The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera(i2-camera.polaroid.com)
i2-camera.polaroid.com
The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera
https://i2-camera.polaroid.com
118 comments
As a lifetime Polaroid fan, I would disagree. I think this product signals that results of their death were greatly exaggerated.
In the US, at least, Polaroid cameras and film are widely available, even at convenience and drugstores, not to mention online. This new camera is a tool for artists, which harkens back to the way Edwin Land originally conceived and marketed the product.
In the US, at least, Polaroid cameras and film are widely available, even at convenience and drugstores, not to mention online. This new camera is a tool for artists, which harkens back to the way Edwin Land originally conceived and marketed the product.
Is there another option out there or are you referring to the lomography back? I shot pack film for many years and switched to Instax Wide when that ran out, but I miss using a camera with manual focus.
I have the Lomo back, but I use it on my Speed Graphic. Results vary.
This is a printed-to-order back for the 600SE that I was considering:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/134203663096?amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0...
This is a printed-to-order back for the 600SE that I was considering:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/134203663096?amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0...
it's not a modded back, but the NONS SL660 might be of interest.
Do you have a link to any of those adapters? Have a 600SE and a 3D printer, would be nice to give a new life to the camera.
I posted a link reply to another poster, and here's another back:
https://www.zluxtech.com/store/products/polaroid-600se-insta...
https://www.zluxtech.com/store/products/polaroid-600se-insta...
I think the worst, most damning thing they did was gutting and destroying the Spectra equipment to make Polaroid Go film and cameras.
I wish they'd work on getting film costs down rather than releasing overpriced toys. Instax is still kicking their ass for prices long-term.
Zink was a mistake that should have never been made. I've never had a quality print off a Zink printer.
I wish they'd work on getting film costs down rather than releasing overpriced toys. Instax is still kicking their ass for prices long-term.
Zink was a mistake that should have never been made. I've never had a quality print off a Zink printer.
I recently bought a cheap zink camera and some not-so-cheap zink paper.
People said the quality wasn't good but I thought, "how bad can it really be?"
Pretty terrible!
I don't understand how zink can be a thing that people buy, unless they are all people like me who will never buy it again.
People said the quality wasn't good but I thought, "how bad can it really be?"
Pretty terrible!
I don't understand how zink can be a thing that people buy, unless they are all people like me who will never buy it again.
I have a Polaroid-branded Zink printer from around 2008 and a Polaroid-branded Zink printer from more recent years and the quality has always been rubbish. BUT, I still bought a Brother Zink-on-a-roll printer that I use to print out small pictures as stickers to stick into my journal as a photo diary.
Ultra-niche use, of course, but there you go, there's nothing as zero-config as this thing.
Ultra-niche use, of course, but there you go, there's nothing as zero-config as this thing.
It was criminal, wasn't it. The Impossible Project deserve kudos for reviving things but having to reinvent it from scratch has proven to be actually impossible.
As for One Instant film, sheesh, a labour of love. Mine are stashed away along with the last of my peel-apart, I should just use them all.
At this confluence of money-time-effort, I hope we would recognize a black hole when we encounter it on earth and find a better way, but it apparently requires EVEN MORE money to fix, thanks to the destruction.
As for One Instant film, sheesh, a labour of love. Mine are stashed away along with the last of my peel-apart, I should just use them all.
At this confluence of money-time-effort, I hope we would recognize a black hole when we encounter it on earth and find a better way, but it apparently requires EVEN MORE money to fix, thanks to the destruction.
600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway?
No thanks.
No thanks.
The price is to much, €600 is just crazy, but something like €100 - €120 for the Fuji Instax is a pretty good value for money. My five year old and her friends love being able to snap a few photos and her friend can have one to take home. Similarly we use them for vacation photos that she can bring to the kindergarten, when they talk about what they did during the summer.
And for adults that want to take a few risqué photos they are great as they are easier to keep track of than their digital cousins.
And for adults that want to take a few risqué photos they are great as they are easier to keep track of than their digital cousins.
It is showing €699.99 for me. But that is a bargain compared to when they first came out! https://legacybox.com/blogs/analog/how-much-was-the-first-po...
That would even be cheap for that era. But for today's age with all the alternatives and advanced devices, it's extremely expensive.
This isn't my experience. I know a lot of people with the fujifilm instax (which is admittedly much cheaper) and people use it quite a lot
I know a ton of younger people who love these things too, great for parties
I don't think you understand the selling point of these.
An ex of mine had a Polaroid, and had taken hundreds of pictures with friends and family, all cherished and passed to loved ones.
There's something special and somehow human about small, candid, imperfect photos that hits just right on memory lane and evokes nostalgia. It's more than just what it presents, it's about what it represents, and about the experience itself.
It stops being just a photo. Looking at it and going down memory lane is an experience in and of itself. You get to live that with your eyes, your fingers, your ears, and your nose even, and at the same time you can share them with others. At the same time you evoke the feelings and experiences from when you took it.
Every time you look at that picture you don't just remember what it depicts, you also experience every other time you experienced it.
That's just something no digital photo will ever be able to capture.
An ex of mine had a Polaroid, and had taken hundreds of pictures with friends and family, all cherished and passed to loved ones.
There's something special and somehow human about small, candid, imperfect photos that hits just right on memory lane and evokes nostalgia. It's more than just what it presents, it's about what it represents, and about the experience itself.
It stops being just a photo. Looking at it and going down memory lane is an experience in and of itself. You get to live that with your eyes, your fingers, your ears, and your nose even, and at the same time you can share them with others. At the same time you evoke the feelings and experiences from when you took it.
Every time you look at that picture you don't just remember what it depicts, you also experience every other time you experienced it.
That's just something no digital photo will ever be able to capture.
Personally I've never had a problem re-experiencing events from digital photos. Often more so, because I take a good handful and get a sequence rather than just a single snap.
Aside from that - how did your ex manage to avoid fading?
Polaroids are absolutely notorious for yellow-fade. And the chemistry is weird and fragile.
It takes a month or so for the photo to fix. If you do anything to it in that time - cut off the white edges, squeeze it an album, expose it to light - the fading happens even more quickly.
Aside from that - how did your ex manage to avoid fading?
Polaroids are absolutely notorious for yellow-fade. And the chemistry is weird and fragile.
It takes a month or so for the photo to fix. If you do anything to it in that time - cut off the white edges, squeeze it an album, expose it to light - the fading happens even more quickly.
The fading is a feature, not a bug, if you are the type of person that relates to what I described above, but in all seriousness, I don't remember.
> Maybe we should think of memory itself as an art form, in which the real work begins as soon as the paint hits the canvas. And a work of art is never finished, only abandoned.
https://www.thedictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/concept/klexos
I have a special place in my heart for the dictionary of obscure sorrows :')
https://www.thedictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/concept/klexos
I have a special place in my heart for the dictionary of obscure sorrows :')
I do understand that there's a niche market for this. Though honestly, thinking all the R&D costs, that niche market (which gets even smaller with that price tag) can't offset those costs.
I really hate perfect pictures with high resolution of people. You can distinguish all the little imperfections of their faces. Also, any digital picture that I take with the phone is never ever viewed again nor printed.
I wouldn’t pay 600 for the polaroid, but I get the selling point.
Yeah its completely pointless as a value proposition.
I mean I just go done scanning all my predigital photos because analog photos suck. Why would anybody want this?
I mean I just go done scanning all my predigital photos because analog photos suck. Why would anybody want this?
Because there are people with the opposite desires. My wife loves having photo albums. In fact, I have to run to CVS today to pick up some physical photos.
I was overly dismissive in my comment. It would have been more correct to write "analog only" photos.
If you wife wants photo albums then it is pretty easy to order them with the photos you want and get any number of companies to make them. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is not having a single backup of my childhood if my apartment burns, not having access to my photos on the go, not being able to share my experiences with my family and so on.
By going digital first, I avoid all these problems.
If you wife wants photo albums then it is pretty easy to order them with the photos you want and get any number of companies to make them. I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is not having a single backup of my childhood if my apartment burns, not having access to my photos on the go, not being able to share my experiences with my family and so on.
By going digital first, I avoid all these problems.
Again, opposite goals. I destroyed every bit of evidence from my childhood for personal reasons. I don't regret it. I spent most of my life avoiding cameras. That changed with marriage and a kid but I still don't let people take pictures of me with their phones because I have a compulsion for control. I also want to make absolutely sure that certain people can't find me, so no geotags or landmarks in digital form.
By avoiding digital photography, I reduce my risk significantly.
I'll take analog every day.
Edit: I'm not the target market. I have special considerations. My wife is though. She wants pictures. I want to stay somewhat incognito. This type of thing solves the problem better for us.
By avoiding digital photography, I reduce my risk significantly.
I'll take analog every day.
