The packaging of the films suggests that there will be no issues with image quality as long as there are strictly attractive young females in front of the lens. Depending on the photographer, this could indeed be a lot of fun, or quite creepy.
The real problem was that he forgot to do the "Developing Dance". In the early 1980s we shot hundreds of Polaroids of oscilloscope traces with a Peel off type 'scope camera (work was paying).. The joke was that if you didn't wave the print around to cool it as it developed and do the "Developing Dance" your photo would come out rubbish.
I was waiting for the sample they had taken to substantiate their comments. But alas I was bitterly disappointed and had to put away my lynching rope for another day. You won this round, Techmoan, you won this round.
If you willing to make a follow up video collaboration why not send it to ruclips.net/user/mattiasburling he does a lot of photo work with old camera/quirky cameras and see if he can do something with that sucker.
I love the comments that end with the passive-aggressive smiley. Like "well maybe you don't know anything about cameras :)" Is it weird that little ":)" makes the comment 100x worse and makes me want to slap someone??
I loved your dry read off of the critics! That was brilliant! As a photographer myself that loves to play around with different formats I'd love to defend my Fuji instax but not with any of those points. I only bring mine to social gatherings like parties and on vacation. The camera is a great conversation piece more than anything. Everybody wants their picture taken in the classic Polaroid style because it has such a mystical allure now. People also love to bring souvenirs and memories home from events and what could be better than a tactile photo with your friends, new and old? As long as your images are shot in direct sunlight or with decent flash indoors and the subject fills the frame nicely, you've got a hit photo. Yes, it is extremely limited, but that's what makes it so appealing when you get the hang of it and when the crowd responds to it. It's definitely not a camera for everybody but it does have an audience that sees value in it. I treasure my book of Instax memories and have much more fun looking at them in the book with just a couple photos per event than I do scrolling through a million duplicate photos of every single post possible on the computer. I also love going to a friend's house and finding a photo I took hanging on their fridge or in the walls of their room along with others they've collected. Maybe what it comes down to is that you're printing these photos today the same reason you would have 20 years ago, not because you want to show somebody a photo of your lunch or a nice looking car but because you shared an experience with somebody and you want to share that moment with other people. Really special moments deserve to be printed out.
Exactly! I do gig rowing and l love taking my camera to regattas! I've collected some really nice team pictures that are tacked on my wall next to my bed, they make me feel really happy when I look at them, because I know that my camera was in the moment with us, and captured exactly what it was like.
As a Polaroid enthusiast who regularly shoots film that costs about $2.50/photo and just bought a brand new Polaroid that shoots film at the bargain price of $2.00/photo (or $16.25/photo including the cost of the camera and one pack of film) I have no grounds to tell you you're wrong about this camera/format. Mostly because you're right and I can't see any practical purpose to these cameras today. Just because I enjoy them and am willing to shell out to do so doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way or even understand. Its just a hobby at the end of the day.
I agree. I love the look of it, but I completely understand why people don't. I take pictures with my Pixel 2 when I want the sharpness and detail and such, and when I want to experience the moment in a more, in my opinion, meaningful way, I take a photo with an instant camera. Like you said, it's a hobby. There's a lot of debate in the fine arts community over digital versus hand drawn, but they're at least respectful enough to not say 'OH YOU JUST USED YOUR HAND WRONG!' One thing will never be for anyone. Digital photography won't ever be for everyone. It's the exact same with instant. And, of course, the style will never be for everyone. Whether it be a personal style - the filters, how someone frames it - or the medium. Art is subjective, and that includes how it's made.
I think that those that comment on the camera being, fun, fun, fun and retro, are younger people who don't realise that a decent camera from 60 years ago was capable of ultra high quality images if used properly.......... And yes it was fun as well
Yep... I'll put my old fully manual Minolta with some good slide film up against any digital, let alone instant, any day. Digital of course has many advantages over film but for image quality and yes, fun, an old manual cam with good glass is hard to beat.
