Kodak Charmera: Two-minute review

It took me a while to get my hands on the Kodak Charmera – such is the viral popularity of this $30, 30g keychain digital camera, that it sold out on its release day late last year (with what felt like minimal advertising), and it only came back in stock as I publish this review a month later. Who knows, it might be out of stock again by the time you read these words.

And I can see the appeal – the Charmera is cheap, tiny, retro, it’ll easily fix to your keyring, and it’s an actual working camera with a screen.

What's more, there are six 1980s-inspired colorways, plus a limited edition see-through version, and you don’t know which version you’ll get since it comes in a 'blind box'. That’s got gift idea written all over it.

When I unboxed mine, cue disappointment – the black version with rainbow frontage – the one pictured on the box that appealed to me the least. Still, inside the box, a nice poster, a collector card, and a small charging cable.

I charged the Charmera up and slotted the thumb-sized camera into my pocket where it would live for the following weeks.

The Charmera shoots tiny 1.6 megapixel JPEG photos and HD video (1400 x 1080p at 30fps) through a fixed 35mm f/2.4 lens, has seven photo filters and four animated borders to choose from, stores onto micro SD (which needs to be purchased separately), and has a (predictably) tiny internal battery that is recharged through USB-C.

There’s a tiny 16:9 LCD screen with live view that in practice is even smaller given that images are captured in 4:3, a miniscule LED light that illuminates closeup subjects, and possibly the smallest viewfinder I've ever used, which is novel and in a way works.

Honestly, that’s about all the features and design aspects worth knowing about, but what is the Charmera actually like to use?

Menus are simple enough to navigate; turn the camera on, and you select either photo, video, or set date using the three buttons on the rear, with the playback button doubling as select.

The power button doubles up as a back button, and then there's the shutter button to shoot photos and video. It takes barely a minute to figure this all out.

Everything about the Charmera is tiny: a tiny thumb-sized body, tiny screen, tiny images. And it's actually kind of fun to shoot with...in the moment. I was certainly charmed by the Charmera, and I think many others will be too.

It's when you plug the camera into a computer or hook up the memory card to view any images taken with the Charmera that the warm fuzzy feeling quickly vanishes.

The Charmera's photo quality is about the worst I've seen from a digital camera in my lifetime – and I've been shooting digital since consumers could, when 16MB memory cards existed (yes, megabytes).

With a resolution being a truly retro 1.6MP and a barely existent dynamic range, photos are more impressions than anything else. A collection of pixels, pieced together.

And that's me commenting on the regular color profile. Use any one of the monotone filters, and things get super abstract.

Photos are like one of the novel, abstract filters you get with a decent digital camera. I guess such dated quality could charm some. For me, it screams short-lived novelty; for others, it could be the camera they always have with them.

My own gripes aside, I also think that the Charmera is so small and so distinct, that I'll keep it on me every day for the months to come.

It's a conversation starter. A whimsical capturer of moments (assuming it's tiny battery isn't flat when you pull it out of the pocket – that'll happen).

The Kodak Charmera certainly ain't good quality. But that's hardly the point, is it? This is a cheap, charming retro gift for the photography lover in your life, that should get more use than a foot spa or marmite-scented deodrant (the UK's most unwanted Christmas gift for 2025). That's the hope from me as someone who hates waste.

The Charmera is far from being one of the best compact cameras, even the best cheap compact cameras, but I don't expect that to slow down its sales.

Kodak is killing it right now with multiple best-selling cheap cameras – like the recent Ektar H35N half-frame film camera, and the PixPro C1 – and the Charmera could just be the pick of the pack in terms of concept (not quality). It's a marketing masterstroke. Who knew a keychain camera could be so popular?

Kodak Charmera: price and availability

• Announced in November 2025 and sold out in a day
• Priced at $30 / £30 / AU$54.95

The Kodak Charmera costs $30 / £30 / AU$54.95 for a single 'blind box', or you can buy the whole set of 6 for $180 / £180 to guarantee getting each colorway. There's a 1 in 48 chance of scoring the limited edition transparent version.

Scalpers have been selling the Charmera for extortionate prices, and some retailers have bumped the price a little, but you should be able to pick up the Charmera for its fair, original price through one of the links below.

Kodak Charmera: specs

Should I buy the Kodak Charmera?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

How I tested the Kodak Charmera

• I got the Charmera last year and it's mine to keep
• I've used it sporadically over a couple of months
• I've tried the various color filters and animated borders

I'm not going to dig into technicals of how I've tested this novel point-and-shoot camera. In short, I've rattled off hundreds of photos in good light and bad, played with the various color filters and shot short video clips. Image quality is predictably bad, but short battery life is particularly unfortunate.

First reviewed January 2026

Ricoh GR IV: two-minute review

I'm already a fan of the Ricoh GR series of premium compact cameras, having purchased the GR IIIx several years ago. There really is no other camera this small that can shoot photos that look this good – and that's why I've featured it in my best compact camera and best point-and-shoot camera guides.

My GR III series camera is far from perfect, though. It's prone to damage, its autofocus can be really sluggish at times, and it could do with a built-in flash. I'd also love a tilt screen – oh and poor battery life is another gripe among users.

Despite these limitations I still carry my Ricoh with me most days, but I've been keeping a keen eye out for the arrival of its successor, in the hope it could deliver particular upgrades and become my perfect compact. Well, the Ricoh GR IV is finally here, six years after the GR III, and I've had my hands on it for around three weeks, with the new camera in one pocket and my GR IIIx in the other.

So is the GR IV my dream upgrade? Not quite... but it is a better camera in many other ways. I'm disappointed that the build quality is mostly the same (besides what Ricoh says is better sealing on the new lens), in that it isn't technically weather-sealed and so will need looking after, even though its feels decent in the hand.

On the plus side, I was already happy with the image quality from my GR III, but Ricoh has introduced a new 26MP sensor and refined the lens to further improve quality, while the sensor has improved 5-axis stabilization.

