This Classic Polaroid SX 70 Ad is a Blast from Photography’s Past

Smiley

H
Smiley

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Vernal Dark

A
Vernal Dark

  • 5
  • 1
  • 45
WPPD-2025-TULIPS

A
WPPD-2025-TULIPS

  • 2
  • 0
  • 80

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,473
Messages
2,759,732
Members
99,382
Latest member
MLHuisman
Recent bookmarks
4

AndyH

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
451
Location
New England
Format
Medium Format
Excellent!
A long way from most advertising, either now or in the age of Mad Men.

Andy
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,477
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
My mom got a plastic one in 1974. Those metal ones are really awesome, but even back in 1974 I was disappointed in the camera. Even though it was an SLR (achievement in instant photography yet to be equaled) it had no manual exposure control, so was inferior to the 180. I hoped for a 'pro' model SX-70 with manual control, but I never saw one (maybe someone knows of one and will point it out).
 

AndyH

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
451
Location
New England
Format
Medium Format
My mom got a plastic one in 1974. Those metal ones are really awesome, but even back in 1974 I was disappointed in the camera. Even though it was an SLR (achievement in instant photography yet to be equaled) it had no manual exposure control, so was inferior to the 180. I hoped for a 'pro' model SX-70 with manual control, but I never saw one (maybe someone knows of one and will point it out).

I would like that, too.

But it does have an exposure compensation dial, which can you can use to gimmick the exposure settings. The metering is f/stop, then aperture priority, but I seem to recall creative photographers using masks to fool it into shooting at the widest aperture for minimum depth of field. Although the print is fairly large, the lens is not very fast.

Andy

PS: It's an f8 lens. The Camerapedia entry below gives some of the tricks used to manipulate exposure with the newer films to fit it. One of these days, I'm going to buy a pack of the "new" film for mine...

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Polaroid_SX-70
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
217
Location
Oxford, MI
Format
Analog
The above advert was created by Charles and Ray Eames of the Eames office on behalf of Polaroid for their 1972 stockholders meeting.

When you think about it the SX-70 was a truly revolutionary product, and a huge technological achievement. I recall reading that the research and development that resulted in the SX-70 cost $140,000,000 in 1972 dollars. You can see the technological challenges in this video, apart from the extremely complicated chemistry of the film itself, you have the aspheric mirrors in the optical system. Heck, nobody has yet made another folding SLR. Not to mention the integrated circuits used in the exposure control system.

I have always liked the SX-70. I was first given an SX-70 when I was about 8 by a neighbor, and fondly remember the precious few images I was able to take with it by going down to the local Meijers and buying 600 film and turning the L/D dial all the way to Darken.

A few years later, when I became more interested in photography it seems everyone had an old Polaroid and more often than not I became the intended recipient. I probably had about a dozen SX-70s at one point, models 1-3 and some Onestep cameras too. It's kind of amazing how much money the original leather and chrome SX-70 cameras go for now, I can remember when they were $5-10 at thrift shops and antique stores a decade ago. I probably should have kept more of the cameras I had, but I threw out or sold the less desirable model 3 and other non working examples I had.

Nowadays, I still have two SX-70 SLRs. I am happy that Impossible (now Polaroid Originals) has recreated integral Polaroid films. I have great respect for the Polaroid Originals/ Impossible Project for re-manufacturing film for these old cameras however they just don't seem to be there yet, as to be useful for anything other than experimental use. The biggest problem is the failure of the opacification layer resulting in blue streaks on the developed film I have noticed this as well on even the most recent generations of the Polaroid Originals SX-70 films. It seems to get worse as the film ages, the longer you have the film in the camera and the brighter conditions you are shooting in the more likely this is to happen.

Another problem I have been having is that the batteries in the packs are wearing out prematurely, If I leave a pack in a camera for more than a month it may not have enough energy left to get though all 8 exposures. This is a bit disconcerting considering that the batteries are of a lithium manganese dioxide chemistry, and should theoretically have sufficient energy density and a 10 year shelf life, but I have cross referenced the part numbers in my Polaroid Originals packs and found they use the cheapest Chinese cells possible, so it should come as no surprise. It would be nice if someone could manufacture those Polapulse flat batteries again, then these issues would be less likely and you could actually fit 10 exposures in a pack again.

I think that if Polaroid Originals/Impossible would work on actually fixing the opacification and battery issues and create a technologically better product, versus their current model of focusing on tinted emulsions and colored frames, their business would be better in the long run.
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
That ad is awesome. It makes me want to go buy some expensive inferior film for my SX-70.
 

