First of all, yes, now I shoot a bit more digital because of this!
And this post is not (yet) about the technical review of this camera, which I might (or might not) do in the future. This article is more about my reflection handling the camera, and sharing my opinions in response to the thoughts and opinions people on the internet have.
Pretty sure that for people who had seen my work, me getting this camera isn’t a surprise. I even got some people sending me links and reviews of this camera around its launch date, saying that this is exactly the camera for me: An embodiment of Tiny Frame (or tiny sensor) spirit. I was still sceptical at first, of course. I did read through all the initial reviews, thoughts, and finally got my hands on this to try it out. And after eventually bringing this camera more often that I thought I will, I agree: This fits me.
Ritchie Roesch from Fuji X Weekly actually made the comparison of the X-Half with the Pentax Auto 110, which I 100% can resonate with.
I remember when the first wave of reviews and thoughts came out, not everyone gets it. I also can’t help but notice how all the loudest of the early complaints about this camera come from the same “serious photographer / hobbyists”, “youtube reviewers”, or “camera tech enthusiasts” acting like any new camera release that doesn’t satisfy their needs and egos is somehow a mistake. Especially if it comes from a major manufacturer like Fujifilm. The comments revolves around as if these companies owe it to their segment alone to keep churning out spec-monster cameras.
First, I might want to rant a bit about some of the hate arguments directed towards this camera.
The "not-serious-enough" camera argument
There’s a narrow view in so much of these “serious” critiques, as if photography only matters when it’s tied to a paycheck or technical perfection. It’s like they’re all stuck in a never-ending pissing contest, who can wave their “serious gear” around the hardest. They’ll say stuff like, “If it’s 1-inch and doesn’t shoot RAW, it’s just a toy.” Like the world will suddenly stop spinning if you post a photo taken with something that doesn’t cost two months’ rent.
But I realized that the world of photography is bigger than that. It’s as much about play, discovery, and capturing fleeting, imperfect moments as it is about pixel counts or dynamic range. Not every new camera has to fit into the mold of a pro’s workflow or have the “serious photographer’s seal of approval” to deserve a place on the shelf, or in your heart.
The "far-from-pixelpeep-perfection" argument
Some people seem to forget that most of the magic in photography doesn’t happen in the numbers. It happens in the small moments you decide to keep, the colors you see and love, the feeling that pulls you to press the shutter. If a new camera can bring that out of you (even if it doesn’t top any DXO chart!) then it has already earned its place.
I don’t think I need to defend its technical specification either (the 1-inch sensor, JPG only, etc.). Honestly, those specs are already better put to use actually shooting rather than fueling endless online debates and technical masturbation. You know the kind where someone’s eyes glaze over and they start moaning about “full-frame bokeh,” “RAW flexibility,” or “edge-to-edge sharpness,” like those buzzwords alone are enough to make them come.
They’ll sit there and circle-jerk to the promise of perfect sensors and dynamic range charts, as if photography itself is some sort of tech porn only for the most pixel-obsessed. But that’s just it: might be the case they’re too busy getting off on numbers to ever make a real picture worth keeping. 🤷♂️Idk.
The "not-worth-its-pricetag" argument
Finally when these hobbyists and “gear value ctitics” look past the technical limitation of the camera, they often love to talk about bang for buck, features per euro, and what else you could buy for that same money. They’re stuck in the idea that value only exists in the spec sheet. If it doesn’t fit the above two definitions, it doesn’t worth the current price tag.
Comparisons then flood their arguments. Advices on whether you should get a secondhand X, or get the other compact Y from brand Z, simply because they believe it fits better with the value that they believe in.
I think, value is also about what a tool makes you feel and how it pushes you to create something you wouldn’t have otherwise. I didn’t buy this camera to compare it against an used X100F or a used X-E4. I bought it because it offered me a chance to experience shooting differently, complete with the small footprint of a camera, shoots in vertical orientation, and actually WITH the JPG-only limitation. Some people forget that this camera is still powerful to create a body of work that wouldn’t exist if I was busy worrying about pixel pitch and sensor size. The same reason I shoot 110 despite the 35mm and 120 revival.