As mentioned, I was hoping for a built-in flash this time around, but the GR IV doesn't have one; ditto a tilt screen. I also wanted much better autofocus performance, but I'm not seeing enough of a difference.

On the flip-side, again, the GR IV delivers some significant upgrades that I didn't see coming: internal storage is bumped up from 2GB to 53GB, there's a new bigger battery with approximately 20% better capacity, and the body is even slimmer, with a refined grip making the camera feel even better in the hand.

You get the picture – the GR IV is a decent upgrade for certain users, but one to skip for others. I for one can't see a good enough reason to splash out, but I understand why others would. And for those who are new to the series and looking for a premium compact, you won't find a better one at this size.

One final, and significant, entry for the 'cons' column is that the list price has been hiked by around 20% over the GR III's, depending on where you live (the GR III originally cost $999 / £899 in 2019). I firmly believe that $1,150 / £1,000 is a much fairer price for the GR IV than $1,500 / £1,200 / AU$2,200.

What has caught my eye, however, is Ricoh announcing that a GR IV Monochrome is in the pipeline, which would be the first black-and-white-only camera in the series. I'm a fan of the black-and-white profiles in these cameras, and I shoot the majority of my pictures in monochrome, so this niche version could well be my next camera purchase.

• 🇬🇧 The Ricoh GR IV costs £1,199 at Park Cameras

Ricoh GR IV: price and availability

• Launched on August 20, 2025
• Announced alongside the new Ricoh GF-2 flash
• Priced at $1,499 / £1,199 / AU$2,199

The Ricoh GR IV was first unveiled in May 2025 and went on sale from August, with a launch price of $1,499 / £1,199 / AU$2,199. That's an approximately 20% mark-up over the GR III, depending on which region you live in.

I wish the GR IV had a built-in flash, but in its absence Ricoh has done the next best thing, launching a new GF-2 flash that sits in the GR IV's hotshoe and is suitably tiny. It wasn't available to me while I was testing the camera, so I'm yet to use it, but it's also compatible with GR III cameras (with reduced funtionality) so I expect I'll be buying one.

Ricoh GR IV: specs

Ricoh GR IV: design

• Slim body and refined grip give a secure and comfortable single-hand hold
• Easily slips into a pocket
• Still no built-in flash or weather sealing
• Internal storage upped from 2GB to 53GB
• Fixed touchscreen can be hard to see in bright light

The GR IV might look largely the same as the GR III, but there are design tweaks to the new camera that add up to improve the overall handling.

Its width and height are essentially the same, meaning the GR IV will still easily slip into a trouser pocket – the same can't be said for the bulkier Fujifilm X100VI. What's new, and seriously impressive, is that Ricoh has slimmed down the GR IV compared to the GR III, while keeping the grip depth the same.

The GR IV immediately felt different in the hand to me, having been so used to the GR III – the slimmer body and refined grip give a secure and comfortable hold with just one hand, however you're holding the camera. It's a tiny design tweak that makes a big difference – I often want to shoot with one hand using my GR III, but to do so comfortably I've had to attach a separate thumb grip.

Ricoh has reverted back to the ± button that was on the GR II, but dropped from the GR III. This can control the likes of exposure compensation, and overall it's a welcome return, even if I found myself tapping the button all too easily.

Three of my top wishes as a GR III user interested in this successor sadly remain elusive – there's no built-in flash, tilt screen, or weather sealing. Those upgrades alone would have had me reaching for my wallet.

A built-in flash would be supremely helpful for portraits at parties – without one, I wouldn't really use the GR IV in such scenarios. Ricoh has, as mentioned, announced the tiny GF-2 external flash, which is an accessory I will absolutely look into purchasing.

I find the fixed touchscreen of my GR III hard to see clearly in bright light, and it doesn't make low-angle shooting easy. A tilt screen would help no end, but sadly this is another potential upgrade that didn't materialize.

However, it's the lack of weather sealing that's the real kicker for me. I've taken my GR III in for minor repairs twice in the years I've had it – cheap repairs for seized buttons, caused by moisture ingress – while the pop-out lens is beginning to struggle on start up. Ricoh says there is better sealing in the new lens, but besides this, build quality is the same. As such, I'd be conscious of the need to look after the GR IV, which is something I don't want to think about with an everyday camera that's in my pocket.

To Ricoh's credit, there are other upgrades. The internal storage has been upped from 2GB to 53GB, and there's a larger-capacity battery inside too, even if this has necessitated a switch from SD card to micro SD, which is a fiddly card slot on the GR IV.

Ricoh GR IV: features and performance

• New 26MP sensor with improved 5-axis stabilization
• Speedier start-up time and longer battery life
• (Unchanged) 1080p video is an afterthought

If you're unfamiliar with the Ricoh GR series of digital compacts, then you'll probably struggle to spot meaningful upgrades in the GR IV over the GR III – and the former camera is six years old now, having been released in 2019.

For those like me that are familiar, however – and I suspect that's many of you reading this review – the headline upgrade is the new 26MP sensor.

Sure, a 2MP bump from 24MP to 26MP is hardly worth mentioning, but the improved 5-axis stabilization certainly is, and in my opinion it's a key improvement. The GR III has less effective 3-axis stabilization.

I was able to shoot handheld images with a shutter speed as slow as one second, and for most shots at half a second, and detail still looked sharp. This offers the potential for creative long-exposure effects and can improve low-light image quality, assuming you don't need to freeze movement. Check out a few long exposure effect images in the gallery above.

The GR IV isn't short of color profiles either. I'm a fan of the hard monotone profile which produces punchy black-and-white images with an infrared photography-like effect (see the punchy sky images in the gallery above). At other times, I was drawn to the cinema color profiles for a gritty effect which suited nighttime images across London. In the gallery of images below, I've used a range of these color profiles.

There's a macro photography setting, which reduces the minimum focus distance and enables proper close up photography. This, as like with GR III cameras, is another string to the GR IV's bow.

