Half frame digital: the Fujifilm X-HF1?

Disappointed_Horse said:
It is pretty ridiculous. If you're going to go to that much trouble to pretend you're shooting film, I don't understand why you wouldn't just buy a film camera and actually shoot film.
Click to expand...
Disappointed_Horse said:
nothing makes me more disinclined to watch a YouTube video than a photo of the host staring at a new camera with a look of slack-jawed amazement.
Click to expand...

I bluntly said to myself "What the Fuji" and as a film shooter it's deceiving and even mocking.

No, my sentiment is not that hard, but I am in a film user..
Seing the barely available Fujichrome be almost the sole Japan made Fuji film, barely around these days, together with perhaps some 35mm C41 very very localised to Asia.
Fuji, you come with this simulation of a camera; and cannot have some general use ISO 400 C41 in the common film formats?!

As a photographer I'd take an updated 1" compact with a wide to short tele bright zoom; Sony RX100, Canon G7X, etc. but Fuji made some interesting compacts like the X70.

Agree it can be fun, I am grown in the digital age but with a foot in the film side. Not half the price, and not fun without (almost) any actual Fuji films available (in 120)!
 
DPP is still best and unbiased source.
I look at images samples from this fujiNofilm&half. Samsung phone i have for free from my place of work seems to have same IQ. But I could also type from it as I did here.
 
helen.HH said:
Silly gurl….. WANTS !!!
Pure fun ~
Click to expand...
I hear ya Helen.

For the last six months I've been taking an Instax mini Link 3 and my iPhone with me when I bring my digital camera to family gatherings. If I get a nice shot of family members, I transfer the shot to my iPhone, then print it via the Instax printer and give them out. It's a bit of a clunky process, and if Fuji could streamline that with just their X-half camera straight to the printer, that would be cool.

Best,
-Tim

PS: And maybe that is what FujiFilm is intending with this camera, as it only shoots jpg, and the Instax mini Link 3 only prints jpg. I guess their workflow would be, shoot with the X-half, transfer to their phone app, manipulate the image as you see fit, and then dump to the Instax printer.
 
Well, There You Go!

Just looked to see if there was info about this camera on the B&H website, and found the video below:



Turns out the whole X-half directly to Instax mini Link 3 is exactly what FujiFilm intended with this camera. You don't need the smart phone to interface the two (watch to the end of the video).

Best,
-Tim
 
Disappointed_Horse said:
It is pretty ridiculous. If you're going to go to that much trouble to pretend you're shooting film, I don't understand why you wouldn't just buy a film camera and actually shoot film.

At what point does digital photography turn into a video game about photography?
Click to expand...
With Fuji discontinuing a bunch of the films stings a lot.
 
Despite all the naysaying, I can see the meme for this camera. It's much like my Olympus Stylus Infinity but with the option of controlling the aperture and focus should I choose to, minus the chore or expense of developing the film. Or like a Polaroid SX-70 if you pair it with a mini Instax printer.

Hopefully it has a decent lens; Fuji usually does that well. I just wish it was $450 rather than $850.

G

-- BTW: I've considered a Fuji Instax Wide EVO too. Just not 100% convinced, like with this one, but it's about half the price.
 
Last edited:
Timmyjoe said:
Well, There You Go!

Just looked to see if there was info about this camera on the B&H website, and found the video below:



Turns out the whole X-half directly to Instax mini Link 3 is exactly what FujiFilm intended with this camera. You don't need the smart phone to interface the two (watch to the end of the video).

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...


That makes the camera make more sense then. If you're making prints—even Instax prints—then you're not just playing a video game about photography. Of course the Instax Mini EVO does the job of both the X1/2 camera and the Instax printer in one devise for about, if memory serves, $200–$250.

Also, I don't mean to sound demeaning to anyone who may like the idea of this camera. As I said in my first post, it does look like a fun little camera to play around with, I just think the price point is pretty rich what the camera is. I have certainly been known to enjoy silly iPhone camera apps like Hipstamatic, so I'm not immune to the appeal of this sort of thing.
 
The Instax Mini EVO has a 1/5" sensor, compared to the 1" sensor on the X-Half. And I have not used the X-Half yet, but it seems like it's more of a little rangefinder camera, think the Leica CL of old, shrunk down, compared to the Instax Mini EVO, which I have used, which feels like a totally different animal.

I tried a number of the different Instax cameras, and didn't care for any of them, as far as handling and the controls. I do love the Instax mini Link 3 though, as it lets me make Instax Mini prints (something I do like) from images I've taken with my "normal" digital cameras.

Best,
-Tim
 
Disappointed_Horse said:
It is pretty ridiculous. If you're going to go to that much trouble to pretend you're shooting film, I don't understand why you wouldn't just buy a film camera and actually shoot film.

At what point does digital photography turn into a video game about photography?
Click to expand...

I think most photography, film or digital, has always been a game about photography. There are entire subgenres and subcultures based on various self-imposed preferences and restrictions around film stock, focal length, aspect ratios, camera design, location, subject matter, lighting, etc.

IMHO buying a digital camera that simulates a film-like experience is no less valid than a buying a film camera that doesn't have autoexposure and autofocus. In both cases you've chosen to eschew conveniences and artificially limit your options because it makes your own experience more rewarding. It keeps the game fun.
 
bcostin said:
I think most photography, film or digital, has always been a game about photography. There are entire subgenres and subcultures based on various self-imposed preferences and restrictions around film stock, focal length, aspect ratios, camera design, location, subject matter, lighting, etc.

IMHO buying a digital camera that simulates a film-like experience is no less valid than a buying a film camera that doesn't have autoexposure and autofocus. In both cases you've chosen to eschew conveniences and artificially limit your options because it makes your own experience more rewarding. It keeps the game fun.
Click to expand...
Well, I use mostly manual cameras not because they "limit my options" but because they are less likely to get in my way when I'm making photographs. I absolutely hate working around a bazillion automation options that do little to make my photography more 'convenient' or, more importantly, better.

When I want automation, Dr. Land had it right: the SX-70 is a masterpiece. Focus correctly, and tell the camera whether you prefer a little lighter or a little darker ... nothing else to worry about. 🙂

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom