I’ve just done some more reading about the X half. Some interesting points:
Diptychs: "adjust the dividing line’s color and size " - It doesn’t sound like you can remove the dividing line, so panos are probably not possible. I feel they missed a trick here, although I think they deliberately didn’t want it to be an enthusiast/pro camera
“3:4 vertical framing… a compositional style set to become the new standard” - I wonder if it will inevitably become the new standard, or whether users will ultimately migrate to a more traditional landscape orientation because of computer screens and TVs, and because trends inevitably change.
Film camera mode - This mode turns off the LCD so you can’t preview your images taken. You select a film simulation, then choose how many exposures in your film roll. You then take pictures and advance the film lever just like in the old days, only seeing your images when your roll is full and you “develop” it. I think this is a really cool idea. The only weird thing I saw in the video was that the lowest number of exposures seems to be 36. Why not 24??
“Light Leak” and “Expired Film” filters - hahaha! It’s so funny this is now a creative style. I used to be mad when finding these issues in my prints. Nostalgia is a funny thing.
Overall, I think it sounds like a really fun camera. My main issue with it is that it’s so heavily targeted at a specific generation / user type that it’s missing features that I would want, such as RAW and the option to shoot panos with the vertical orientation. I appreciate that the designers have a specific vision, and that going too “hybrid” can dilute that vision, but from a personal POV, it’s a shame when so many cool features I want are spread out over multiple models, but no one model incorporates them all.
Yeah, not having RAW seems a bit strange. It seems like there would be enough people who are interested in the fun-fake-film aspect but also might want to use it as an everyday carry. Maybe RAW would stress the processor?
Provokingly stupid. No raw and the film simulations look rather crap in the samples I’ve seen. Bet it will sell well.
It’s small, but then you have to add a lens and it’s no longer small. The XF 27 mm is nice, but APS-C needs at least f/2 to satisfy my control over DOF. An X100 VI seems like the wiser choice if you want a (somewhat) compact camera.
They’ve said nothing about a 43 mm “X”-version yet. 28 mm looks smart phoney these days. Again, I find that a f/2.8 on APS-C offers too little control over DOF for my taste. I still have my GR1V (that I bought new). It has a viewfinder and f/2.8 on full frame…
So, none of these appeal to me (even though I love compact cameras).
Don’t think I’ll ever sell my EOS M200 with the 22 mm f/2 lens. It was less than half the price of the X-Half, new. No film simulations, but shoots raw.
Can you not just move nearer?
But seriously, are you mostly a portrait photographer or another specialized genre? I can’t imagine it being a big deal for landscape, street or general purpose photography, but that’s just me. I shoot mostly between F4 and F8, occasionally going down to F2.8.
I photograph people doing things. I guess you could it documentary or photo journalism. Me and my friend have concluded that 35 mm f/2 on FF is where things start to shine, but 23 mm f/2 on APS-C is acceptable. I’m lusting for the 35 mm f/0.95 Laowa for full body environmental portraits. The lack of Exif is kind of off putting though.
About the gr. I think the resolution is fine for the type of camera it is. It’s the correct decision to stay around the 24mp. Hardly populist though, may sell more with a resolution bump. But then again it would undermine the brand to make decision that sacrifice staying true to the concept for short term sales.
I’m a 40mm sceptic for the GR. I just think 40mm needs a different camera with viewfinder and more stable handling. A 21mm though. That would be great.
That Fuji half thingIo just can’t believe. They’re doing the Pentax 17 withouth the main draw which is film? Bandwagoning much?
The PetaPixel review points out that the flash is LED so the Fuji Half won’t be able to replicate the harsh digicam on-camera flash house party look that’s apparently “brat” <how do you do, fellow kids.gif>
Wow, so I really could just post my old uni photos and they would all be considered works of art now. Unfortunately, I removed all the red eye many years ago.
This is probably intentional. From the hardware, it looks like a capable camera (given the sensor size), so if it was not crippled intentionally it would be the perfect EDC for people currently buying more their expensive cameras.
I’m wondering how much juice there is left in the flash trend. It’s been the absolute default in more edgy fashion and lifestyle content for sooo very long now.
It must be more than 15 years? Hmm since is been that long perhaps its here to stay.
About the Fuji X-Half. I read a pre-review yesterday on Amateur Photographer and for the first time in many, many years I had that well-known feeling “I want that camera!”. It’s small and it’s beautiful and you don’t have to be very rich to buy one.
I shoot film as well, one of my favorite cameras is the Agfa Paramat, from about 1965. That’s a half-frame camera, meaning the viewfinder shows a vertical image, like the Fuji. The Paramat has a fixed lens as well, and there’s no raw aboard. Image quality isn’t fantastic – but very charming (or call it retro or vintage).
After reading the review I thought, OK, so Fuji has made a kind of digital variant of my Agfa Paramat. A simple camera without high-end specs, just made to have fun taking photographs. I love that approach.
Kudos to the Fuji engineers who invented once again a non-conventional camera, or call it a “strange” camera. Did I say I want that thing?
Some years ago, I was bought a copy of Martin Parrs’s The Non-Conformists by a friend who lived in the area covered by the book. It was even signed by Parr.
For me, the difference is that Parr is a master photographer who gets to the essence of his subjects, snapshots rather than snaps.
That’s how I came across that site, searching for Wolfgang Tillmans, who was taking those kind of pics of Kate Moss or whoever back in the early 90s. I think even he avoided red eye, though, which maybe suggests we’ve entered the decadence phase.
By chance I went to see I Am Martin Parr at the Edinburgh Photography Society last night, more because I hadn’t been to the place before than because I wanted to see the film. It definitely knows its audience of Parr fans and is straight forward hagiography. (One talking head: ‘While other photographers were out covering wars or famine, he was being a soldier with his work’ - or words to that effect). I’d say about a third of it is taken up by associates saying he’s not cynical or taking the pish out of working class people, which was protesting a bit too much. I didn’t really understand why they couldn’t have at least one critical voice or just admit that it’s possible to be a skilled producer of striking, even amazing, images that at the same time appeal to his gallery going and photobook owning (I own several) audience’s innate prejudices even as they might squirm at that prospect. There was a lot of stuff about him being a lovely guy and liking his subjects and I don’t doubt that’s true but that’s hardly the point when you ignore how the works actually operate in the real world. Art galleries can be places of status and snobbery, not just transcendence. Why not just say it?
I’m lusting for the 35 mm f/0.95 Laowa for full body environmental portraits. The lack of Exif is kind of off putting though.
Image quality isn’t fantastic – but very charming (or call it retro or vintage).