Start-up time has been improved too, not that the GR III was a slouch. I had the GR III and GR IV side by side and turned the cameras on at the same time, and the GR IV was ready to go a fraction quicker – it makes a real difference for an everyday camera with which you'll often want to be ready to shoot quickly. If this was a wild west showdown against most other cameras, the GR IV would be busting open the saloon doors and demanding a victory whiskey.

I can't say the same for autofocus performance. Ricoh has improved autofocus speed and reliability from the GR III, but not by much. The AF assist light helps in low-contrast lighting, as do additional focusing modes added to the series via firmware updates in recent years, such as new zone-focusing options, but it would be generous of me to Ricoh to say better autofocus is a reason to upgrade here.

Battery life sees a decent improvement. There's a new larger-capacity unit inside which delivers a 20% bump in shot life. Still, where the GR III has poor battery life at around 200 shots, the GR IV's is only less poor at 240 shots. Personally, though, I think limited battery life is completely forgiveable for such a small camera, and it's impressive that Ricoh has squeezed a better battery into what is actually a fractionally smaller camera.

Overall, there are some decent improvements in the GR IV, depending on how and what you like to shoot.

Should I buy the Ricoh GR IV?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested the Ricoh GR IV

• Park Cameras loaned me the camera for several weeks
• I shot 1,000-plus photos in RAW + JPEG
• I carried the camera every day, using it in a range of scenarios

I used the Ricoh GR IV regularly for around three weeks, with thanks to Park Cameras (UK) for the loan. During this time I took over 1,000 photos, documenting everyday life and of course playing with the various color profiles and creative techniques possible with the GR IV.

I pushed the limit of the camera's stabilization, taking handheld long-exposure photos. I shot photos of the same scenes at different apertures to assess the quality at each setting, and checked for lens distortions.

I noted how many photos I could take with a fully charged battery, and in general I've looked after the camera rather than push it in adverse conditions. I bring several years of experience with the Ricoh GR series into this review, most recently as an owner of the GR IIIx.

First reviewed November 2025

Ricoh GR IV: two-minute review

I'm already a fan of the Ricoh GR series of premium compact cameras, having purchased the GR IIIx several years ago. There really is no other camera this small that can shoot photos that look this good – and that's why I've featured it in my best compact camera and best point-and-shoot camera guides.

My GR III series camera is far from perfect, though. It's prone to damage, its autofocus can be really sluggish at times, and it could do with a built-in flash. I'd also love a tilt screen – oh and poor battery life is another gripe among users.

Despite these limitations I still carry my Ricoh with me most days, but I've been keeping a keen eye out for the arrival of its successor, in the hope it could deliver particular upgrades and become my perfect compact. Well, the Ricoh GR IV is finally here, six years after the GR III, and I've had my hands on it for around three weeks, with the new camera in one pocket and my GR IIIx in the other.

So is the GR IV my dream upgrade? Not quite... but it is a better camera in many other ways. I'm disappointed that the build quality is mostly the same (besides what Ricoh says is better sealing on the new lens), in that it isn't technically weather-sealed and so will need looking after, even though its feels decent in the hand.

On the plus side, I was already happy with the image quality from my GR III, but Ricoh has introduced a new 26MP sensor and refined the lens to further improve quality, while the sensor has improved 5-axis stabilization.

As mentioned, I was hoping for a built-in flash this time around, but the GR IV doesn't have one; ditto a tilt screen. I also wanted much better autofocus performance, but I'm not seeing enough of a difference.

On the flip-side, again, the GR IV delivers some significant upgrades that I didn't see coming: internal storage is bumped up from 2GB to 53GB, there's a new bigger battery with approximately 20% better capacity, and the body is even slimmer, with a refined grip making the camera feel even better in the hand.

You get the picture – the GR IV is a decent upgrade for certain users, but one to skip for others. I for one can't see a good enough reason to splash out, but I understand why others would. And for those who are new to the series and looking for a premium compact, you won't find a better one at this size.

One final, and significant, entry for the 'cons' column is that the list price has been hiked by around 20% over the GR III's, depending on where you live (the GR III originally cost $999 / £899 in 2019). I firmly believe that $1,150 / £1,000 is a much fairer price for the GR IV than $1,500 / £1,200 / AU$2,200.

What has caught my eye, however, is Ricoh announcing that a GR IV Monochrome is in the pipeline, which would be the first black-and-white-only camera in the series. I'm a fan of the black-and-white profiles in these cameras, and I shoot the majority of my pictures in monochrome, so this niche version could well be my next camera purchase.

• 🇬🇧 The Ricoh GR IV costs £1,199 at Park Cameras

Ricoh GR IV: price and availability

• Launched on August 20, 2025
• Announced alongside the new Ricoh GF-2 flash
• Priced at $1,499 / £1,199 / AU$2,199

The Ricoh GR IV was first unveiled in May 2025 and went on sale from August, with a launch price of $1,499 / £1,199 / AU$2,199. That's an approximately 20% mark-up over the GR III, depending on which region you live in.

I wish the GR IV had a built-in flash, but in its absence Ricoh has done the next best thing, launching a new GF-2 flash that sits in the GR IV's hotshoe and is suitably tiny. It wasn't available to me while I was testing the camera, so I'm yet to use it, but it's also compatible with GR III cameras (with reduced funtionality) so I expect I'll be buying one.

Ricoh GR IV: specs

Ricoh GR IV: design

• Slim body and refined grip give a secure and comfortable single-hand hold
• Easily slips into a pocket
• Still no built-in flash or weather sealing
• Internal storage upped from 2GB to 53GB
• Fixed touchscreen can be hard to see in bright light

The GR IV might look largely the same as the GR III, but there are design tweaks to the new camera that add up to improve the overall handling.