Fun fact, Obama had the first digital presidential portrait taken, everyone else's portrait before him was taken on film, except the paintings of course. Still can't complain about the Reagan photo, unlike this instant thingy.
Sootikins yes I still have my old 35mm chinnon camera, it was capable of excellent results, used with a macro tube I could take pictures of an ant !!!!!!
Hell yeah, the same people who get wet over a cassette or vinyl rerelease because its 'retro' and 'fun' with the bad quality sound, ignoring that an original print sounds perfect
Man, I know logically that these photos aren't good from a technical perspective but I am absolutely in love with the aesthetic of them. Nit a huge fan of how expensive the film is and how wasteful the film is. Oh well. I can get mostly the same aesthetic with filters.
Decent review and the camera definitely produces low quality overpriced pictures. The purpose of the camera, for almost everyone I know who owns one though is to take pictures of people, mainly at parties. The fact it produces unreliable results is kind of the point. It's the antithesis of the ultra curated, doctored instagram photo.
Also interesting to note many of the people buying these would have had a high quality camera with infinite opportunity for curation in their pocket for the majority of their lives. The idea of low-quality, expensive photos being 'fun' seems inane for anyone who had to pay for film and get it developed as a necessity. But for some there's novelty in paying 2 bucks for one unreliable image of middling quality, us unbelievable as that is. To be honest, even for me, a good instant photo feels much more valuable than one on my phone. Anyway, great video as always. :)
Adjusted for inflation, it's about one-third the amount that we paid for instant film in the 1980s. For me, the real shocker is the cost of the camera: £125 versus £22 for the Polaroid Sun 600 camera that I owned as a kid.
Depends which decade you're referring to. The Polaroid film-packs in the 1980s cost £9.99 for 10 shots from Boots, as my mother often reminded me when I took yet another shot of the dog!
Some people have hacked up instax cameras to use as instant film backs with medium format cameras. It CAN look even better with nice glass and exposure control. Fun little things though and good review as always!
エステティック Funk www.workinprocess.com.au/single-post/2017/06/13/Bronica-Instax-V2 petapixel.com/2017/11/04/rezivot-instant-film-processor-shoot-instax-film-camera/ Really a lot of potential in the film its self imo and the cost per shot isn’t bad either when compared to 120 film with process and scanning.
So, it's good for expensive, Instagram-filter-like, low quality, out of focus, images which are not useful for anything in particular and which can't be easily reproduced. Got it. Never thought I'd see anything which made camera phone images look good, but there it is.
denimadept phone cameras are pretty impressive nowadays. Usually not comparable when pixel peeping, but otherwise very impressive, especially considering lens-size
And you can in fact reproduce similar images, you just said it, Instagram (And many other ways). The only point of these cameras is both nostalgia and having physical photos you can actually grab and touch with your hands, maybe make an album with them or stick them on the fridge or wherever you like.
All of that is true, but you have to consider that you're getting instant physical pictures and the vintage aspect. *Aaaand you dont have to deal with printers xDDD*
The problem is, that iso 800 is way to high to take pics on a sunny day outside. That's why they are over exposed. You need iso 200 or maximum iso 400... thats why they look washed out... By the way: really love your vids
The good thing with lomography, yes I know, is that at least it woke up interest in film again. And yes beyond the Lomo Choice of film most seem to go for, there are also special films that do ISO 25 for instance. Oh my! So, if it requires a lot of "such" pictures to keep that art alive. So be it.
Saying it's for "rich hipsters" is a bit much. £150 is not that expensive for a hobby. I'd buy some old used one if I wanted to take polaroid, but I think people tend to criticize and judge thing they don't personally want quite harshly.
I mostly think that the Instax films are pretty good but that they are not being given much chance to perform with Fuji's cameras. IOW, I think the film is better than the cameras. Yes, the film is pricey but instant film always has been. It used to be that one could compare the cost of an instant photo with the costs of another film photo, say a Polaroid photo and a 35mm photo and while the cost were a bit closer, the Polaroid was still a bit more. The advantage of the instant photo was, of course, that you got your print immediately. That advantage is mostly gone now with the rise of smartphones and their screens. If one wants to share prints, I don't think there is yet a good pocket-able solution as none of the small pocket printers are very good either. As well, if I were to consider using Instax film now, I would be looking at the Instax Wide film and the Mint Instakon RF70 camera. A bigger package--and more expensive--but a camera with real control over what you're putting on the film. Thank you for the good overview and also for the new intro for the puppets! Always appreciate your videos!
