New film from Fujifilm: Instax mini Monochrome

[MartinP]

If one is not satisfied with instax cameras from Fuji (I am not) - the best/cheapest alternative would be to get Diana instax back for 79€.

I just googled and that Diana back is only for the Mini size Instax. However, there is/was a Belair Instant-back which takes the 'big' Instax Wide product. Has anyone put this larger back in/on a traditional 6x9 folder??? That would perhaps be rather interesting, especially with a possible, future, maybe, one day Monochrome Instax-Wide film.

EDIT: And it seems that I missed (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread from a few months ago....

 

[onemississipp]

Just ordered a mini 90..should be fun

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Just ordered a mini 90..should be fun

It's a nice camera, though I don't have one. Of all the Instax cameras, I think it's the nicest: it seems to be well designed in terms of features offered, a nice size and shape, good handling, and a clear bright viewfinder. It's easy to take anywhere. The business-card sized photos are a consequence of that camera design. People have told me that they learn to like the small size.

For now, I'm staying with my remaining Fuji pack film and Impossible film - though I should probably support Instax as well by getting a Neo 90 or TL70.

 

[RattyMouse]

If that's the ball bearing shutter, there are still quite a few parts in there - and it's not super accurate. More to the point, the tooling costs would be fairly painful no matter what way you went - the benefit Kodak had was the sheer scale of market demand for the shutters. Once you start looking at electronic solutions, add a decent triplet or similar, you end up back at the Instax pretty quickly. If there was demand, I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to make a 'manual' version of the Mini 90 - it's got a suitable display & adding the relevant control buttons would not be hard - the shutter is 1.8-1/400s (10s if you include the bulb mode) & the aperture is f12.7.

Fujifilm sells 5.7 million INSTAX cameras per year nowadays. That's a hell of an economy of scale.

 

[onemississipp]

It's a nice camera, though I don't have one. Of all the Instax cameras, I think it's the nicest: it seems to be well designed in terms of features offered, a nice size and shape, good handling, and a clear bright viewfinder. It's easy to take anywhere. The business-card sized photos are a consequence of that camera design. People have told me that they learn to like the small size.

For now, I'm staying with my remaining Fuji pack film and Impossible film - though I should probably support Instax as well by getting a Neo 90 or TL70.

Got mine for a steal $47 on sale (the brown model) (black was still $129), had a $20 gift card, so a no brainier $199 camera for $27.

 

[GarageBoy]

A giant version of the old point and shoot shutters would be fine... Same thing with a faster (maybe f4.5) lens and AF...

 

[1L6E6VHF]

I've never used Instax, since I've been content using my Polaroid Automatics with FP-100-C with the flat, thin pictures I prefer.

Now that I will lose that option when my last five packs of film are gone, I'm curious about Instax.

The sample photo used in the announcement for Instax Mini Monochrome looked unsharp to me. I would get an Instax 210 or 300, if I knew I could get reasonably sharp pictures from the Instax Wide format.

Could I expect the same picture quality from Instax Wide as I've been getting from 100-C (roughly equal to 3MP)?

Has anyone posted high quality scans of Instax Wide images anywhere on the net?

How are the lenses on the Instax Wide cameras?

Then there is the question of what future the Instax Wide format has. I'm seeing Instax Mini in local stores, but Instax Wide seems to be missing from mass-market stores.

 

[darkosaric]

Instax Wide - I am too lazy now to scan, here is one snap with a mobile phone camera:



The quality is acceptable, more less the same as 100-C. You will never get super sharp picture with instax wide, but definitely sharp enough.

 

[Henning Serger]

They obviously didn't listen to customers about innumerable other things like FP100C, (or any/all the FPxxx products)... etc.

Well, they probably have listened in the way of looking at their sales numbers: The pack film sales have collapsed during the last decade.
The photographers have killed pack film by stopping using it.
Most of those people who are complaining ignore the fact that even in the "golden times of film" pack film was a special product for mostly professional photographers:
The two main markets for pack film were
- professional studio photographers (using it for test shots)
- professional passport / identity card photographers.
These two major markets for pack film are gone for years, eliminated by digital imaging. It's a little wonder that Fujifilm produced pack film for such a long time without its main customer base.
The number of enthusiasts still using pack film is very tiny compared to the former main markets in professional photography.
And the instant amateur mass market is using integral film for decades. Nobody of them wants the hassle with the sticky mess of the negative with pack film (especially when you are shooting outdoors; honestly: even I as pack film shooter don't like the handling outdoors because of that).

