My 600SE has been largely out for action for years, with only a trickle of film available. Results were predictable when Polaroid and Fuji peel-apart film were available.
The modern Polaroid film is anything but predictable or even vaguely good, especially for the astronomical prices. Zink gives about the same qualities.<p>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.<p>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.
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?<p>No thanks.
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.<p>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.<p>the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick?<p>if you are a camera hacker check out the OpenSX70 project.<p>edit: specs on the shop page <a href="https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera</a><p>98mm/f8 to f64 (28mm equiv), shutter 1/250 (seriously?), and AF is infrared so you'll hate it. fuckin analog yo
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.
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: <a href="https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/collections/instant-cameras" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/collections/instant-cameras</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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)
Good review from an awesome channel: <a href="https://youtu.be/kBJzE6TI__Q?si=Csi_ofFIu2iAeliO" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://youtu.be/kBJzE6TI__Q?si=Csi_ofFIu2iAeliO</a>
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.
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).