U need a loicence signed by the Queen herself. Gawd bless ya, Maam! Gawd bless ya! [sweats profusely in a tight polyester jacket, keels over due to heat shock and dies before an NHS ambulance arrives]
If you take into consideration that every photo you take is a complete gamble and it might be complete garbage, the price of the film is just ridiculous.
Yeah, I remember that quite well, but at least in the 90s or early 2000s film was so cheap that even after developing it the photos were very cheap. I mean a normal film had 36 pictures or so on it, imagine paying like 36€ for that.
I don't know why for sure but it reminds me of all the paper I wasted trying to get a letter right, on a typewriter. This was about 65 million years ago.
Normally I appreciate your reviews but this one had quite a bit of "I'm skeptical" from the beginning and is insulting. I bought the Fuji SQ10 because it is a digital/instant hybrid. I like reviewing my pictures before printing. I will not obviously sell you on my opinion but I can vouch that the unpredictable nature of the camera is what makes it interesting as well as the ability to print instantly. I am now experimenting with the Instax film in 1950s 127 and 120mm format reflex cameras. The best definition of creativity I have ever heard is "a synthesis of two dissimilar objects into a new thing." The Fuji cameras provide this. I think it is better for a company to offer innovative things which bolster the interest of enthusiasts rather than sit on existing technologies like Kodak and basically die from lack of innovation.
I have had a Instax 210 and for 4 years and really like it. I agree that it is expensive but the results (while not high quality) are great to capture a moment. The empty film cartridges also make handy frames
just fyi, iso800 is way too sensitive for daylight photography without the ability to adjust the aperture or exposure time, which is why the darken mode was so effective.
So Techmoan, it's pretty apparent that this kind of deliberately retro lo-fi photography is just not your thing. I give you props for still giving it a well-made and thoughtful review, showing us its functionality and features as well as its quantifiable flaws and quirks. For my part, I enjoy lo-fi photography for aesthetic reasons and use it as a sort of art hobby. I went with the Polaroid Originals One Step 2, which is basically a reissue of the old One Step but with some key improvements, such as an internal rechargeable battery and the ability to deactivate the flash by holding a button in as you shoot. Yes, the film is expensive, but if you like what you get out of it then it's worth it. Cheers.
Also, as a related aside, I also use a Diana toy camera, which is a cheap plastic toy camera that shoots film in a deliberately soft focused dreamy way, with unmetered exposure. This sort of lo-fi stuff is related in part to the vinyl revival and the return of cassettes and so on. Some think it's only for trendy hipster types, but there's more to it than that and I enjoy it. Not everyone's thing, of course.
Well actually I got that exact camera, a pack of film, a case for the camera, and colour lenses all for £35 because it was second hand and they never even used it :)
Took a few photos with this in a Venice bar at the weekend which i handed out. People adored them. I literally didn`t have to spend a cent on Guinness or Prosecco for the rest of the night such was the gratitude. In comparison, nobody shared the remotest interest my perfectly exposed, wonderfully sharp Galaxy Note photos. People adore these little square photos that they can hold in their hand.
I'm with you. This is obviously not the camera to use if you want to take brilliant photographs. It's for taking charming pictures of people around you and giving them away instantly. Yes, the photos are expensive, but I'd rather forego another cocktail and put my money on a 10-pack when I go out with friends. And those of you who say that it's far better to buy a small, good-quality printer and use your phone: of course you're right, but … exactly how often do you bring your printer to a party or a bar?