Edit: I'm not the target market. I have special considerations. My wife is though. She wants pictures. I want to stay somewhat incognito. This type of thing solves the problem better for us.
I hate using my phone as a camera. I own a digital camera for that reason. I don't own a good photo print because they are either ridiculously expensive or crap and I haven't found the good-cheap (of the "pick two" triangle) yet. I'm the market for this. I'd much rather keep my photos offline.
[deleted]
I used to be a professional photographer, and have been out of the game for about 10 years. For the last 15 years of my profession, I really embraced the digital SLR in my work.
But I still had a big 8x10 field camera that I would take portraits with. DSLRs totally took over the film world...and I would NEVER go back to 35mm or even medium format. But you can't get the same thing with digital that an 8x10 platinum contact print from a large format camera can give you. That's really the only time I can see using "obsolete" tech in photography. These Polaroid things can ALL be simulated in digital. Are they instant? No. Which is good.
But I still had a big 8x10 field camera that I would take portraits with. DSLRs totally took over the film world...and I would NEVER go back to 35mm or even medium format. But you can't get the same thing with digital that an 8x10 platinum contact print from a large format camera can give you. That's really the only time I can see using "obsolete" tech in photography. These Polaroid things can ALL be simulated in digital. Are they instant? No. Which is good.
this is clearly targeted at the segment that wants something nicer than the dwindling stock of refurb SX70s, but is too cheap for Mint's SLR670. so the only thing that surprises me is it's not an SLR.
just about the only thing this could possibly beat an SX70 on is the autofocus if it's good, maybe shutter speed but they seem cagey about it, and maybe durability.
the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick?
if you are a camera hacker check out the OpenSX70 project.
edit: specs on the shop page https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera
98mm/f8 to f64 (28mm equiv), shutter 1/250 (seriously?), and AF is infrared so you'll hate it. fuckin analog yo
just about the only thing this could possibly beat an SX70 on is the autofocus if it's good, maybe shutter speed but they seem cagey about it, and maybe durability.
the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick?
if you are a camera hacker check out the OpenSX70 project.
edit: specs on the shop page https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera
98mm/f8 to f64 (28mm equiv), shutter 1/250 (seriously?), and AF is infrared so you'll hate it. fuckin analog yo
> the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick?
Edwin Land was the Steve Jobs of that era, the SX70 was the iPod of that era. His Wikipedia page: a pathetic 3,000 words. Dieter Rams (another Jobsian figure) doesn't figure much better, but nothing he ever designed was as big as the SX70, as brilliant as he was. And Land was actual scientist, he made meaningful technologies for WW2, he's practically a war hero, and yet, who the fuck knows who he is outside of Walter Isaacson readers?
Polaroid.com picked some cool photographers. It feels like social media adjacent stuff without being so low brow. I'm surprised they didn't do Elsa Dorfman. They are missing a lot of opportunities with the heritage. Of course they didn't show me a Andy Warhol, but then again, they probably don't have the rights to do that.
If you're going to be a heritage brand, you ought to think how to equip the greats, the Weegees and the Diane Arbuses, who could surely make interesting stuff with a Polaroid. But if they lived today, they'd use a D700 and an ultrawide, a DSLR composes a lot better than an LCD screen or an EVF and sensor technology has practically peaked in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyiS-mrp1c). The real problem is that Apple is so painfully apolitical, social media photography on iPhones is the layperson equivalent of crapstraction, so they'll never deliver something advertises that it's for "getting the shot," they'll stick to advertising that it's for "getting the shot [of the totally uncontroversial everyman thing that is personally interesting / sentimental only to you]." You know, something consumerist and literally disposable, like a polaroid.
Edwin Land was the Steve Jobs of that era, the SX70 was the iPod of that era. His Wikipedia page: a pathetic 3,000 words. Dieter Rams (another Jobsian figure) doesn't figure much better, but nothing he ever designed was as big as the SX70, as brilliant as he was. And Land was actual scientist, he made meaningful technologies for WW2, he's practically a war hero, and yet, who the fuck knows who he is outside of Walter Isaacson readers?
Polaroid.com picked some cool photographers. It feels like social media adjacent stuff without being so low brow. I'm surprised they didn't do Elsa Dorfman. They are missing a lot of opportunities with the heritage. Of course they didn't show me a Andy Warhol, but then again, they probably don't have the rights to do that.
