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.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...
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.
But will picture quality be anything like Instax...
Still I consider it the most valuable brand within the photochemical industry. And it is the only one still known at young folks.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.
Good point.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.
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.
discontinued the Spectra films last year
The Spectra was a great camera, far better than any Instax camera, far better than any rainbow Polaroid.
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.
Logical points. I'd have to agree with you really.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 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.
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.
they're like any other camera with a plain window finder that's not corrected for focus distance or parallax
Then the film would be able to be used in a Polaroid 600 camera
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?