New mini-Polaroid film format

[Oren Grad]

Polaroid Go, 47 x 46 mm picture area. Matching mini-camera with wide-angle lens.

https://us.polaroid.com/collections/go-film-bundle

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...nounced-worlds-smallest-analog-instant-camera

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Looks like a fun camera. I got a similar Fuji instant camera for my daughter which she had a lot of fun with. Even I got to use it. People always appreciate seeing pictures right away especially at get-togethers.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's not much smaller than an Instax Mini camera, but I'll give 'em it is a little -- and the film is a little smaller than Instax Mini, too. I'll be curious to see whether it holds up in the market...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not much smaller than an Instax Mini camera, but I'll give 'em it is a little -- and the film is a little smaller than Instax Mini, too. I'll be curious to see whether it holds up in the market...

Not sure if the name Polaroid still has drawing power as "the" original instant film camera. That could help. Of course, they're coming late to the party.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's not much smaller than an Instax Mini camera, but I'll give 'em it is a little -- and the film is a little smaller than Instax Mini, too. I'll be curious to see whether it holds up in the market...

But will picture quality be anything like Instax... I shot some colour Polaroid in my SX-70, and the colour wasn't great, especially yellows.

 

[darkosaric]

Good news, even if it does not catch up. Film is definitionally not dead .

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not sure if the name Polaroid still has drawing power as "the" original instant film camera.

The "original" instant film camera had almost no relation to the ones now sold under the Polaroid name. Roll-loaded, peel-apart films, high-quality optics, rangefinders... vs. pack-loaded, fixed-focus, integral films, and image size smaller than even the Swinger (smallest of the peel-apart films).

But will picture quality be anything like Instax...

Pretty sure the film is the same chemistry as recent Polaroid iFilm and 600. Just like the old one that was the same size as 35mm negatives was the same chemistry as the then-extant 600.

 

[foc]

I think the name Polaroid is still remembered and equated with instant photos.
I used to hear customers ask for the Polaroid Instax film.
Fuji Instax has the lion's share of the market but any addition to instant film is always welcome. IMO Fuji has set the benchmark for instant film quality, something that I think Polaroid has yet to achieve.
Personally, I like the look of the Polaroid camera, it has a retro classic look. Fuji Instax has cottoned to the retro look with their new mini 40.

 

[Don_ih]

The overuse of the name "Polaroid" on everything from calculators to micro-sd-card adapters watered down their respectability while they weren't associated with film. But they are still synonymous with instant photography.

Gotta remember, though. Every new film format and camera they come out with moves them closer to not making film for the cameras that are no longer manufactured. They'll get there eventually.

 

[AgX]

The overuse of the name "Polaroid" on everything from calculators to micro-sd-card adapters watered down their respectability while they weren't associated with film. But they are still synonymous with instant photography.

Still I consider it the most valuable brand within the photochemical industry. And it is the only one still known at young folks.

Gotta remember, though. Every new film format and camera they come out with moves them closer to not making film for the cameras that are no longer manufactured. They'll get there eventually.

Good point.

 

[Horatio]

Gotta remember, though. Every new film format and camera they come out with moves them closer to not making film for the cameras that are no longer manufactured. They'll get there eventually.

They discontinued the Spectra films last year and orphaned my only Polaroid camera. This new format has little appeal to me but I’m sure some will appreciate it.

 

[Don_ih]

discontinued the Spectra films last year

The Spectra was a great camera, far better than any Instax camera, far better than any rainbow Polaroid.

 

[Horatio]

The Spectra was a great camera, far better than any Instax camera, far better than any rainbow Polaroid.

Some enterprising souls are selling old stock on eBay. The cheapest price I saw for color film was $25. It's amazing that film is still available for the SX-70, also a decent camera.

 

[Ces1um]

Did I see the new film comes in packs of 16 photos per cartridge? The real question will be cost per photo. Here in NS it's about $25 for 8 photos. Given about 1/4 of them turn out under/overexposed or with streaks that's a bit of an expense to swallow. When they do turn out though they look great. I don't think they're daylight balanced for colour rendition. Everything has a yellow tinge. If the smaller format is a bit cheaper (have they announced the price per pack yet?) it could do well though. The camera itself does look cute though. I'd be tempted to try one out.

 

[Don_ih]

Did I see the new film comes in packs of 16 photos per cartridge? The real question will be cost per photo. Here in NS it's about $25 for 8 photos. Given about 1/4 of them turn out under/overexposed or with streaks that's a bit of an expense to swallow. When they do turn out though they look great. I don't think they're daylight balanced for colour rendition. Everything has a yellow tinge. If the smaller format is a bit cheaper (have they announced the price per pack yet?) it could do well though. The camera itself does look cute though. I'd be tempted to try one out.

I think it's 8 exposures per cartridge and they include 2 cartridges. While it would be a smaller amount of film/paper (whatever it is) and chemicals, the process to make every piece and cartridge and put it all together is the same as for bigger film, so it probably won't be that much cheaper. Given the narrow width, there should be fewer problems from inconsistent spread of chemicals by the rollers. But that also depends on how poorly made the camera is (probably pretty poorly made).

However, this is an obvious competitor for Instax Mini, so they may make the film price the same as, or less than, that.

 

[Ces1um]

I think it's 8 exposures per cartridge and they include 2 cartridges. While it would be a smaller amount of film/paper (whatever it is) and chemicals, the process to make every piece and cartridge and put it all together is the same as for bigger film, so it probably won't be that much cheaper. Given the narrow width, there should be fewer problems from inconsistent spread of chemicals by the rollers. But that also depends on how poorly made the camera is (probably pretty poorly made).

However, this is an obvious competitor for Instax Mini, so they may make the film price the same as, or less than, that.

Logical points. I'd have to agree with you really.

 

[Oren Grad]

I think it's 8 exposures per cartridge and they include 2 cartridges. While it would be a smaller amount of film/paper (whatever it is) and chemicals, the process to make every piece and cartridge and put it all together is the same as for bigger film, so it probably won't be that much cheaper. Given the narrow width, there should be fewer problems from inconsistent spread of chemicals by the rollers. But that also depends on how poorly made the camera is (probably pretty poorly made).

However, this is an obvious competitor for Instax Mini, so they may make the film price the same as, or less than, that.

I suspect that a large part of the cost is indeed in the packaging and distribution, not so much the amount of coated film stock used for each print. Fuji's pricing for the various Instax formats suggests as much. Whether Polaroid can ever be as efficient as Fuji in its production cost remains to be seen.

Re construction quality, I have a Polaroid OneStep Plus camera. Although there are some obvious limitations to image quality that are inherent in the design, notably the lens and the very limited control of focus, the fit and finish of the camera is actually excellent for the price - I was pleasantly surprised. I would expect the same from the new mini-camera.

 

[Don_ih]

Re construction quality, I have a Polaroid OneStep Plus camera. Although there are some obvious limitations to image quality that are inherent in the design, notably the lens and the very limited control of focus, the fit and finish of the camera is actually excellent for the price - I was pleasantly surprised. I would expect the same from the new mini-camera.

Well, that's good news. Frankly, they don't have to work hard to beat Fuji on the camera end. I had an Instax Mini - it died after three packs of film (would no longer eject the film, although it tried). My Instax Wide is about as good as a roll of toilet paper, when it comes to composition. But Polaroid is not situated to beat or even approach how much film Fuji sells. Instax is massively popular - there are probably more Instax cameras roaming the world than packfilm Polaroids and integrated film Polaroids combined.

 

[Oren Grad]

My Mini 90 is well-finished and has held up fine to moderate use. My Wide 300 is cleanly finished too, though it certainly feels cheaper and more fragile than the Mini 90 or the OneStep Plus - but it too has held up OK so far. A failure after three packs is bad luck, not typical for the line. Just based on subjective impressions of fit, finish and feel in use, I'm more concerned about the longevity of my Lomo Square Glass and Lomo Automat Glass (mini format) than I am about the Fuji or Polaroid cameras. On the other hand, those impressions may not be a reliable guide to what's happening to the parts inside - time will tell. But in any case, at the price, I don't think it's realistic to expect the moving parts in any of these cameras to be built for the ages.

Re composition, they're like any other camera with a plain window finder that's not corrected for focus distance or parallax - you use it a bit, learn how it behaves at various distances, and adjust accordingly.

 

[Don_ih]

they're like any other camera with a plain window finder that's not corrected for focus distance or parallax

Somehow, they're not. Polaroid packfilm cameras with flip-up viewfinders, you would think, would be more problematic for composition, but they're not. It comes from having the Instax viewfinder positioned at a diagonal from the lens position. The more adjustments you can't see but must remember to make, the more clumsy the camera. They should have put the viewfinder on top. Then they would have needed the film to come out the side. That would've made it necessary to change the film to put the chemical pouches on a narrow end. Then the film would be able to be used in a Polaroid 600 camera

 

[Oren Grad]

Then the film would be able to be used in a Polaroid 600 camera

Not quite. One of them exposes the film through the front, the other through the back. You just can't win.

Seriously, though, these cheap-and-cheerful cameras are for mucking around without getting hung up over total control. If one needs the control then there are Instax backs that can be had for medium format and large format cameras. (Disclosure: I have the Lomo Graflok back for Instax Wide on order, also own a Wide 300 that has been converted with a view camera lens.)

 

[Donald Qualls]

Polaroid packfilm cameras with flip-up viewfinders, you would think, would be more problematic for composition,

The pack-film Polaroids with RF in the flip-up viewfinder also had parallax compensation coupled to the RF. Easy to see, if you've got one -- the entire VF module tilts as you rack the focus in and out.

 

[Don_ih]

The pack-film Polaroids with RF in the flip-up viewfinder also had parallax compensation coupled to the RF. Easy to see, if you've got one -- the entire VF module tilts as you rack the focus in and out.

The 340 I just looked at, the brightlines move up and down and the viewer stays put. But I was talking about other potential problems, due to it being on a hinge and stuck to a magnet, that could throw it off.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The 340 I just looked at, the brightlines move up and down and the viewer stays put. But I was talking about other potential problems, due to it being on a hinge and stuck to a magnet, that could throw it off.

They might have changed that over the run. I'm pretty sure I have or have seen one that tilts -- but I haven't used my 350 in a long time, or my 100 in even longer, so I'm not certain.

The magnet isn't likely to be a problem, as long as the magnet itself doesn't move in its mount (the other side is just a steel plate). For that matter, the framing doesn't really need extreme precision.

 

[Don_ih]

They might have changed that over the run. I'm pretty sure I have or have seen one that tilts -- but I haven't used my 350 in a long time, or my 100 in even longer, so I'm not certain.

The magnet isn't likely to be a problem, as long as the magnet itself doesn't move in its mount (the other side is just a steel plate). For that matter, the framing doesn't really need extreme precision.

I wasn't citing any actual problem with using the Polaroid viewfinder, just saying that you might expect it to be more problematic than one fixed inside a camera body.

You likely are referring to the Zeiss viewfinders, which did have parallax correction, such as would be found on a Polaroid 250. It was a more expensive option. Unlike Fuji, Polaroid offered a higher quality camera for those that wanted it.