If you're going to be a heritage brand, you ought to think how to equip the greats, the Weegees and the Diane Arbuses, who could surely make interesting stuff with a Polaroid. But if they lived today, they'd use a D700 and an ultrawide, a DSLR composes a lot better than an LCD screen or an EVF and sensor technology has practically peaked in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyiS-mrp1c). The real problem is that Apple is so painfully apolitical, social media photography on iPhones is the layperson equivalent of crapstraction, so they'll never deliver something advertises that it's for "getting the shot," they'll stick to advertising that it's for "getting the shot [of the totally uncontroversial everyman thing that is personally interesting / sentimental only to you]." You know, something consumerist and literally disposable, like a polaroid.
I highly recommend Edwin Land's biography, The Instant Image. The title refers not to the method of photography but how the device was invented -- conceived as a complete product in one mental flash that took years of real scientific invention to bring to technical fruition.
> another Jobsian figure
This characterisation (tagging? clubbing?) comes across as an insult to those figures.
This characterisation (tagging? clubbing?) comes across as an insult to those figures.
I really hope that in my lifetime, and hopefully very soon, manual SLRs make a comeback. If not a come back then started manufacturing of the old greats again. I loved the photography but not the disposable digital photography. No, I was never an expert photographer and I don’t even want to be one. I just loved taking photos and the whole process of it and the fact that you couldn’t just take any number of photos you want.
I also looked and take photos and then again looked at those photos. These people just take photos and never and never look at those photos usually again.
I also looked and take photos and then again looked at those photos. These people just take photos and never and never look at those photos usually again.
I don't think manual focus SLRs (If that's what you mean) are going anywhere now, there's widespread popularity for film photography and the "better" cameras (mechanical or reliable) are fetching silly money. And plenty of unreliable, hard-to-repair cameras are also fetching silly money.
BUT - the value prop has totally changed. Running costs are very high, for processing and scanning or printing, and where digital had high upfront costs initially for computers, everyone already has those now anyway. Plus the variety and diversity of film photography has narrowed considerably. I have a Kodak reference manual/catalogue here from the mid-1990s and the variety and versatility of film is something to behold. And that was just Kodak.
Infrared film? Colour or Black and White? Lith film, Ortho film? Here you go. Kodachrome? Yes, what speed would you like?
So there were things that digital can't easily do now that film could do, but without the film, that value prop has gone, and film cameras versatility has gone with it. If you, we, I, want film photography to thrive and be more than a dead language, we will really need it to do things that digital can't, apart from being slow, expensive and crap in the eyes of many.
BUT - the value prop has totally changed. Running costs are very high, for processing and scanning or printing, and where digital had high upfront costs initially for computers, everyone already has those now anyway. Plus the variety and diversity of film photography has narrowed considerably. I have a Kodak reference manual/catalogue here from the mid-1990s and the variety and versatility of film is something to behold. And that was just Kodak.
Infrared film? Colour or Black and White? Lith film, Ortho film? Here you go. Kodachrome? Yes, what speed would you like?
So there were things that digital can't easily do now that film could do, but without the film, that value prop has gone, and film cameras versatility has gone with it. If you, we, I, want film photography to thrive and be more than a dead language, we will really need it to do things that digital can't, apart from being slow, expensive and crap in the eyes of many.
There’s people for whom “slow, and every shot is expensive” is a feature [1] but I agree – especially the loss of (color) film diversity has been hard to swallow and made everything considerably less fun. I still enjoy it, but I don’t know what I’ll do once my stash of deep frozen film runs out. With Fuji most probably having left the game, there won’t be competition for a cheap, basic color film – which IMHO is the thing that’s required to get more people into shooting film.
[1]: e.g. recently https://www.404media.co/how-and-why-to-get-into-film-photogr...
[1]: e.g. recently https://www.404media.co/how-and-why-to-get-into-film-photogr...
I don't understand it, but I have half a mind to mod CHDK to only let you take 72 photos a day.
I was an ardent manual film photography fan. Heck, I even bought a medium format camera. The hassle of developing film was too much even in the US. What won over digital is not just the freedom to click a million pictures, but the freedom to run your own darkroom on your PC/Mac.
What I really need now is a compromise. I want the freedom of my own digital darkroom but I need a fully manual and digital camera with an incredible 4-6 month battery life. So cut everything out of the camera that sucks battery - the LCD screen, the motors, just have the sharpest lens and the best sensor, bring back the optical viewfinder. In fact, I wouldn't even mind having film as a backup, in case the battery runs out.
Sure this will add a bit of weight and all that, but this will appeal to those photographers who love the process, and believe that the end result takes care of itself. I can't help but draw parallels to programming but I'll refrain from doing so.