Giving out my first point of view here, I think this is the real “value for money”: a tool that works personally for me, have USB-C charging so I can share it with my phone, and invites me to be present and spontaneous without comparing myself to the next photographer over. If it brings me joy and keeps me curious, that’s worth the price alone.
*A side note: How much of a price point you're willing to spend for an emotional appeal?
Another thing I'd like to highlight here: Let’s not pretend we don’t all see the irony. Leica charges 9,000 euros for a camera that’s more about “feel” and “heritage” than any measurable improvement over Canon, Nikon, or Fuji. And yet these same critics worship Leica for the magic they can’t explain, prove, nor justify, while trashing this camera for doing the same thing at a tenth of the price.
And also, let’s be real: 80 to 90 percent of larger-than-the-billionaire’s-wedding-budget commercial work out there isn’t even shot on a Leica, yet these same folks who think 9,000 euro Leicas are sacred relics suddenly clutch their balls over an 800 euro Fuji because it dares to be fun as a daily camera.
The hypocrisy is just too easy to spot. They’ll go on about the Leica “soul,” the glow of its haze-and-separation-laden secondhand Summicron lenses, the tactile pleasure of turning that brass dial, and the microcontrast details invisible in the screen they call the “Leica look”. But when Fuji makes something playful and charming, something that also prioritizes feel over feature, they suddenly decide it’s not worth it for everyone.
My reasons for liking this camera
I think this camera has exactly the appeal for me. It feels like homecoming. Shooting tiny negatives for me has been a living proof that image size isn't everything. Small formats taught me how to let go of pixel obsession and lean into the joys of taking pictures alone.
Pragmatically speaking, I don’t look at the appeal of this camera in isolation. I position this camera along with my other collection that I already have. If I don’t have my film cameras with me, or my other digital cameras that I already use on a daily basis, getting the X-Half might not be the right decision. I might get other things. Something more versatile, something a bit bigger but better sensors, etc.
But all the feature that this camera has, complements the things that my other stuff doesn’t have. I think this is why I decided to get this camera instead of other 1-inch compacts. Simply because the other 1-inch compacts, no matter how better they perform, just feels redundant to the other things I already have.
Lots of the critics coming from the camera also assumes a point-of-view of someone considering to get this as the ONLY camera they will ever need, and then putting their perspective saying it’s not for them.
But more often than not, they forget the most important question: Does it fit YOU?
Maybe you’re not a photographer, but want a fun holiday camera. Maybe you have a budget for a no-hassle camera that is essentially a minimalist setup and you don’t have a lightroom subscription to edit (or not thinking about editing at all). Maybe you don’t need RAW files because you don’t want to deal with it.
The quirkiness of this camera is indeed positioned towards a certain somebody out there. And I can just say that whoever those somebodies are, I resonate with them. But I totally get it if it doesn’t pique the interest of people who made a living reviewing gears on Youtube and social media.
I didn’t buy this to compare files or pixel-peep. I bought it to make frames that don’t have to compete with the heavily edited RAW files of those self-styled pixel gods with their gatekept Lightroom presets. And by using this, I already have the feeling that I piss some of these people off, by just having the most fun shooting this, making pictures and frames only my perspective will capture.
And I feel that’s okay.
But yeah, lastly, I'm just gonna say let the film-pros or the pixel gods do what they want. I’m gonna have fun with this. And if Fuji sells a boatload of these little cameras, even better. Maybe that’s the best proof yet that photography is bigger than the snobbery of specs and workflow charts, but I honestly don’t care anyway.
Hopefully that shows there’s still room in this world for a camera that’s all about joy.
Would this replace my 110 arsenal? I don’t think so. More like accompany my 110 collection. I mean, it still fits inside my daily carry bag anyway!
TL;DR: why the Fujifilm X-Half for me? It's for being in a niche that I'm comfortable in. A modern take on Tiny Frames for the big world. Appreciating the fact that all the weird design decisions that the company put, in some ways, were built specifically for me…
P.S. But I AM feeling pissed off that this thing doesn't have a hot-shoe. Like, wtf Fujifilm? Like W.T.A.F? Can’t really say all good and jolly about this thing, right?
Great colors, Fuji knows how to do it