Its width and height are essentially the same, meaning the GR IV will still easily slip into a trouser pocket – the same can't be said for the bulkier Fujifilm X100VI. What's new, and seriously impressive, is that Ricoh has slimmed down the GR IV compared to the GR III, while keeping the grip depth the same.

The GR IV immediately felt different in the hand to me, having been so used to the GR III – the slimmer body and refined grip give a secure and comfortable hold with just one hand, however you're holding the camera. It's a tiny design tweak that makes a big difference – I often want to shoot with one hand using my GR III, but to do so comfortably I've had to attach a separate thumb grip.

Ricoh has reverted back to the ± button that was on the GR II, but dropped from the GR III. This can control the likes of exposure compensation, and overall it's a welcome return, even if I found myself tapping the button all too easily.

Three of my top wishes as a GR III user interested in this successor sadly remain elusive – there's no built-in flash, tilt screen, or weather sealing. Those upgrades alone would have had me reaching for my wallet.

A built-in flash would be supremely helpful for portraits at parties – without one, I wouldn't really use the GR IV in such scenarios. Ricoh has, as mentioned, announced the tiny GF-2 external flash, which is an accessory I will absolutely look into purchasing.

I find the fixed touchscreen of my GR III hard to see clearly in bright light, and it doesn't make low-angle shooting easy. A tilt screen would help no end, but sadly this is another potential upgrade that didn't materialize.

However, it's the lack of weather sealing that's the real kicker for me. I've taken my GR III in for minor repairs twice in the years I've had it – cheap repairs for seized buttons, caused by moisture ingress – while the pop-out lens is beginning to struggle on start up. Ricoh says there is better sealing in the new lens, but besides this, build quality is the same. As such, I'd be conscious of the need to look after the GR IV, which is something I don't want to think about with an everyday camera that's in my pocket.

To Ricoh's credit, there are other upgrades. The internal storage has been upped from 2GB to 53GB, and there's a larger-capacity battery inside too, even if this has necessitated a switch from SD card to micro SD, which is a fiddly card slot on the GR IV.

Ricoh GR IV: features and performance

• New 26MP sensor with improved 5-axis stabilization
• Speedier start-up time and longer battery life
• (Unchanged) 1080p video is an afterthought

If you're unfamiliar with the Ricoh GR series of digital compacts, then you'll probably struggle to spot meaningful upgrades in the GR IV over the GR III – and the former camera is six years old now, having been released in 2019.

For those like me that are familiar, however – and I suspect that's many of you reading this review – the headline upgrade is the new 26MP sensor.

Sure, a 2MP bump from 24MP to 26MP is hardly worth mentioning, but the improved 5-axis stabilization certainly is, and in my opinion it's a key improvement. The GR III has less effective 3-axis stabilization.

I was able to shoot handheld images with a shutter speed as slow as one second, and for most shots at half a second, and detail still looked sharp. This offers the potential for creative long-exposure effects and can improve low-light image quality, assuming you don't need to freeze movement. Check out a few long exposure effect images in the gallery above.

The GR IV isn't short of color profiles either. I'm a fan of the hard monotone profile which produces punchy black-and-white images with an infrared photography-like effect (see the punchy sky images in the gallery above). At other times, I was drawn to the cinema color profiles for a gritty effect which suited nighttime images across London. In the gallery of images below, I've used a range of these color profiles.

There's a macro photography setting, which reduces the minimum focus distance and enables proper close up photography. This, as like with GR III cameras, is another string to the GR IV's bow.

Start-up time has been improved too, not that the GR III was a slouch. I had the GR III and GR IV side by side and turned the cameras on at the same time, and the GR IV was ready to go a fraction quicker – it makes a real difference for an everyday camera with which you'll often want to be ready to shoot quickly. If this was a wild west showdown against most other cameras, the GR IV would be busting open the saloon doors and demanding a victory whiskey.

I can't say the same for autofocus performance. Ricoh has improved autofocus speed and reliability from the GR III, but not by much. The AF assist light helps in low-contrast lighting, as do additional focusing modes added to the series via firmware updates in recent years, such as new zone-focusing options, but it would be generous of me to Ricoh to say better autofocus is a reason to upgrade here.

Battery life sees a decent improvement. There's a new larger-capacity unit inside which delivers a 20% bump in shot life. Still, where the GR III has poor battery life at around 200 shots, the GR IV's is only less poor at 240 shots. Personally, though, I think limited battery life is completely forgiveable for such a small camera, and it's impressive that Ricoh has squeezed a better battery into what is actually a fractionally smaller camera.

Overall, there are some decent improvements in the GR IV, depending on how and what you like to shoot.

Should I buy the Ricoh GR IV?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested the Ricoh GR IV

• Park Cameras loaned me the camera for several weeks
• I shot 1,000-plus photos in RAW + JPEG
• I carried the camera every day, using it in a range of scenarios

I used the Ricoh GR IV regularly for around three weeks, with thanks to Park Cameras (UK) for the loan. During this time I took over 1,000 photos, documenting everyday life and of course playing with the various color profiles and creative techniques possible with the GR IV.

I pushed the limit of the camera's stabilization, taking handheld long-exposure photos. I shot photos of the same scenes at different apertures to assess the quality at each setting, and checked for lens distortions.

I noted how many photos I could take with a fully charged battery, and in general I've looked after the camera rather than push it in adverse conditions. I bring several years of experience with the Ricoh GR series into this review, most recently as an owner of the GR IIIx.

First reviewed November 2025

Half-frame cameras have garnered a bit of a cult following – enough for Pentax to make the Pentax 17 half-frame film camera (which we love) and for Fujifilm to make the X half, which is more of a digital ‘tribute’ to half-frame cameras than a faithful replica.

Film cameras have become a big thing among photographers trying to recapture the feel and mood of analog media, and the camera designs that went with it. Check out our guide to the best film cameras to see a long list of all the new film cameras on the market, and some classic oldies that are definitely worth seeking out on the used market. If you're new to all this, we also have a guide to camera film sizes and types.