Being at the right place at the right time, perhaps takes a week of backcountry hiking, so be it. I need a camera that doesn't run out of juice, and has zero lag, for that once in a lifetime shot.
On similar lines, we have auto focus and manual focus, 2 extremes why not a middle ground, assisted focus ?. Nikon AI and AI-P lenses had this ideology, but surely that didn't survive.
What I really need now is a compromise. I want the freedom of my own digital darkroom but I need a fully manual and digital camera with an incredible 4-6 month battery life. So cut everything out of the camera that sucks battery - the LCD screen, the motors, just have the sharpest lens and the best sensor, bring back the optical viewfinder. In fact, I wouldn't even mind having film as a backup, in case the battery runs out.
Sure this will add a bit of weight and all that, but this will appeal to those photographers who love the process, and believe that the end result takes care of itself. I can't help but draw parallels to programming but I'll refrain from doing so.
Being at the right place at the right time, perhaps takes a week of backcountry hiking, so be it. I need a camera that doesn't run out of juice, and has zero lag, for that once in a lifetime shot.
On similar lines, we have auto focus and manual focus, 2 extremes why not a middle ground, assisted focus ?. Nikon AI and AI-P lenses had this ideology, but surely that didn't survive.
The Pixii digital rangefinder might be for you then (except for the poor battery life).
https://pixii.fr/
https://www.macfilos.com/2023/04/17/new-kid-on-the-block-the...
https://pixii.fr/
https://www.macfilos.com/2023/04/17/new-kid-on-the-block-the...
I saw the Pixii for the first time today actually. It's unfortunately way above my budget. The other commenter explained a high end bare bones camera. I've always a much lower tier camera without a screen on the back. Like just take less than $1000 and remove all that extra stuff. Just give me ISO, shutter, aperture (if not on lense), shutter button, and AF selector, on the body. And make it compact, maybe even like a point and shoot with a fixed focal length lens. That's my pipe dream for a digital camera.
Agreed not shelling out 3K for a camera, it's not the Vision Pro. My sweet spot price for a camera like this is $500. A fabulous 35-200mm zoom, a great sensor and all manual. The only other aspect I wonder about is in camera image stabilization. How can that be achieved without sacrificing battery life.
Fuji X100 almost checks all the boxes (imho that’s why it’s sold out all the time). Would they dare to make one without a screen? Guess it’s unlikely, unfortunately.
It’s hard… What’s so fascinating about film cameras is that they are little mechanical wonder machines. Have you ever held an Olympus OM1 or 2 in your hand? Beautiful, and it’s insane what they managed to fit in such a small package. But “mechanical” is not where our world of solid state electronics is heading. Even if one of the camera manufacturers had an incentive, I imagine remaking their older cameras isn’t really possible. The tooling is gone, obviously, but so is the knowledge… like Ricoh/Pentax is rumored to have a new Film camera in development and they had to bring back guys from retirement. And they went for a less complex compact, not an SLR. Now that they all went mirrorless for their digital offerings, the manufacturing competence for the prism and mirror unit will dwindle fast.
Like you I hope someone manages it. Shooting film is so satisfying!
Like you I hope someone manages it. Shooting film is so satisfying!
Ricoh are developing a new film camera under the Pentax brand - which may or may not make it to retail. IIRC not an SLR - but still in that direction.
The only other “serious” option - as in not a Holga or something - that I can think of is Leica - but then you’re spending into the tens of thousands of dollars… Also not an SLR but it is interchangeable lens of course.
The only other “serious” option - as in not a Holga or something - that I can think of is Leica - but then you’re spending into the tens of thousands of dollars… Also not an SLR but it is interchangeable lens of course.
I am looking for an SLR. My best photography related memory is from a Nikon FM3A that I borrowed from a relative as a teenager for some time. Where I live there isn't an active used SLR market in a way that can be trusted and purchased. Maybe I will try my luck with one of the trusted sellers in the USA once someone from here is coming back.
No, Leica is not an option - both on the price front and that not being an SLR. What I want is really a compact mechanical SLR.
No, Leica is not an option - both on the price front and that not being an SLR. What I want is really a compact mechanical SLR.
I bought a Nikon FE2 recently from keh.com.
There are plenty of manual focus film SLR cameras available. You may also want to try your local camera store. Mine has a good selection of used cameras and lenses. Things are more expensive than they used to be but there are still plenty of options available.
I would try to order online next time someone is coming from USA. KEH is one of the sites I planned check to order from.
