'm not talking about a kid-specific point-and-
| shoot. There's lots of used point-and-shoots on eBay of
| varying quality from the 2000s and there's still some
| compacts being built now, though those tend to be
| marketed toward vlogging.
| majormajor wrote:
| A 2020-era iPhone has good default-setting software. That's
| good for learning about framing.
|
| Beyond framing, though... The sensor is pretty meh; use an
| app like Halide to take fully-unprocessed raw shots (not
| still-Apple-processed Raw out of the camera app) to compare.
| The processing is good, with a caveat - it's good at
| producing a certain look, but there's limited ability to go
| beyond that with the default software.
|
| Still, old iPhone + Halide will let you learn a decent bit
| about exposure and shutter speed and ISO. Not being able to
| control aperture is gonna be your biggest drawback in terms
| of learning about photography. But having a sensor that's a
| bit less forgiving than a Fuji one might be good for playing
| with - make the hard decisions about framing instead of just
| assuming everything will always be well-exposed. (I haven't
| used the X-half, but a considerably cheaper used X-whatever
| would be much better than a 2020 iPhone for non-
| computationally-processed shots).
| PaulHoule wrote:
| He says he doesn't collect cameras but instead he sells them.
| My take is that the bottom tranche of cheap cameras is awful
| but that you have a huge selection of used cameras on Ebay, in
| his shoes I would have expected to get something used but good
| for $200 or so.
|
| One of the reasons I go around with two Sonys in my backpack is
| that I can go to an event and take action shots while I put the
| other body with a 90mm lens and have somebody else who doesn't
| know a lot about how to work a mirrorless shoot headshots. On
| the other hand, I do collect weird cameras and you might find I
| have two stereo cameras in my other bag.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Do you let guests shoot the 90mm in full auto mode?
| Personally I've found that the general population has a
| really hard time operating a camera. My partner and I can
| both do photography though I'm more serious about it and we
| frequently travel with cameras. When we want someone else to
| take pictures, even on Auto mode I find others have a hard
| time. If we're in a hurry and want a picture taken by someone
| else we just hand them a phone.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Usually it would be aperture priority (f/2.8) in a
| situation where I know what the light is so I can set the
| ISO and leave it there. I develop with DxO so I am not
| worried about noise or the shutter speed too long but I do
| worry about hitting 1/8000 sec -- so usually it would be a
| situation where the lighting is predictable.
|
| The autofocus can be set in a mode where it will reliably
| lock on the subject's eye. I would demo how you have to be
| a certain distance to get a headshot, since it is a prime
| lens, if they are too far away I don't worry too much
| because modern cameras have a lot of pixels.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| My thoughts exactly.
|
| This is a bizarre article. The elephant in the room is on the
| lower end most mid-range phones will beat a digital camera
| under 300$.
|
| I wouldn't give a kid an expensive camera. Kids drop things. If
| you give Junior an 850$ camera and he loses it that's on you.
|
| Then again, this is HN. Maybe he makes 700k TC per year and
| money is no object. Even then he admits for a few hundred more
| you can get a much more capable Fuji camera.
|
| I purchased a used Fujifilm Fuji X-A5 for around 250$ off eBay,
| and a new XC 15-45 for 120$. It's not the best camera by any
| means, but I'm relatively stress free when using it compared to
| more expensive options.
|
| Truth be told when your starting out you don't really need
| amazing gear. This goes for every hobby.
| Clamchop wrote:
| Price sensitivity re: children and breaking things is going
| to depend on financial situation and intention. This is a
| person that shoots a $10k Leica, so I'm going to guess
| there's more than enough money and a strong intent to share
| an "authentic" photography experience (a camera of
| traditional form) with their kids. The latter appears to be
| this camera's gimmick.
|
| They describe this camera as "cheap" even!
| neepi wrote:
| He should try some of the new ass end mirrorless cameras
| that are designed to be cameras and not fashion
| accessories. That might scare him off his Leica and this
| turd.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Leica is obviously social signalling.
|
| He gets to let us know he REALLY cares about photography.
|
| Photography is ultimately subjective anyway, if he feels
| a 10k camera worth it that's cool.
|
| IMO if your new wait for a sale or buy someone else's
| failed ambitions off eBay. I'm no pro but plenty of very
| capable cameras can be had under 1000$. The lenses are
| the expensive parts
| goblin89 wrote:
| This picks apart image quality from an iPhone 15 Pro Max
| regarding noise and usable dynamic range:
| https://youtu.be/bSm3LXNF7pI?feature=shared&t=1360
|
| For anything more than basic software-processed output and
| utility snaps or selfies, this high-end phone loses pretty
| terribly to an average hybrid consumer camera.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| What's the net output for the majority of photos?
|
| Probably a social media post at best. I don't think most
| viewers are going to be that critical. The best camera is
| always the one you have on you .
| jcynix wrote:
| For kids, I'd buy a small used micro four thirds camera with a
| pancake lens. Cheaper and later expandable if they enjoy taking
| pictures.
|
| Or, if it needs to be a zoomable lens, I'd look for some used
| (but well maintained) Digital Ixus or PowerShot.
|
| With either of these they can learn much more about photography
| than with a toy camera.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I would dare even say the provided examples from the camera are
| objectively worse than what a mid range smartphone could do 5
| years ago with a sensor probably just a tenth of the size. So
| much low light noise, is that lens decorative or what?
| grouchomarx wrote:
| ignoring 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| Nitpick, technically they are CMOS, not CCD sensors ;)
|
| A modern CCD camera would be neat though
| analog31 wrote:
| What do you prefer about CCD?
|
| Note where I'm coming from, not a photographer but a user of
| scientific image sensors.
| lokl wrote:
| Used cameras and lenses can offer tremendous value.
| yazantapuz wrote:
| This. My humble setup is a Sony a100 with some good old Minolta
| lenses.
| jcynix wrote:
| Exactly. 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.
| diamondtin wrote:
| tbh, 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 wrote:
| I'd never heard of these, they're very pretty. What's the image
| quality like?
| naet wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| Just a word of warning, thermal printer paper has dangerous
| levels of BPA.
| naet wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| That's great to hear, definitely worth the effort for the
| kids.
| criddell wrote:
| Is that actually true? There are millions of cashiers in the
| US who handle receipts all day. Is the BPA exposure causing
| problems for them?
| thejarren wrote:
| Yes it is, a few businesses such as Walgreens are moving to
| replace it over the next few years.
|
| https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-
| in-...
|
| https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-
| in-...
|
| https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/bpa-and-bps-
| in-...
| rfwhyte wrote:
| No, it's a stupid, overpriced, gimmick camera designed to part
| fools and clout chasers from their money.
| smugglerFlynn wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| I 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/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 wrote:
| My 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 wrote:
| It'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 wrote:
| Yeah 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 wrote:
| had a moment reading this. reminded me of that old yashica
| electro my dad used to shoot on. no burst or preview, only the
| frame. somehow we ended up with better photos then.
|
| this x half not spec-heavy or for gear forums. just... fun. the
| kind you sling on your shoulder, snap stupid faces, print them
| later and realise they mattered
|
| jpeg-only and all that? honestly fine. if you're worried about
| dynamic range on your kid's birthday, you're doing it wrong
|
| hope more companies lean into this direction. imperfect and
| honest and cool
| incomingpain wrote:
| >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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-17 23:00 UTC)