The basic principle of a half-frame analog camera is that it uses regular 35mm film, but instead of capturing images horizontally using the 24mm height of the film and a horizontal width of 36mm, it captures images vertically, so they're 24mm high and 18mm wide (or 17mm if you allow for the extra gap between the half frames).

You get twice as many shots on the roll as they're roughly half the size – and the camera takes vertical rather than horizontal photos (of course, you can rotate the camera to swap from vertical to horizontal if you need to).

You do get twice as many exposures on a roll of film, which sounds like a cost saving, but then you have to find a lab that will do half -frame prints, and printing will cost more because there are more prints.

But by a strange twist of fate, half-frame cameras are particularly well suited to social sharing because they match the vertical orientation of mobile devices in a way that camera makers of old could never have anticipated.

Back, then, to the Kodak Ektar H35N. This is an improved version of the Ektar H35 we reviewed in 2024, replacing that camera's plastic lens with a glass one. We weren't over-impressed with the Ektar H35 at the time, but since then we've been swept along by a huge surge of interest in analog photography, so maybe this improved point and shoot Kodak deserves a second look.

Where half-frame cameras have so far been a somewhat expensive hipster fad, the Kodak is about as cheap as it’s possible for a camera to get. It’s also extremely crude, and is essentially no more sophisticated then a disposable single-use film camera.

The difference is that you can open the back to load and unload film, and you can swap out the single AAA battery for the flash. If you don’t use the flash, you don’t need the battery.

And in case you’re wondering what kind of exposure system it has and how the focusing works, it doesn’t really have either. It relies on the huge latitude of analog negative films to capture images in daylight ranging from bright sun to heavy overcast, and indoors you simply have to use the flash and stick to close-range subjects. The harsh flash look is really trending right now for its retro vibes, and this little Kodak does it brilliantly.

The focus is fixed. The lens has an aperture of f/11, so it has enough depth of field for distance of 1m and beyond, depending on how much sharpness you expect. This camera is all about the look, not technical precision.

This may not sound like the kind of camera you could be even remotely interested in, but hold on. You do have to shoot in the right kind of light (daylight or with flash), and you do have to trust your film to deal with degrees of overexposure and underexposure which would send a digital sensor into a tailspin. But you adapt surprisingly quickly. It’s a simple camera designed to do a simple job, and it does it brilliantly. If you could even contemplate using an Instax, this is cheaper and gives you much bigger and better prints with all the same character and more.

Bottom line? I started out in film photography and I know the limitations of analog film and its particular charm. The Kodak H35N took me straight back to simpler times and simpler cameras. I thought I would hate it, but I loved it.

Kodak Ektar H35N: price

• $64.99 / £67 (around AU$98)
• Factor in the cost of developing and printing – half-frame is more specialized and expensive

The Kodak Ektar H35N is a cheap camera! Its price is a million miles from the (expensive) sophistication of the Pentax 17 half-frame camera. The Kodak is also very basic. In fact, you can think of it as a bit like a disposable camera that you can re-use. It's available in a variety of colors and styles, and at a typical price of $64.99 / £67 (around AU$100), it’s a cute, inexpensive buy.

It’s crude, but at this price you probably won’t care. Do factor in the cost of developing and printing, though. You’ll need to find a lab that will process film from half-frame cameras, and the cost of prints will double – after all, there are twice as many per roll of film!

Kodak Ektar H35N: specs

Kodak Ektar H35N: design

• Plastic build but looks smart
• Simple controls (well, no controls really)
• No issues with film loading, shooting and rewinding
• Small but effective optical viewfinder

The Ektar H35N might be lightweight plastic, but the front panel has an attractive metallic finish that looks rather smart. Kodak has a knack for making cheap cameras look rather better than they are.

The lens is surrounded by a switch to activate the flash mode. This was extremely stiff on my review sample, so not exactly as convenient as it should be. To one side of the lens there’s another switch for the built in ‘star filter’. Is this useful? Possibly.

On the top, there’s not much to see at all. There’s a big shutter release, a cable release socket for bulb exposures – so you can actually do night shots if you don’t mind estimating how long you need to hold the shutter open for – and there’s also a frame counter to let you know how many shots you’ve taken.

Round the back it’s all semi-matte black plastic. There’s a somewhat stiff and vague switch at the side for opening the back to load and unload film, but you do not want to open the back accidentally, so it’s no bad thing if it is a little fiddly.

Once the film is loaded you use a thumbwheel at the bottom left to advance the film. In standard film camera style, you can’t take a shot until the film is wound on and the shutter is cocked – and once you’ve taken the shot, you have to wind on again to re-cock the shutter. It’s foolproof. And, plastic or not, the film advance and shutter release worked perfectly.

Even film loading is straightforward. I had to pull out just a little more of the film leader to engage properly with the take-up spool, and then I did my usual thing after the back was closed, which is to take up the tension on the rewind crank and check it’s turning as I advance to the first frame. It worked fine.

You know when the film is at the end because you can’t wind on any further, so you press a button in the base to disengage the film transport mechanism, and wind it all back into the film canister with the crank handle.

The Ektar H35N might be cheap, but mine worked fine, with no film jams, no accidental double exposures, and no dramas at all.

Kodak Ektar H35N: performance

• Good picture quality
• Surprisingly tolerant to changing light
• Nice vintage flash look
• Good colors and contrast (I used a good lab)

I started out in film photography before switching to digital right when digital cameras first came in – and there are a few things I'd forgotten about shooting with film.

First, there's nothing quite like opening a pack of prints from the photo lab and looking through them. It doesn’t matter what kind of monitor you have on your desktop – I have a 27-inch 4K BenQ – or what kind of phone or tablet; a digital display is simply not the same as holding a stack of prints in your hand and going through them one by one. Maybe you don’t care – that’s fine – but for me it was a reminder of just how much value simple physical objects can have.