(Local scene isn’t really great where I live. I tried.)
(Local scene isn’t really great where I live. I tried.)
You can buy a digital photo frame (essentially a screen with a bit of firmware) thats nice for 100 dollars.
You can load all the pictures you want there and see them as often as you like, you can share them with others and actually keep them around for your entire life.
The fact that not taking as many as you want is a feature to you, I don't know what to say about that other than if you were responsible for taking photos of any trip we were on together, I would make you scan and share them.
You can load all the pictures you want there and see them as often as you like, you can share them with others and actually keep them around for your entire life.
The fact that not taking as many as you want is a feature to you, I don't know what to say about that other than if you were responsible for taking photos of any trip we were on together, I would make you scan and share them.
I understand the unlikelihood of this, but to really capitalize on the film craze they need to produce a higher “resolution” instant film. Old peel away film was fantastically high quality particularly when paired with a genuine glass lens (most current instant film cameras have a plastic lens). Improving the lens can only go so far without improving the film stock.
If it wants to compete with digital, sure. That's not the point though. There's a world of "low-fi" photography that's closer to art than modern photography has become.
You can 3d print a modified instax wide back for some medium format cameras. Hasselblad has always had an instant film back with some minor modifications. The photos look amazing.
There are other much cheaper models. I might not be finding it, but their site doesn't make it immediately apparent what the differences are to justify the huge difference in price: https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/collections/instant-cameras
This one has full manual exposure settings (not available in any previous Polaroid integral camera, as far as I know), plus shutter priority and aperture priority, continuous autofocus using LiDAR, external flash sync, a better lens, ability to use both 600 and SX-70 film, a “real” light meter, a much more sophisticated viewfinder, and probably something I’m forgetting. It really is significantly more capable than the existing, cheaper models.
Worth noting that this is seen as competing with the SX-70, which was previously the “serious” choice for Polaroid shooters. The SX-70 was $1300 in today’s dollars at launch, and fully refurbished ones are several hundred dollars now.
My impression based on reading reactions from people in the target market for this camera (ie serious Polaroid enthusiasts) is that the camera looks great and the price point isn’t crazy.
Worth noting that this is seen as competing with the SX-70, which was previously the “serious” choice for Polaroid shooters. The SX-70 was $1300 in today’s dollars at launch, and fully refurbished ones are several hundred dollars now.
My impression based on reading reactions from people in the target market for this camera (ie serious Polaroid enthusiasts) is that the camera looks great and the price point isn’t crazy.
I, for one, love the innovation in film technology. Yes, most of it is not new - printing polaroids has been around for decades and the rest of the camera looks like it was salvaged from digital cameras in the last 10 years.
This style of photography is just the complete opposite of what we'll all grown to expect from cameras. We expect them to have microscopic resolution so we can view the photos on 5 inch wide screens. We expect to click one button, and then spend hours tweaking the photo in arbitrary ways until we get an effect that would have been achieved if the aperture was set slightly wider.
The tech is pretty meh and it's probably overpriced, but that's entirely besides the point.
This style of photography is just the complete opposite of what we'll all grown to expect from cameras. We expect them to have microscopic resolution so we can view the photos on 5 inch wide screens. We expect to click one button, and then spend hours tweaking the photo in arbitrary ways until we get an effect that would have been achieved if the aperture was set slightly wider.
The tech is pretty meh and it's probably overpriced, but that's entirely besides the point.
As my farther had and used a polaroid camera, seeing this announcement made me curious. The camera definitely looks nice though its ancestors were definitely easier to carry thanks to their folding capacity. On the other side, you wouldn't get any of those cameras for their size today. So a bit more bulk might be ok, it also saves you from fiddeling with the mechanism.
The problem isn't even the price. Usually I don't even look at the price of a device until I know how good it is, then I start considering, whether it is worth it. And only then, separately, I would consider whether it is worth it to me at that price.
The real catch, before one needs to discuss the camera itself, is the film. I had thought that Polaroid stopped making the original films very long ago. They were quite good, but the modern clones less so. Some comments here in the discussion seem to point to the fact, that these new films are quite inferior. And that unfortunately seals the case for me (and probably many others). A camera with original quality Polaroid films would have sold well, disregarding its price. After all every single short is extremely expensive. But unfortunately, this seems to be a technology lost to mankind.
The problem isn't even the price. Usually I don't even look at the price of a device until I know how good it is, then I start considering, whether it is worth it. And only then, separately, I would consider whether it is worth it to me at that price.