Do you remember the video of F. Kaps when he announced his try to "save" pack film? He was very honest (kudos to him) and said that he has not used pack film in the last years. If even the 'saviour' has not used it, you see which the real problem is: demand.

At the Photokina last week I had long talks with Impossible Project and Fujifilm about that topic:
Besides the massive demand problem two other aspects are or maybe important:
1. Impossible confirmed my guess that the pack film finishing machines were needed and were rebuilt for finishing Instax film to satisfy the strongly increasing demand.
Therefore selling the machines to the group around F. Kaps was not possible.
2. The assumption the Fujifilm managers I talked to have is that environmental reasons could have played a role, too: The formulation of pack film is quite old, with (perhaps) problematic chemistry which will be forbidden in some years. A needed reformulation with new chemistry is too expensive for such a very low volume niche product. You will not get a return on your investment.

Instax is an "open system". Anyone who wants can make a high(er) quality camera or camera back for it. The quality of the Instax film is good enough for that (see my post in the "Leica Sofort" thread). There is the future for those who want higher quality instant photography.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[RattyMouse]

I've never used Instax, since I've been content using my Polaroid Automatics with FP-100-C with the flat, thin pictures I prefer.

Now that I will lose that option when my last five packs of film are gone, I'm curious about Instax.

The sample photo used in the announcement for Instax Mini Monochrome looked unsharp to me. I would get an Instax 210 or 300, if I knew I could get reasonably sharp pictures from the Instax Wide format.

Could I expect the same picture quality from Instax Wide as I've been getting from 100-C (roughly equal to 3MP)?

Has anyone posted high quality scans of Instax Wide images anywhere on the net?

How are the lenses on the Instax Wide cameras?

Then there is the question of what future the Instax Wide format has. I'm seeing Instax Mini in local stores, but Instax Wide seems to be missing from mass-market stores.

INSTAX cameras have plastic lenses. Fujifilm has never bothered to put high quality glass in front of INSTAX film. A shame really. There's hope, probably false hope, that the new square format cameras coming next year will be different. It's unlikely as Fujifilm doesnt care at all about serious film photography anymore.

 

[AgX]

INSTAX cameras have plastic lenses. Fujifilm has never bothered to put high quality glass in front of INSTAX film. A shame really. There's hope, probably false hope, that the new square format cameras coming next year will be different. It's unlikely as Fujifilm doesnt care at all about serious film photography anymore.

A "Plastic lens" not necessarily is one-piece meniscus. And it is not with Instax.

Furthermore the image area is so small that quite some abberations of the lens will not be detected by an unaided eye.
And enlarging will be hampered by the low resolution of dye diffusion materials.

 

[AgX]

Most of those people who are complaining ignore the fact that even in the "golden times of film" pack film was a special product for mostly professional photographers:
The two main markets for pack film were
- professional studio photographers (using it for test shots)
- professional passport / identity card photographers.
These two major markets for pack film are gone for years, eliminated by digital imaging. It's a little wonder that Fujifilm produced pack film for such a long time without its main customer base.

Just a little historic hint: In the days before integral films appeared and for some time going on, peel-apart films were very popular by non-professionals, by snap-shot consumers.

 

[Henning Serger]

Just a little historic hint: In the days before integral films appeared and for some time going on, peel-apart films were very popular by non-professionals, by snap-shot consumers.

That is right, I know it. But after the introduction of Integral film by Polaroid (1972 presented, 1973-1974 introduction to the global markets) this new film type gained popularity very fast in the amateur mass markets. From the early 80ies on, Integral film was the dominant instant film type in the amateur market.
For mass markets you need easy handling of your product. Integral instant film is offering exactly that. That's the reason why Polaroid integral film was such a success story, the reason why Impossible Project is concentrating on Integral film, and why Instax is such a big success.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[EdSawyer]

Fuji's abject lack of any marketing or advertising and promotion of pack film helped insure it's demise also. Screw them, I will never buy into instax given their asshattery with fp100c and the like.

 

[RattyMouse]

A "Plastic lens" not necessarily is one-piece meniscus. And it is not with Instax.