So despite the previous comments about "not using it right", "wrong settings" etc, something I have learned using Impossible Project film in my vintage Polaroid cameras is the temperature plays a huge part in the chemistry. Impossible have been attempting to recreate the original polaroid chemistry, and the 3rd gen films are much better, but my 2nd gen batch had long development times (10+ mins) ad would display notable colour cast due to temperature -too cold and image came out blue, too warm and came out yellow. Using this over a few different seasons meant i was pocketing the print close to my body to "warm it up" during the developing cycle. I'm not a user of Instax, so I've no idea if the chemical makeup would be affected in this way.. just a thought.
Sadly yes. Its mind boggling how many people think their smartphone cameras are "magic" and are able to do all that a full frame interchangeable lens camera can....
@@Sabundy Why is that sad? We have quality cameras as a freaking afterthought attached to our minature computers that we can put in a pocket. That certainly doesn't seem "sad" to me, it seems like a wonderful example of our advancing technological knowledge.
@@Phobos_Anomaly You completely missed the point, and are making an argument that has nothing to do with what I said. I never said there was a single thing wrong with having a decent quality camera that was always in your pocket. There is nothing "sad" about that. Nor am I bemoaning technological advancement. My post is a reply to another person talking about someone using a smartphone camera as the benchmark. Something I was agreeing with him about in a broad sense. This is especially true when you see morons actually post on videos for full frame, interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras claiming their smartphones can do what the camera does (by all means let me know when professional wildlife, fashion, film, sports, wedding etc... Photographers all start using their smartphones to do their work). Picture quality, zoom dynamic range and low light performance is about the size of the sensor and the size and quality of the lens. Its why smartphones are now only catching up to entry level point and shoot compact cameras (which still have certain advantages you dont get on smartphones which is why the vast majority of youtubers and vloggers use compact cameras and not smartphones). So the point he made and that I agreed with was that its sad if someone thinks a smartphone is "the benchmark" for photography. OR some people wondering why anyone would choose to use old analog or film cameras. The obvious reason being to capture a certain look and style you only get from film. Photography is after all an art form. Thus there are a myriad of styles or methods one might choose to use. Convenience does not equal quality. Theres a reason millions of people still buy large screen tvs (because watching movies on a small smartphone screen is nowhere near the same thing), or millions buy game consoles (because playing games on a smartphone with a touch screen is kind of crap), or that vinyl sales continue to grow every year, or that there is a film revival taking place. The new stuff is good, and innovation and progress are important. However, that doesnt mean we need to throw away older formats or technologies that do what they do very well, and in some cases still better than newer ones.
@@Sabundy Such unnecessary verbosity! I personally don't know anyone that would argue that a smartphone's camera could hold up to a top-quality, high price, professional camera. But for most people's needs, a smartphone's quality is not only adequate, but excellent in most cases. No reason to be so defensive, my point was that the technology we have today in our pockets is mind-blowing. That, I don't find sad at all, and what's most amazing about it is that in 20 year's time, we will look back on the technology we have now as quaint and pedestrian.
My grandmother mentioned not having a camera and I'd like to get her one. She won't like a digital one, and it's hard to imagine she'd have the patience for film. I'm thinking of something like this.
Based on the size and cost of that camera, it'd be better to just take the pic with your phone but have a portable printer like the Polaroid zip or similar.
Great review, as always. I'll stick with my Polaroid 600, though I will say that cost is more of a concern with it than Fujifilm's offerings. The film is pricier for only eight shots, though they are the standard Polaroid size and much nicer looking. These instant cameras are a novelty of sorts more than anything, but I do love having physical photos to hold - they seem more genuine and can be tied to outings and memories more easily IMO. Not to mention the classic looks of the older models are bound to put smiles on people's faces (or make them shake their head in absurdity, haha).