The real catch, before one needs to discuss the camera itself, is the film. I had thought that Polaroid stopped making the original films very long ago. They were quite good, but the modern clones less so. Some comments here in the discussion seem to point to the fact, that these new films are quite inferior. And that unfortunately seals the case for me (and probably many others). A camera with original quality Polaroid films would have sold well, disregarding its price. After all every single short is extremely expensive. But unfortunately, this seems to be a technology lost to mankind.
700 euros, oh my goodness!
I would honestly expect it to be able to capture digital versions of the images too for that money.
I would honestly expect it to be able to capture digital versions of the images too for that money.
IMHO it's a feature that instant photography users are not interested at all.
I know but this is a huge amount of money for a niche product. I'm not sure they're equipped to run their business like Teenage Engineering or another niche thing targeting the very wealthy
Anybody who can afford the film can afford this camera. And it’s already the top seller in its category at B&H.
They have a 'regular' one that's $120. Maybe this is the Teenage Engineering model.
Teenage Engineering stuff seems completely impractical. Is that the appeal?
Take the record player. It looks cool. But only plays 7" records. Through built in speakers. You can use external speaker, but through a 3.5mm plug?
What's the use of something like that? Maybe the idea is to use it as decoration? I don't get it.
All their products are like that.
Take the record player. It looks cool. But only plays 7" records. Through built in speakers. You can use external speaker, but through a 3.5mm plug?
What's the use of something like that? Maybe the idea is to use it as decoration? I don't get it.
All their products are like that.
> Take the record player. It looks cool.
It's not even their product, it's just a white labelled version of an existing Japanese toy!
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234642185324
It's not even their product, it's just a white labelled version of an existing Japanese toy!
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234642185324
Woah! Wait, do they do the same thing for other products as well?
Maybe the idea is to use it as decoration?
Basically. If you look at Teenage Engineering as a high end fashion brand, it makes a lot more sense.
Basically. If you look at Teenage Engineering as a high end fashion brand, it makes a lot more sense.
Don't bet against nostalgia though. There are loads of 30-somethings that grew up with this, have a family of their own now, and can afford this.
It's like someone asking for a gasoline version of Tesla.
Everything old is new again, nostalgic for those old enough and exciting and hip for the (cool) kids who never knew Polaroid before digital.
You could probably say the same about a certain brand of personal computer too.
It costs an absolute fortune, then misses some of the basic features "computers do". Upgrade the RAM? No. "people don't want that". Play video games? Nah (or maybe). Have an all around dumbed down garbage UX that literally does things opposite "just because"? Yep.
Conversely, a digital camera that at a 700 Euro pricepoint also captures images on film?
By the way, everybody have a digital instant camera in their pocket. It can also share them on the internet and send them to friends. It has unlimited poses and it can print to film if one really wants to. It can cost way more than 700 euros or less than 100.
By the way, everybody have a digital instant camera in their pocket. It can also share them on the internet and send them to friends. It has unlimited poses and it can print to film if one really wants to. It can cost way more than 700 euros or less than 100.
Fuji Instax Evo Mini does that at about 200$.
Fuji has a couple Instax cameras that do that. They’re not as feature-filled as this camera, but they’re pretty cool.
Interestingly it’s $599 USD or 699 EUR, wonder why it’s more expensive in Europe.
This often happens.
Sometimes it is because all taxes are included in the non-US price. Other times it is just profiteering.
Sometimes it is because all taxes are included in the non-US price. Other times it is just profiteering.
Also the 2 years mandatory warranty that needs to be priced in.
VAT, Price in the US rarely includes it.
Fujifilm Instax Evo Mini does that for less than 200$.
I don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+
I was shocked to see the price tag on this. On the other hand, I could see it being used as mostly a marketing tool to provide an aspirational product to essentially set an anchor price that makes all their other lines feel more affordable. I honestly found that when I looked at their product line, all of a sudden, a $150 instant camera felt "affordable" after seeing the $600 one. I won't be buying one, but this had some small effect on me.
It’s an analogue camera with all the complexities involved in making something that exposes and results in a physical object and with relatively low production numbers and a high r&d spend required to make it. Why, coupled with a lack of anyone making anything else like this for Polaroid film would you think it would be dirt cheap?
I didn’t think it would be “dirt cheap”. It’s a surprising product to make in a world where there are already more affordable models produced by the same company to satisfy the urge for instant photos and everyone already has a camera in their pocket for around the same price.