Ariston

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
Be careful. I had a pod rupture.
Whoa! I had not heard of that happening. So, we can choose between not using our cameras at all, or risk ruining them? Was it hard to clean? Had you stored the film in heat or cold or anything unusual?
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,251
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Whoa! I had not heard of that happening. So, we can choose between not using our cameras at all, or risk ruining them? Was it hard to clean? Had you stored the film in heat or cold or anything unusual?
Brand new pack from a local shop. This was a couple years back. Black and white, it was my ugly looking white plastic version not my brushed metal look original. It's a horrible mess and not at all easy to clean. Having said that I'm going to be buying some film again, the Time Zero stuff of the late great Polaroid was sublime.
 

BobD

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,113
Location
California,
Format
Analog
The batteries in the original SX70 film packs were amazing. Though they were never advertised as being rechargeable, they can be recharged. I don't know about the current ones in that regard.
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
217
Location
Oxford, MI
Format
Analog
The batteries in the original SX70 film packs were amazing. Though they were never advertised as being rechargeable, they can be recharged. I don't know about the current ones in that regard.

Indeed they were, the original Polapulse batteries were another technological achievement we can attribute to Polaroid. They weren't only used in Polaroid cameras either, Sinclair in the UK made a small portable television set that used the Polaroid batteries to save space, Polaroid themselves made a portable AM/FM radio that could run on used film packs:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/unknown_polaroid_600_plus.html

Despite their small size and zinc-chloride chemistry (the same chemistry as modern "heavy-duty" batteries) the Polapulse batteries had impressive discharge characteristics. The battery only had a capacity of 264 mAh, but had a very impressive 15 Amp instantaneous pulse current capability. This is of course necessitated by the design of the SX-70. When a picture is taken using the camera, a lot of current is needed immediately to activate the autoexposure circuits, close the shutter, flip the mirror, stop down the lens, open the shutter again, close the shutter again, drop the mirror, open the lens back up, open the shutter again, and activate the gear train which ejects the film and pushes it through the roller. Also to provide power to a flashbar if one is inserted. It has to do this only ten times, but every time, and in adverse conditions, and is thus overbuilt.

The technical details of the original Polapulse battery are available here:
http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/download/36529/P100.pdf

Now if you open up a used pack of film from Impossible/Polaroid Original, you will find a battery marked "Impossible Impulse Battery model I-11", shown here for reference:
https://www.aliexpress.com/i/32956840091.html

Opening the Impossible battery you find two 3V lithium cells wired in series for the neccesary 6V that the camera runs on, the model number for those cells is CP225040N. I have attached the links for two datasheets below. What you learn from these datasheets is twofold. First, the battery does have a higher capacity than the original at 750 mAh, versus the 264 mAh of the original. However, the pertinent characteristic is instantaneous or pulse discharge current, and that is where the replacement battery falters. Where the original battery could provide 15 Amps instantaneously, the new cells have a stated maximum pulse discharge current of 500 mA or 0.5 Amps. It is severely lacking in this regard, and I have encountered numerous occasions in which the battery in a Polaroid Originals pack has failed to cycle the camera fully in a partially used pack.

http://www.gmbattery.com/Datasheet/CP/CP225040.pdf

(Photrio has removed second link)

The battery used in these new Impossible batteries is a Li-Ion battery so they are indeed rechargeable, however care must be used as LI-Ion batteries require specific charging regimens to prevent incident. They are also notoriously more flammable than the original Zinc-Chloride battery although, thankfully, I have never heard of incident as a result of this.

One other item of note is that the new Impossible batteries are noticeably larger than their Polapulse equivalents, I have no doubt that this is the real reason why Impossible/Polaroid Originals packs only have 8 images in them instead of the original 10. I never really bought into the reason that Impossible/Polaroid Originals gave which is that the film is thicker. The reason being that if the film were thicker, then the rollers would need to be redesigned to allow the film to pass through with the appropriate amount of pressure. If you read about the problems that Polaroid had with roller clearances when they brought out type 38 Polacolor roll film, then it becomes apparent that a thicker film stock would not function in unmodified cameras. Measuring with a digital caliper also confirms that the film is the same thickness as that sold by Polaroid before they ceased production.
 

BobD

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,113
Location
California,
Format
Analog
The first examples of the original SX70 did not have a split-image focusing aid in the viewfinder. These cameras are somewhat rare. The split-image feature was added later and most original model SX70s have it. At one time the ones without that feature commanded higher prices as collectibles. Now I see online sellers advertising that their SX70 has the split-image feature as if that made it something special.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom