Wide 300 vs. InstantKon RF70 lens quality

[Helge]

I see quite a few reviews of the RF70 but not really a full test and talk about its main selling point, the lens and the ability to do arbitrarily timed exposures.

Instax resolves around 10 line to 12 (B&W) per milimeter according to Fuji Film.

Is the doublet, with a high aperture really not good enough for Instax?
Similar 6x9 120 cameras with doublets produce negatives and contact prints that looks very good.
It’s only with enlargement that you see the problems.

Long exposures would be really nice to have. but since reciprocity is bad for Instax and you need a tripod it’s would really be a fringe use case.

Flash connector is easily simulated with a slave flash.

So is the Wide 300, especially considering the QC problems with the RF70, not really good enough?

 

[xya]

I did a full test of the RF70 https://www.instantphoto.eu/other/mint_instantkon_rf70.htm and no, the 300 is not good enough at all. Already the old 500 AF was better and there are quite some more better Wide solutions on my website. The RF70 can even deal with the reprocity problem quite well

I would wish at least a Fuji Wide camera comparable to the Neo 90 Mini. The Neo 90 gives very good results.

 

[Helge]

I did a full test of the RF70 https://www.instantphoto.eu/other/mint_instantkon_rf70.htm and no, the 300 is not good enough at all. Already the old 500 AF was better and there are quite some more better Wide solutions on my website. The RF70 can even deal with the reprocity problem quite well

I would wish at least a Fuji Wide camera comparable to the Neo 90 Mini. The Neo 90 gives very good results.

That’s a very interesting site you got there.
Did you ever directly compare RF70 and 300 shots at optimal focus?
How does the Lomo Wide offerings compare?

 

[Oren Grad]

How does the Lomo Wide offerings compare?

https://danfinnen.com/2015/12/14/lomo-instant-wide-vs-fuji-instax-wide-300-image-quality-comparison/

 

[xya]

No, I did not compare them directly. There is not much to focus on the 300, just 2 settings. The RF 70 has a rangefinder. The lenses are not comparable either, but so are the prices.

The Lomo Wide has 3 distance settings. The lenses of the Lomo and the 300 are both not very good, each has its ups and downs. But the Lomo has exposure compensation and it has long shutter speeds. So you cam make night photos with the Lomo, no way to do so with a 300.

As I have several cameras that use the superb Mamiya Univeral lenses, I nearly don't use the others any more...

 

[Helge]

No, I did not compare them directly. There is not much to focus on the 300, just 2 settings. The RF 70 has a rangefinder. The lenses are not comparable either, but so are the prices.

The Lomo Wide has 3 distance settings. The lenses of the Lomo and the 300 are both not very good, each has its ups and downs. But the Lomo has exposure compensation and it has long shutter speeds. So you cam make night photos with the Lomo, no way to do so with a 300.

As I have several cameras that use the superb Mamiya Univeral lenses, I nearly don't use the others any more...

Well, my suspicion is that at those high apertures (that the 300 uses) the lenses are quite comparable.
Even a box camera with a meniscus can make good contact prints of ≈ the same size. A doublet (possibly aspherical) should be even better.
Of course as you say, the 300 is very coarsely zone focused. But you can sort of deduce the optimal focus range by looking at comparable lenses.
Of course the RF70 has control over aperture and exposure so you have a lot more creative options.
But for straight max DOF shots, are they comparable?
After all ≈ 12 lp/mm should be pretty easily satisfied with even a mediocre lens.
The real issue would seem to be focus.

 

[halfaman]

I would wish at least a Fuji Wide camera comparable to the Neo 90 Mini. The Neo 90 gives very good results.

They all have the same desing, two plastics elements in two groups. Perhaps it is the smaller format what makes you think Neo lens is better.

I find Wide lens sharp enough when focus scale is used properly (I carry with me a small Watameter rangefinder to check distance). The main problem for me is that the aperture is too small and background gets black very easily in portraits, for landscapes is useful only with good light.

 

[Helge]

They all have the same desing, two plastics elements in two groups. Perhaps it is the smaller format what makes you think Neo lens is better.

I find Wide lens sharp enough when focus scale is used properly (I carry with me a small Watameter rangefinder to check distance). The main problem for me is that the aperture is too small and background gets black very easily in portraits, for landscapes is useful only with good light.

Could you elaborate? What exactly is the correct distances for each setting?

 

[blee1996]

As Helge said, there is not much resolution in Instax wide film to start with. In my experience if you get the focus right on the 300 wide, with good lighting or flash, it can get almost all the resolution out of the Instax Wide film.

I have tried several 3D printed mods with better lens to use with lomograflok back: a Rodenstock Ysarex 127mm f/4.7 from Polaroid 110A, and a Mamiya 127/4.7 from Polaroid 600SE. When you nail the focus, you get a tiny bit more resolution and sharpness. And these lens give you full control of exposure, which is as important to get the most out of the Instax Wide film. Otherwise you easily lose details due to over/under exposure. These two combined yields small improvements.

I have not used the RF670 myself, but I would guess the accurate focus and better exposure control will get the most out of the Instax Wide film. But I do not expect major improvement from the 300.

On another topic, the more I experiment with Instax Wide, the more I miss peel-apart film like FP-100C.

 

[Helge]

On another topic, the more I experiment with Instax Wide, the more I miss peel-apart film like FP-100C.

How do they differ apart from speed, size and the marginal predictable increase in resolving power (speed is three stops higher with the Instax product) of 15 lines pp. mm?

 

[halfaman]

Could you elaborate? What exactly is the correct distances for each setting?

There are only two focus settings: from 0,9 to 3 meters, and from 3 meters to infinity. The first setting works quite well from 1-2 meters, and the second setting is to use as indicated from 3 meters to infinity.

The Wide 300 includes a close-up lens attachment for 40-50cm distances (selfies) in 0,9-3m setting. I have a Wide 100 that does not include this feature so I can't comment about it.

 

[xya]

Yes, the lenses all have the same design, but the Neo 90 has 3 distance settings and a much better shutter, 1.8 - 1/400 sec + a bulb mode against 1/64 - 1/200 sec on the 300. The Neo 90 has a parallax correction for close focussing. And obviously they re-designed the light measuring. The Neo 90 gets it right under most circumstances.

 

[blee1996]

How do they differ apart from speed, size and the marginal predictable increase in resolving power (speed is three stops higher with the Instax product) of 15 lines pp. mm?

FP-100C also has the negative, which can be bleached and separated. The negative should have much higher resolution than the print itself.

 

[Helge]

There are only two focus settings: from 0,9 to 3 meters, and from 3 meters to infinity. The first setting works quite well from 1-2 meters, and the second setting is to use as indicated from 3 meters to infinity.

The Wide 300 includes a close-up lens attachment for 40-50cm distances (selfies) in 0,9-3m setting. I have a Wide 100 that does not include this feature so I can't comment about it.

I my world the only Instax format worth bothering with is “Wide”. It’s the original and only format.
The other two are pictures for mice.

Fuji should really take another page from Kodak’s book and do the same type of folder as Kodak did.
The cameras could be become quite small, with the slightly smaller format, a slightly wider lens and modern micro motors

 

[Henning Serger]

I see quite a few reviews of the RF70 but not really a full test and talk about its main selling point, the lens and the ability to do arbitrarily timed exposures.

Instax resolves around 10 line to 12 (B&W) per milimeter according to Fuji Film.

Is the doublet, with a high aperture really not good enough for Instax?

Some years ago friends of mine did a "camera-hack" with one of the first Lomo instax wide offerings, and adapted it to a 4x5" LF camera.
The resulting pictures were amazing!! The quality of the results - sharpness, resolution, bokeh - was so much better compared to the Fujifilm instax wide cameras. And it clearly showed the big potential of the instax film! Combined with a good lens the results come quite near to FP100c packfilm.
I am using the instax wide 210 camera for more than a decade now. And in the range of 0.9 to 3 meters the results are often quite sharp and nice. And you see the potential of the film. And after I have seen the results with the LF lens, I definitely know that instax film can really benefit from using a good lens. And that the current Fujifilm camera offerings are not exploiting the film capabilities at all, unfortunately.

So I am still looking for an improvement, and have an eye on the InstantKon RF70.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

No, I did not compare them directly. There is not much to focus on the 300, just 2 settings. The RF 70 has a rangefinder. The lenses are not comparable either, but so are the prices.

The pictures of the RF70 you have published in your test report look significantly sharper and higher resolving compared to the results with Fujifilm instax cameras. Especially those with f8 and f11.
But scans of instax photos on the web are generally quite problematic to evaluate, therefore my question:
In a direct live comparison of the results - RF 70 vs. Fuji instax wide 300 vs. Lomo: How big, how significant is the difference?
And how precise is the RF70 rangefinder?

Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[xya]

The pictures from the RF70 are indeed significantly sharper. My scans are all without any correction or post-treatment unless indicated. But it all depends on the intended use.

In good daylight, but no strong sunshine, the Fuji 300 can deliver nice results. But only then. In glaring sunshine on the beach it over-exposes terribly. On dull days and in deep shades it under-exposes. Darken/lighten will not help really. No way to make night photos. Flash snapshots are acceptable up to 2m.

The LOMO Wide has a much wider range seen its shutter and its 2 apertures. So it gets it right in more situations, strong sunshine or dark shades. Its night photo capability is really great. One would wish a better lens and an aperture preset. Flash snapshots are quite OK.

The RF70 has got it all. A good shutter/aperture, a much better lens and a rangefinder which is precise on my camera. Since an update the exposure system can even cope with the uneven ISO of Instax film. Instax is 800 ISO in average situations, it's 1600 ISO in bright sunshine and only 400 ISO in dark situations. Knowing this you should compensate with other cameras, the RF70 does it on its own. You can attach any flash you want unless you have the cable adapter (one would wish either a PC socket or a hot shoe). The only snag is the price which is fine in my opinion seen that you get a new camera (made from scratch) with a 5 year warranty. Folded it is really small.

I have quite some specially made Instax cameras on my website that use reknown superb lenses. Their image quality might be slightly better than the RF70, but - if ever - one cannot see a real difference. The advantage of these cameras is their different focal length. So we come back to the start: it all depends on the intended use.

 

[halfaman]

Lomo Wide f/8 aperture is a bit soft for my taste. Aperture used by Fuji (around f/13) seems the best compromise for this type of lenses.

 

[xya]

Seen the lens, yes. There are other lenses which are fine at F8.

That's why I said I would wish an aperture preset (to f22) which is much sharper and with the use of a tripod and the long exposure times one would be able to make wonderful night photos, but also good photos in the shade.

 

[Helge]

Some years ago friends of mine did a "camera-hack" with one of the first Lomo instax wide offerings, and adapted it to a 4x5" LF camera.
The resulting pictures were amazing!! The quality of the results - sharpness, resolution, bokeh - was so much better compared to the Fujifilm instax wide cameras. And it clearly showed the big potential of the instax film! Combined with a good lens the results come quite near to FP100c packfilm.
I am using the instax wide 210 camera for more than a decade now. And in the range of 0.9 to 3 meters the results are often quite sharp and nice. And you see the potential of the film. And after I have seen the results with the LF lens, I definitely know that instax film can really benefit from using a good lens. And that the current Fujifilm camera offerings are not exploiting the film capabilities at all, unfortunately.

So I am still looking for an improvement, and have an eye on the InstantKon RF70.

Best regards,
Henning

I find that after playing around with my 300 that it’s absolutely imperative to know the real focus zones of the two setting available.
From empirical research (wasting too much film) that’s 0.9-3 = 1.5 m and the 3-∞ = 5.5 meters.

Using the supplied diopter has resulted in some of the sharpest photos I shot. At dead 45 cm the shots are tack sharp.

Furthermore that light meter is terrible. It doesn’t appear to be center weighted, and of course there is no hold exposure.
Only guessing how it’s going to misbehave with the L and D buttons.
Of course Fuji would love us to play around a whole lot to get the best result instead of using a lightmeter.

Probably the paltry shutter range is to blame too. 64 to 200 is just not enough. Allegedly it goes down to 45 for flash.

It would take precious little to make a much better camera:

A small plastic doublet is probably fine, of course a plastic triblet would be extra fine.
Make it freely focusable. You don’t even need a rangefinder just let us guess or use any way to find distance we like.

A shutter that goes from 30 to 500 (not to hard with the smaller apertures used here).

A B mode for “experts” for long exposures.

A flash shoe for bounce flash. They could even drop the useless build in one and sell a better separate unit or have build in bounce.

Some of their past cameras in the same or very similar film formats were far better. AF, a decent flash (not bounce capable though) folding, nice design.
Look at the old Fotorama series. Beautiful cameras!