Of course, you can get your digital camera or smartphone images printed too. But they don’t look like this. Digitally-captured images are so technically superior that there’s almost no comparison. By contrast, my images from the Ektar H35N were softer, with crushed shadows and a faint ethereal glow characteristic of analog color negative films. I review photo-editing software as well as cameras, and I haven't yet found a film simulation or plug-in that can give quite the same look.

And here’s the thing. Imperfect and murky as they sometimes are, the photographs from this camera are just like the ones in the photo albums of your mum and dad, your aunts and uncles. The Kodak's images have a kind of connection with these old photos.

Have you noticed that we’ve all got pictures separated by a great digital divide, when digital cameras took over from film? Your digital photos have a clinical ’now-ness’ that separates them from these older analog photos. Does that make sense? The Kodak H35N, for all is cheapness, crudeness and its limitations, shoots in that older style, and fits right in with your analog family archives.

No, I’m not going to shoot with it every day. My photography is digital now. But that doesn’t stop me from appreciating just what this cheap little Kodak does, and what it brings back that perhaps we'd forgotten.

Should you buy the Kodak Ektar H35N?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Also consider

How I tested the Kodak Ektar H35N

• I tested it in different lighting conditions, inside and out
• I checked the flash illumination in low light
• I assessed how well it coped with subjects near the camera
• I also checked that the film transport/rewind worked properly

I took the Kodak H35N on a series of days out and family outings, as well as testing it out in different lighting conditions at home. I used it on bright sunny days, overcast days, the gloom of late afternoon in October and even at dusk with flash.

It’s not like a digital camera where you can check to see what’s worked straight away. Instead, you have to trust in the inherent latitude of color negative film, and a big part of this test was to find out just how many prints I would lose, which makes a difference when you’re paying for developing and printing.

I tested how easy it was to load and unload films – a key point for novice analog users – and the reliability of the film advance/shutter release mechanism. I also tested the in-built flash and even the ‘star filter’, choosing shots with the sun in the frame or showing through trees.

I chose typical ‘snapshot’ subjects that families might shoot, but also the kind of compositions made popular by Lomography and its legions of analog fans. Could you really use a cheap camera like this for this kind of anti-mainstream retro-graphy?

Two-minute review

The Lomography Lomourette is a compact half-frame camera built for the fun of film photography. Lightweight, inexpensive and simple, it strips the analog shooting experience down to its creative essentials. With a fixed f/8 plastic lens, manual focus dial and two-position shutter speed lever, it’s all about finding the joy and beauty in imperfection.

In the hand, it feels every bit a toy camera. The build borders on cheap and there’s little in the way of refinement, with no aperture control or metering. What you’re getting here is a cheerful camera that embraces experimentation. The film advance wheel, for example, is independent of the shutter release, which allows for intentional or accidental double exposures.

Then you’ve got the half-frame format itself. Doubling the image count from 36 to 72, it allows you to squeeze twice the entertainment from a single roll of 35mm film, by shooting two vertical stills that sit side-by-side in the same area as a standard photo.

In use, the Lomourette can be both delightful and unpredictable. When you nail the exposure and focus distance for a given scene, it produces pleasantly grainy stills with realistic colors and surprisingly good contrast. Shot on Kodak Ultramax 400, images benefited from natural skin tones and the genuine haze of analog nostalgia, rather than a stylized recreation. The 24mm lens isn’t the sharpest, but it’s still capable of rendering impressively crisp detail and edges.

But shooting with the Lomourette also requires patience and a sense of humor. Loading film is fiddly, the focus adjustment dial is crude and the viewfinder doesn’t exactly match what the lens sees. Framing errors, light leaks and accidental overlaps are all part of the creative ride. You’re guaranteed to lose exposures along the way, usually due to under- or over-exposure. The pay-off is that the good ones capture memories with a rich, attractive look, while the happy accidents have a distinct charm of their own.

That’s not to say there aren’t frustrations. The detachable Diana+ flash is inconsistent, sometimes refusing to fire even when the ready light glows. Exposure control is entirely manual, so you’ll need to choose film that suits your shooting conditions: ISO 200 or 400 is best for bright daylight, while the Bulb mode can be used for long exposures if you’ve got a steady hand.

Ultimately, the Lomourette isn’t for perfectionists. It’s aimed at those who value spontaneity over total control. This is a budget plaything for film newcomers, experimental shooters and anyone who wants to rediscover the joy of photography without the pressure of technical mastery. It’s a low-stakes way to play with film and embrace the magic of analog unpredictability.

If you’re after a dependable film camera that delivers consistently sharp, perfectly exposed images, you’ll want to look elsewhere. But if you like the idea of a pocketable, characterful camera that makes every frame a small surprise, the Lomography Lomourette is a refreshingly care-free reminder of what makes film photography fun.

Lomography Lourette: price and availability

The Lomography Lourette costs $69 / £65 and is available now, in multiple colorways, through the Lomography website and other retailers. The Diana+ flash is bundled with the camera, as are colored gel filters.

Lomography Lomourette: specs

Lomography Lomourette: design

Compact, bright and light, the Lomography Lomourette feels more like a toy than a serious photography tool. That’s entirely the point: this is a playful analog camera that comes in on a tight budget. Like the original Diana camera of the Sixties, the Lomourette’s body and lens are made of plastic, with no frills to sweeten the deal.

There’s some rounded detailing up top and a textured effect on the main body, but little about the Lomourette feels premium. It weighs next to nothing and there’s a sense of bargain basement about the assembly. That said, it also somehow feels robust enough to survive at the bottom of a family backpack. And if it doesn’t, the low cost means you’re unlikely to lose sleep over it.

Controls here are kept deliberately simple. There’s a shutter speed lever to toggle between normal (1/60sec) and bulb for long exposures, alongside a shutter release lever to the photographer’s right. On the front of the lens is a rotating dial which can switch focus between four subject distances: 0.6m, 1-2m, 2-4m and infinity. What you don’t get is any control over the aperture. Unlike other Lomography cameras, the lens here is fixed at f/8.