Techmoan , I have a story for you. I was second shooting for an eeexxxxpensiveeee wedding. So, the bride and groom wanted a photo booth (with fun props). We were going to get a little computer set up. Then run a dye sub printer during the after-party. One of us would sit there and print the images off, etc. It'd be great quality and fun and quick. Then the guy who hired me had...an idea. We got a Fuji instant camera (forget the model, this was like 2011 or so I think). So we had this $100 or less camera with crappy quality, and istant film. Then we set up the booth, with funny props. Then...We duct taped a wireless infrared flash pickup to the flash on the camera. And put the trigger on a set of $10,000 (ish) profoto flashes with accessories and battery packs. LOL. Set it all up and...omg. The results were AMAZING. It was the hit of the wedding. I was stuck over there for hours. People LOVED it. The images were "low quality"...but yet.. sooooooooooo nice. To this day it's one of the funniest but most creative things I've seen done.
Okay I'll bite. As someone who loves instant film my beef is with these cameras, not the film. I've shot Instax wide film in a large format camera and the results are lovely, what lets these down are the plastic lenses and the lack of proper control over the images. This stuff is lovely and frankly magic when you see it appear infront of you but the cameras really do it no justice. I'm currently working on a project to saw off the eject mechanism from one of these cameras to apply it to a professional (for the 1970s) medium format camera so I can get some actually sharp, in frame photos. If it ever works.
Interesting that the old photos taken years ago don't seem to have faded much. That's sometimes a problem with these kind of "for fun" cameras. I guess Fuji don't muck about.
I think its quite obvious that the people that like to buy and use instant cameras such as the Fujifilm dont care about picture quality as their top priority. Its more about the tactile nature of it and the retro or nostalgic feeling if using them. There has to be a market for this and obviously they must be making money otherwise there would not be so many companies making these cameras as well as the film (which is where I assume they make most of their money). I may have zero interest in these cameras given their low picture quality, but Im glad they still exist in the same way I am glad that vinyl still exists.
Great review! This camera reminds me of the old Polaroid 600 cameras. I love my SX-70, which offers manual focus and brightness in an SLR fashion, but in today's environment, instant film cameras are more a novelty than a daily use camera. I think the convenience and quality of digital really has changes the way we take photos. On a one week holiday I might take ten analogue prints, but 500 digital...then choose which of those to print for a photo album. Keep up the great reviews! You're the best!!
good review as always, but one thing that bugs me is, a lens on a phone is really bright and fix at f1.8 or around there. The lens on the sq6 is around f12.5 and onwards and made of plastic if I put a camera phone sensor behind that lens at iso800 and looked at the raw file with on processing it would properly look wors
6 лет назад+7
Great video! By the way it's pity, that Fujifilm stopped making their FP line of instant film (FP-100C, 100C Silk, 100B, 400B, 3000B)... It was (and if you still can find it, it is) the best instant product out there... great proofing material in analog photography studio for a medium format camera with a Polaroid back or a "fuel" for some Polaroid Land camera (folder) or other that use type 100 instant film (I do own and sometimes shoot a Polaroid 600SE - often nicknamed a "goose" by the instant film shooters community - and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with a Polaroid back that takes type 100 film) I agree, that the quality isn't really there, but I can't say I don't love the instant print with those cameras where you do your own settings and focusing... and I keep those negatives, so I can bleach them to reclaim and scan (negatives have a black anti-halation layer which also serves as protection from light when it's developing and it needs to be bleached to get rid of). Personally I don't mind it being unsharp or funny looking, because if I shoot serious stuff I do it on the medium format, so I can relax in my spare time with a 35mm P&S (Olympus μ[mju:]-II) or the instant film - I can just take the 600SE, light meter and a pack of FP-100C and that's it. I do mind, however, that the prices for pack film skyrocketed to insane levels.
Brilliant review mate, way to expensive, terrible picture quality, and as for the environment side of things with the waste absolutely shocking, and you have to have fun as well unbelievable. 🤣🤣🤣
"...I don't expect smartphone quality images out of this [single-purpose camera]." Yep, unless one is shooting medium-format or larger, there's a reason why film and really cheap film cameras are dead.
Max Freedman 35mm point and shoot values have shot up to absurd amounts. If you want proof just go look at japan camera hunters website and look at some of the prices. Its insane
If you wan't instant photos, buy a X-Series Fujifilm Camera (X100F, Xpro2, etc) and an Instax printer. About these instant cameras: You really need to have a decent grasp of composition, values, lightning, etc. to get nice looking results. The fun lies withing the challenge, getting out the best of shit quality but if you're a casual photographer, who never has studied composition, you're probably going to have a bad time.
Over the past few months we have binge watched everything you have done (You’re our Netflix) and we assumed we saw everything! (We even became Patrons to get more)... the google tv suggested this video! No idea how we missed it! But video related, this seems ok for what it is and is a better film format in size for an instant print camera and has that Polaroid look and feel to it. Anyhoo, back to seeing if google finds any more hidden videos.
Too expensive to have "Fun"! If someone ask the question: "Why the photo companies like Kodak went bankrupt?". Their main source of income were selling film. That's made photography a expensive proposition. For me is rubish buying a camera with film in these days.
Don't let salty comments meddle with your review! Please tell us if you personally recommend it, and your honest opinion. That's the reason we're watching your videos!
Useful video, thanks! Sometimes Techmoan videos cost me money (the tape deck I bought) and sometimes they save me money (I can enjoy the pointless gadgets vicariously!) Not sure the waste thing is an issue. You can buy a lot more plastic and foil than that for a tenner ;)
I think you also may need to consider that (in my opinion) these films are optimized for portraits, which you did not really take in this video. If you still have the camera, I would strongly recommend shooting outdoor portraits in some kind of shade or indirect sunlight. Even by a window (with flash OFF!) renders beautiful portraits. Consider looking up Matt Day’s review of the Lomo Instax Wide camera to see examples of what I’m talking about.
Love the sarcasm in your video. I've wanted a polaroid camera precisely for the "fun" of having only one picture of something and not being able to replicate it. But the price doesn't scream fun to me.
This is something that you would buy for your daughter who knows nothing about photography but she thinks this will make an artist out of her. The camera will end up sitting on a shelf as decoration because it's too cumbersome to carry around, the pictures are bad and the film is expensive if daddy isn't buying it.
I’ve got an Instax mini 9 and a wide 200. Had lots of fun with them. I’d recommend an instax 100, 200 or 210 to anyone thinking of getting into instant photography because they cameras are a lot cheaper second hand on eBay than the square range. I got my 200 for £12.
Yes they did, a 110 was just about always terrible. The Kodak disc camera was rediculus. For people that hate on smart phone cameras the do not remember what they replaced.
I wouldn't normally comment on your excellent tech reviews but what can I say ................. after watching your muppet scene I can confirm that you are as mad as a box of frogs. Keep up the great work mate. Be seeing you.
The idea behind instant cameras was that you didn't have to wait to finish a roll of film and then wait for it to be developed. The polaroid cameras from the past weren't great but you got a picture right away without having to wait weeks. With phone cameras we get to see the picture immediately. There is no need to print the picture.
I love shooting film, I can get nice sharp 12 megapixel scans from 35mm and even better with medium/large format. That being said when I bought my instax wide I was surprised by how often the camera underexposes pictures. To add insult to injury I payed $130 for the camera and a pack of film :/ While the gimmick of instant film is cool the pictures are not.
Nothing wrong with wasting money on "fun" stuff, but this thing is obviously overpriced junk, intended to exploit rich kids, who think everything "retro" is cooool (Rickets is very "retro", perhaps someone should bring that back, too?). Even my Dad's old Polaroid land-camera was better than this & he got fed up with it pretty quickly, because of the naff picture quality & the high price of the film!
I've never seen instant photos with a black frame before. I can definitely appreciate black frame, and I'm surprised that a white was the industry standard (maybe the white plastic was more economical).
I was similarly disappointed with the images I got from the SQ6, but I love instant film so I got the SQ3 Instax printer to use with my smartphone and Fujifilm cameras and it does a terrific job with the better quality images from the phone/X100V
no offence, but I think you should stick to your regular reviews in which you are the top! In Photogaphy I think you are not complete in your research on the products, or comparing them to others. This should not be about the Mini or the Square. It sould be about the SQ6 and SQ10, where combining digital with real "chemical printng" is a money saver... And instant photography is all about sharing real pictures, instead of social media ones... After some years thiw photo on your drawer will still be there, while thw photo of your phone will be burried on the Terrabytes of a hard disk or far way on cloud...