 

[xya]

Except the lens they could take all parts, electronics and all from the Neo 90 and adapt it to a 300...

 

[Henning Serger]

The pictures from the RF70 are indeed significantly sharper. My scans are all without any correction or post-treatment unless indicated. But it all depends on the intended use.

That is very good to hear! Because that is what I am looking for: Significantly sharper, higher resolving results compared to my instax wide 210.

In good daylight, but no strong sunshine, the Fuji 300 can deliver nice results. But only then. In glaring sunshine on the beach it over-exposes terribly. On dull days and in deep shades it under-exposes. Darken/lighten will not help really. No way to make night photos. Flash snapshots are acceptable up to 2m.

The LOMO Wide has a much wider range seen its shutter and its 2 apertures. So it gets it right in more situations, strong sunshine or dark shades. Its night photo capability is really great. One would wish a better lens and an aperture preset. Flash snapshots are quite OK.

The RF70 has got it all. A good shutter/aperture, a much better lens and a rangefinder which is precise on my camera. Since an update the exposure system can even cope with the uneven ISO of Instax film. Instax is 800 ISO in average situations, it's 1600 ISO in bright sunshine and only 400 ISO in dark situations. Knowing this you should compensate with other cameras, the RF70 does it on its own. You can attach any flash you want unless you have the cable adapter (one would wish either a PC socket or a hot shoe). The only snag is the price which is fine in my opinion seen that you get a new camera (made from scratch) with a 5 year warranty. Folded it is really small.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. Highly appreciated!
Besides the better sharpness / resolution I am looking for a more precise viewfinder compared to my instax 210 (the viewfinder of it is quite problematic, not very precise). And more versatilty / creative options - advanced features.
The flash sync option (i do a lot of studio work), multi-exposure option and tripod socket of the RF70 are therefore very welcomed.

I am using the instax 210 mostly for people and portrait. My professional models absolutely love instax pictures. I always give them some as a present at every photoshoot. And we've discovered that there is a demand from customers for instax pictures, signed by model and photographer. They have charm, and every photo is unique.
It looks like the RF70 would be a very good - at least a better - tool for these purposes compared to my instax 210.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Camerabae]

Since an update the exposure system can even cope with the uneven ISO of Instax film. Instax is 800 ISO in average situations, it's 1600 ISO in bright sunshine and only 400 ISO in dark situations. Knowing this you should compensate with other cameras, the RF70 does it on its own.

Thanks for sharing this information! I don’t mean to hijack this thread but could you elaborate on the update to the exposure system you spoke of? I got an RF70 second hand a few weeks ago and have enjoyed using it but have also been struggling to get consistent exposures outside while metering with my Sekonic L558.

I only learned a few days ago Instax ISO isn’t a consistent 800 ISO. I started metering at 1600 ISO in bright daylight and got better results, but am still struggling to wrap my head around it.

 

[Helge]

Thanks for sharing this information! I don’t mean to hijack this thread but could you elaborate on the update to the exposure system you spoke of? I got an RF70 second hand a few weeks ago and have enjoyed using it but have also been struggling to get consistent exposures outside while metering with my Sekonic L558.

I only learned a few days ago Instax ISO isn’t a consistent 800 ISO. I started metering at 1600 ISO in bright daylight and got better results, but am still struggling to wrap my head around it.

All film is faster In bright daylight and slower in tungsten and low light (ultimately due to reciprocity failure).
Instax being a mono bath reversal film is of course special in that regard, but nevertheless behaves more or less like you’d expect it, given the circumstances.

 

[xya]

Thanks for sharing this information! I don’t mean to hijack this thread but could you elaborate on the update to the exposure system you spoke of? I got an RF70 second hand a few weeks ago and have enjoyed using it but have also been struggling to get consistent exposures outside while metering with my Sekonic L558.

I only learned a few days ago Instax ISO isn’t a consistent 800 ISO. I started metering at 1600 ISO in bright daylight and got better results, but am still struggling to wrap my head around it.

Mint released first a "founders edition" for those who subscribed. This one has no compensation. I struggled with inconsistent metering and, as others, let them know about it. So the second production batch had the metering system updated. As my original camera's ejection system failed, they sent me a replacement camera from the second batch. Their service is impeccable.

The founders edition has inscribed this around the lens. All others have not. You can see both on my page https://www.instantphoto.eu/other/mint_instantkon_rf70.htm