On the top plate, you’ll find a mount for the Diana+ flash attachment, as well as a film advance wheel. The latter operates independently from the shutter. That means you can fire off multiple exposures on the same frame, intentionally or otherwise. It’s a creative feature, but also one of several quirks that can trip up beginners. If you don’t want fully or partially overlayed exposures, you’ll need to make sure you’ve fully wound on between shots.

The flash itself is a detachable unit powered by a single AA battery, its two prongs slotting neatly into their dedicated holes. In keeping with the camera’s pared-back personality, the flash doesn’t feature any kind of exposure or intensity control. It’s either on or off, although you do at least get a ready indicator and the option to test-fire first.

Everything is easy enough to find your way around with your fingers, even if the amount of play in the controls is testament to the cost cap. Bigger digits may also find it difficult to rotate the focus distance dial: rather than gripping the outer edge of the lens, you need to get your tips into the inner section and twist, which is easier said than done.

Loading film can also be tricky. Due to the small size of the teeth on the take-up spool, getting the film leader to catch can take a few tries. Likewise, the rewind lever needs to be perfectly aligned with the canister before the back panel and main body can be latched back together using the door switch. It all becomes a bit easier once you’re familiar with the process, but it’s a reminder that loving the Lomourette requires a little patience.

As you’d expect from a budget film camera, the viewfinder isn’t linked to the lens. This makes it easy to accidentally shoot with the lens cap still on. Even when it’s off, the viewfinder only gives a modest window for your eye to work with, and what it shows doesn’t perfectly reflect what’s being framed by the lens.

These are just some of the facets which increase the margin for error when using the Lomourette. They arguably add to its character: you can’t use it expecting the precision of a digital camera or the sophistication of a more advanced film compact. Instead, the Lomourette rewards a relaxed approach, where missed exposures and happy accidents are part of the creative process.

The half-frame format is a perfect fit for this fun-first ethos. It doubles your exposures from 36 to 72 on a standard roll of 35mm film, splitting each frame into two portrait shots. That makes it great for storytelling in pairs or simply getting more value from your film. It also makes the resulting images half the size, which helps to hide any shortcomings in the optical quality.

Lomography Lomourette: performance

Like many of Lomography’s cameras, the Lomourette is more about feel than fidelity. Yet despite its plastic lens, many of the stills it produces are real keepers. While its image quality was never going to rival that of a more serious film camera, I was pleasantly surprised by how much contrast and clarity it captured.

Shoot in bright daylight and you’ll find that the Lomourette often delivers an attractive balance of realism tinged with nostalgia. Shadows and highlights are rendered with more depth than expected, while colors come through with a surprisingly natural hue, particularly skin tones.

Shooting on Kodak Ultramax 400, I found that stills have the quality of real memories from the mind’s eye: not too tinted, just an honest – if slightly warm and fuzzy – record of the scene. It stops short of the rose-tinted romanticism you encounter with some of the best instant cameras, leaning instead into the honest, grainy character of film.

The Lomourette’s 24mm lens doesn’t resolve a huge amount of detail, but it’s not as soft as you might expect. Nail the focus distance and you can get clean, defined edges. I shot stills sharp enough that text on clothing or the rim of a coffee cup stood out clearly, even through the haze of film grain. Zoom in and there’s enough detail to crop a single half-frame for sharing or use as a phone wallpaper.

That said, consistency isn’t the Lomourette’s strong suit. Exposure can vary wildly between frames, especially when lighting conditions change. Some shots are washed out, others underexposed. That’s just part of the deal. Without a light meter, it’s down to you to read the scene and shoot according to your film and the available light. ISO 200 or 400 is a good starting point. The ‘normal’ shutter speed of 1/60sec is just about fast enough for handheld shooting in daylight. Indoors, you’ll either need to use the flash or shoot a long exposure with the bulb mode.

My hit rate was probably 60%, with the rest affected by errors. Many of these were simply too dark or blown-out to be usable. But other shots with technical issues proved to be unexpectedly artistic. For example, overlapping frames produced layered compositions that felt intentional even when they weren’t, with shadows and light streaks crossing the border between stills.

Focus adjustment is fiddly but functional. The four-step dial is imprecise and tricky to twist, but it works well enough. Even when the focus isn’t perfect, gentle blurring adds to the lo-fi aesthetic. Soft fuzz provides a patina that complements the richness of the results, with slight barrel distortion adding further character. This is a camera that celebrates imperfection.

The only real frustration was the flash. When it fired, the detachable Diana+ flashgun produced a burst of light that gave life to low-light stills, particularly close-up indoor portraits. But despite testing its functionality and ensuring the ready indicator light was lit, there were several occasions where it simply didn’t fire, resulting in wasted exposures.

For such a simple camera, the Lomourette gets you thinking about film speed and shooting conditions. It would be easy to feel frustrated by the shots lost to errors. Yet playing with it isn’t meant to be about technical perfection. If you’re willing to surrender to the process and celebrate the attractive analog shots it does yield, the Lomourette is a lot of fun to shoot with.

Should I buy the Lomography Lomourette?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

How I tested the Lomography Lomourette

• Tested over two months
• Shot 1.5 rolls of film
• Used in different lighting

I used the Lomography Lomourette for two months to get a proper feel for its quirks and creative potential. During that time, I shot a full roll of ISO 400 and a partial roll of ISO 200 film. To mirror how most people are likely to use the Lomourette, I tried it both indoors and outdoors, in a variety of lighting and weather conditions.

I threw the Lomourette in a backpack for several family outings, to see how its build stacks up in everyday use. I also handed it to a six-year-old for a true test of how intuitive it is for anyone to pick up and shoot with.

I made sure to work my way through every one of the camera’s controls and settings. That meant loading it up with film and winding it on, then doing the reverse when the roll was finished. It also meant experimenting with the Diana+ flash attachment, using the camera’s bulb setting for long exposures and exploring its four-step focus to see how accurately the distance measurement affected subject sharpness in the resulting exposure.