Some people REALLY like the shitty quality aesthetic that Polaroid pictures give.
I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
Yes, and it's not even that hard to emulate the effect digitally.
I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo.
I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.
I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo.
I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.
Products like this cost what people will pay for them.
That's true for any product.
Tja, with more competition the price (should) approach production cost.
For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).
For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).
[deleted]
I have a hard time seeing this going anywhere. Features of lens sharpness and manual controls seem at odds with the intent of spontaneity and the lack of medium quality, so much of your effort is thrown away once you print. In none of their samples for aperture/shutter/auto did I even see the typical differences between the modes such as bokeh or motion softness due to let us say limited sensor size and print quality. Or their samples were just poor as showcases.
In that case, addons to polaroidize your smartphone (printer for smartphone) seems like a much better idea since you already carry a large set of controls to influence an output in your favorite apps, and already designed with the outset of limited optics (e.g. fake bokeh), and indeed that product already exists. You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will (multiple friends/family etc)
In that case, addons to polaroidize your smartphone (printer for smartphone) seems like a much better idea since you already carry a large set of controls to influence an output in your favorite apps, and already designed with the outset of limited optics (e.g. fake bokeh), and indeed that product already exists. You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will (multiple friends/family etc)
> I have a hard time seeing this going anywhere.
The company I work at does exactly that! We bring it for parties or events and have a wall of pictures at our office.
> or pubs
I mused about buying one for the bar I frequent. But the price of the unit and the expendables is way too much to shoulder it myself, especially considering the unit could be damaged or stolen.
I mused about buying one for the bar I frequent. But the price of the unit and the expendables is way too much to shoulder it myself, especially considering the unit could be damaged or stolen.
> You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will
For the some of the remaining use cases for Polaroids, that's a bug, not a feature.
For the some of the remaining use cases for Polaroids, that's a bug, not a feature.
Ah right, but I was thinking of expansions to new audiences. But if you rather have this classic instant photo mindset, I was thinking the regular Instax models would do. My point is that this new model seems to have conflicting feature sets for reasons similar to yours.
Good review from an awesome channel: https://youtu.be/kBJzE6TI__Q?si=Csi_ofFIu2iAeliO
I rather use a software for similar composition instead of paying that kinda money.
It’s good that these kinds of instant-photo cameras are still available. They are essential not only in forensics investigations, but also any other field where photographic inimitability is required; where the photo itself cannot be intercepted or altered or faked prior to its final physical copy, and where that physical copy can be trusted to be an accurate representation.
Why? Even in the day these were mostly used as novelty, party cameras or for shots you didn't want the photo finishing shop to see.
Polaroids really make an event memorable, but for that they don’t need to be super configurable like this camera. Cool toy though!
I recently bought Instax by Fujitsu for $70. It’s great for parties! But also $1 per photo basically
the price per photo is what deters me from buying one. You will end up thinking twice (or thrice) before snapping an instant photo, because.. "is this really worth $1?".
Having that said, I've seen you can buy these in bulk and the price goes down.
Fujifilm also sells Instax printers (https://instax.com/printer/) that you can print to using smartphone apps. Note that the printers use the same film cartridges as the Instax instant cameras.
thinking before shooting was the norm before digital. that's why we had great photohraphers.
In Australia 35mm cameras worked out to about this (for decent c41 developed at a decent print shop), even before smartphones / digis went mainstream.
The fact that this exists has rekindled my hope for new, mass-manufactured 35mm cameras. There are plenty of good used ones around, but repairs can be so expensive (if you can find someone willing to service your camera).
Are there crazy people who would pay $599 for this?
Fujifilm Instax Evo Mini hybrid (instant + digital ) camera seems a much better instant camera, it costs less than 200$.
Super cool. I want to pick one of these up one day, but first I need to get around to buying a full frame digital camera…
It would be good if it was "dual mode", capable of capturing digitally and print out too.
I really hope affordable and compatible film comes out so I can have fun with my SX70 again :(
It's still not clear if the lens is made of glass like the SX-70 or the SLR-680.
Plastic according to Kai’s video on it: https://youtu.be/qCi9NSk7IZQ?feature=shared
Does it come with a curled mustache or do I have to grow my own?
For that price? I have no words.
Fuji Instax in all its forms won this battle and there’s a cottage industry of Instax-holding backs being 3D-printed to retro-fit older cameras like the 600SE or anything with a Graflok connection.
That said, if the outcome of modern Polaroids is exactly what you’re after and an SX70 is not your cup of tea, here’s your new toy.