Furthermore the image area is so small that quite some abberations of the lens will not be detected by an unaided eye.
And enlarging will be hampered by the low resolution of dye diffusion materials.

No, it's a 2 or 3 piece meniscus, mass produced 5.7 million times. Hardly a quality lens.

 

[AgX]

A meniscus always is a one group lens, and even can be made from two elements.
At least the Instax Wide got several groups.

Plastic lens elements have evolved since the 70s.

As I said the "quality" of a lens must be related to the whole system of camera and film (and its use).

 

[RattyMouse]

A meniscus always is a one group lens, and even can be made from two elements.
At least the Instax Wide got several groups.

Plastic lens elements have evolved since the 70s.

As I said the "quality" of a lens must be related to the whole system of camera and film (and its use).

So you are saying that Fujifilm is delivering as good a lens system as we can possibly get from INSTAX. I disagree. I think that they are providing toys and nothing more.

 

[farmersteve]

I have seen some scans of what is possible if you put a real lens in front of some Instax film and it's great! I am confident, at this point, that sometime in the next year or so someone will step up with a serious camera for Instax. Probably not Fuji. Lomo is so close to having something.

 

[Valerie]

I can't wait to try this out! Love my instax and this will add a new layer to creative possibilities!

 

[darkosaric]

Monochrome is out in sale - just ordered some from macodirect .

 

[RattyMouse]

Monochrome is out in sale - just ordered some from macodirect .

Lucky you! Fujifilm in an act of pure brilliance won't sell this film in the US.

 

[mooseontheloose]

It was released on Friday here in Japan. I wouldn't mind trying it out, but that would mean buying a camera too, and at the moment I'm trying to pare back the number of cameras I have.

 

[ericdan]

It's pretty nice. Just got a pack yesterday.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Sorry for being so late getting back here.

re: plastic lenses vs. glass

I'm hoping to clear up the controversy about plastic lenses. It seems to some people think plastic lenses are inherently "junk" while glass lenses are inherently superior. Truth is, the issue is more complicated, and, in some circumstances, excellent pictures have been taken with polymer optics, but it is also true that using plastics for optics brings serious restrictions on what a lens can do.

In the mid-1950s, Kodak replaced the glass meniscus lens in their Brownie Holiday with a plastic lens integrated with the front fascia of the camera. A skeptical photo trade magazine compared the two versions of the Holiday and were shocked to find that the pictures from the new Holiday were sharper than the older glass-lensed model. Turns out that the use of plastic (methyl methacrylate) allowed them to mass-produce inexpensive aspheric lenses - once you had made one aspheric mold, every lens made from it would be aspheric as well. In comparison, grinding and polishing individual aspheric glass lenses would be cost prohibitive in a very inexpensive camera like the Brownie Holiday. Kodak continued to make methyl methacrylate singlets for the entry level Instamatics into the 1980s (ee. gg. 100, 104, 124, X-15) with results more than good enough for millions of snapshooters.

The downside of polymer lenses was that there were few opportunities to vary the refractive indices of plastic lenses to any appreciable degree. There were a few camera with plastic Cooke triplets, in which methyl methacrylate elements were used along with styrene acrilonitrile polymer elements. The difference in refractive index between these two plastics was extremely slight. Mid-level Kodak Instamatics (from the 300 in the original series with a fixed focus Cooke to the X-45 and finally the X-35F with a two-step front focusing Cooke), while Polaroid solid-body pack cameras (Colorpack II et al) had f8.8 front focusing Cookes. I've dissected both of these, and the elements in them were VERY THICK to provide the proper correction with such a small difference in RI. My one roll of KR64 shot on an Instamatic 304 is very sharp, while in the Polaroid models, the lenses were easily as sharp as the film could render (about 10 lp/mm due to dye transfer reversal process)

Any attempt to make a fast lens from plastics would be futile without the greater differences in refraction possible when working with the many varieties of optical glass.

Today, with lenses so small, and mass production so advanced, there is little reason to use plastics for lenses. Glass is cheap when the lenses are not much larger than a grain of sand.

A magazine (I forget whether it was Popular Photography or Modern Photography) had a very good article in the mid-1960s: "Plastic Lenses? Good Enough!".

 

[RattyMouse]

Plastic lenses on a $70 camera are junk. It's that simple.