After having the negatives developed and scanned, I reviewed every frame to evaluate color accuracy, exposure consistency and overall image quality. This approach – both analytical and holistic – gave me a genuine picture of how the Lomourette performs in the real world.

First reviewed October 2025

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: Two-minute review

I assigned my five-year-old daughter chief reviewing duties for the VTech KidiZoom Duo FX, a popular cheap compact camera for younger kids that can be picked up for as little as $45 / £40 at leading retailers like Amazon.

After she'd used if for a few months it was time to hear her thoughts. "What do you like most about the camera?" I ask. I can predict the one-word answer before it has left her lips: "Games!"

To be fair, the KidiZoom Duo has had more use than a number of other toys, gadgets and cameras for kids in our house, but I picked one up for her in the hope that she might be inspired to become the next Vivian Maier, not zone out playing the basic games on board.

She might well develop a creative eye over time and start taking fantastic photos, but it won't be the KidiZoom Duo that sends her on that path.

That said, when I did direct her focus to the KidiZoom Duo's camera, she found it incredibly easy to use. There's a generous grip for both hands that was perfectly sized for her little hands, and it's come away from multiple mishaps and drops onto hard surfaces unscathed.

She can apply various animated filters to the photos, which has brought many smiles over the months, even if the basic photo quality hardly inspires – not that I'd expect anything better from such a low-cost camera.

Practically speaking, the use of four regular AA batteries is a pain. The first batch were flat after less than two days of use (you guessed it – from mainly playing games). I invested in rechargeable batteries, which in the long run has been more cost-effective.

Better battery life topped the list of my daughter's responses to the question "What could make this camera better?", along with more color options for the finish. And from my perspective, better-quality photos might inspire her to use the camera itself more.

Would I recommend the feature-packed VTech KidiZoom Duo FX as a first camera? Absolutely. No other camera comes close at this super-low price. Will it inspire your young ones to take up photography? Probably not.

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: Price and availability

• List price of $55 / £65 / AU$110, but can be found for less
• It's available in blue and pink versions, plus there's a pricier Duo 5.0

The best-selling VTech KidiZoom Duo FX has been available for some years now, and its price has settled at around $45 / £40 / AU$100 at leading retailers. It's recommended for children aged thee to nine years, and features and design-wise you'll be hard pressed to find a better alternative.

The FX version of the Duo is available in blue and pink versions. There's also a newer and pricier Duo 5.0 version that we've yet to test.

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: specs

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: design

• Tough plastic body in bright pink or blue
• 2.4-inch LCD and look-through viewfinders
• Basic flash

The KidiZoom Duo is a pretty easy camera to control. It features large buttons for key functions, including a joystick to navigate menus and a control wheel for the 4x digital zoom.

The twin viewfinders are simple windows, nothing fancy, spaced so the user can look through both, binoculars-style. My daughter barely used the viewfinders, however, instead focusing her attention on the basic fixed 2.4-inch LCD, which can be pretty hard to see in bright light.

I was thankful for the headphone jack on the camera's underside, which meant I could ask my daughter to use headphones rather than having to listen to the music of the on-board games coming out of the KidiZoom Duo's built-in speaker.

Photo and video files are tiny, but the camera's internal 256MB memory still fills up soon enough, so a cheap microSD card is a must-buy. You won't need to go big – even a 32GB one will easily store years' worth of images.

Images can be transferred to a computer by a now-dated micro USB port – the cable is supplied with the camera.

To keep costs down, the KidiZoom Duo is powered by AA batteries. You'll need four in all, with two slotting into the left grip and two into the right. You'll need a mini screwdriver to unscrew the internal door that helps secure the batteries in place.

A built-in lith-ion battery would be preferable, making recharges much simpler and quicker. However, if you've got a set of rechargeable AAs, then it's not too much bother to go through the process.

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: Performance

• Dual cameras; 8MP front, 2MP selfie
• Flash with 1-3m range
• 4x digital zoom

Image quality is, as you'd expect from such a cheap camera, basic. Photos in JPEG format from the main front camera top out at 8MP, while the selfie camera is just 2MP.

Photo resolution is further reduced when using any one of a number of built-in animated templates and filters, while video quality is even more basic at just 640p.

A soft lens and a tiny image sensor compound matters; the KidiZoom struggles to hold detail in high-contrast sunny scenes, and low-light images are super noisy. Detail is soft, and the 4x digital zoom only further reduces image quality.

You get the picture, but to be fair I wouldn't expect any better for the money. Also, thankfully, there's a built-in flash, which can give a little fill light to your subjects, with a range up to 3m. This flash is super helpful in dim conditions, especially indoors.

It's best to put aside any expectations for photo quality, and focus more on the creative tools on offer, which are more likely to engage young creatives.

For example, there's panorama, wacky slideshow, animation maker, photo editor and voice recorder options, all of which add a little extra to the creative arsenal where the camera alone comes up short.

And what kid doesn't enjoy composing themselves or a family member into animated templates, of which the KidiZoom Duo has in spades?

Yes, any of today's smartphones will take better pictures and probably offer more creative control. But for a device that you can safely leave your child alone with, the cheap KidiZoom Duo fits the bill. It's excellent value too.

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX sample images

Should I buy the VTech KidiZoom Duo FX?

Buy it if...

Don't buy it if...

VTech KidiZoom Duo FX: Also consider

How I tested the VTech KidiZoom Duo FX

• It's been with our family for the best part of a year
• My daughters, both within the recommended user age, have used it extensively
• We've taken plenty of photos and videos (and played the games!)

This is a long-term review of an older camera that all of my family has contributed to.

We've exhausted the KidiZoom Duo's creative tools, including both cameras for photo and video, its various shooting modes, animated templates and audio recording.

And yes, we got pretty good at the basic selection of games.

• First reviewed June 2025