Give Polaroid Originals a try. Impossible rebranded and is on the 4th generation of film now. They've come a long way and you don't need to buy a $400 camera to use it
J4ZZ i shoot 35mm too , and its not that expensive compared to fuji intant cameras , and if you think this is expensive look for polaroid original or meduim or large format
I love this channel but I can't stand the long list of tedious pedants in the comments. It's one of the few channels where I never bother to read the comments.
Even in it's day instant film looked bad and the pictures faded very fast. People dealt with it because there was no other way to see a picture instantly.
Great review as always!! I have a soft spot for cameras like this... Tell me where I can get a pink one please! 🌈 It's so funny how men are afraid of certain shades!!
The poor image quality is clearly caused by you not having enough fun when you took the pictures. Try wearing a silly hat next time.
Telling people they're doing it wrong is all part of the fun. Apparently.
Ah yes, a pink pussy hat would be ideal.
Or one with one of those propellors on top.
The packaging of the films suggests that there will be no issues with image quality as long as there are strictly attractive young females in front of the lens. Depending on the photographer, this could indeed be a lot of fun, or quite creepy.
The real problem was that he forgot to do the "Developing Dance". In the early 1980s we shot hundreds of Polaroids of oscilloscope traces with a Peel off type 'scope camera (work was paying).. The joke was that if you didn't wave the print around to cool it as it developed and do the "Developing Dance" your photo would come out rubbish.
Your placid tone when reading nonsensical comments always gets a chuckle out of me.
Please continue this great tradition.
Agreed!
I was waiting for the sample they had taken to substantiate their comments. But alas I was bitterly disappointed and had to put away my lynching rope for another day. You won this round, Techmoan, you won this round.
I like Techmoan for those moments. Also his Voice is relaxing, i could hear it for Hours without getting Bored or annoyed. :D
If you willing to make a follow up video collaboration why not send it to ruclips.net/user/mattiasburling he does a lot of photo work with old camera/quirky cameras and see if he can do something with that sucker.
I love the comments that end with the passive-aggressive smiley. Like "well maybe you don't know anything about cameras :)" Is it weird that little ":)" makes the comment 100x worse and makes me want to slap someone??
I loved your dry read off of the critics! That was brilliant! As a photographer myself that loves to play around with different formats I'd love to defend my Fuji instax but not with any of those points. I only bring mine to social gatherings like parties and on vacation. The camera is a great conversation piece more than anything. Everybody wants their picture taken in the classic Polaroid style because it has such a mystical allure now. People also love to bring souvenirs and memories home from events and what could be better than a tactile photo with your friends, new and old? As long as your images are shot in direct sunlight or with decent flash indoors and the subject fills the frame nicely, you've got a hit photo. Yes, it is extremely limited, but that's what makes it so appealing when you get the hang of it and when the crowd responds to it. It's definitely not a camera for everybody but it does have an audience that sees value in it. I treasure my book of Instax memories and have much more fun looking at them in the book with just a couple photos per event than I do scrolling through a million duplicate photos of every single post possible on the computer. I also love going to a friend's house and finding a photo I took hanging on their fridge or in the walls of their room along with others they've collected. Maybe what it comes down to is that you're printing these photos today the same reason you would have 20 years ago, not because you want to show somebody a photo of your lunch or a nice looking car but because you shared an experience with somebody and you want to share that moment with other people. Really special moments deserve to be printed out.
Exactly! I do gig rowing and l love taking my camera to regattas! I've collected some really nice team pictures that are tacked on my wall next to my bed, they make me feel really happy when I look at them, because I know that my camera was in the moment with us, and captured exactly what it was like.
The only good comment on this video lol
You really should be having more fun. That's where you're going wrong.
The red filter seems useful if you want to replicate Phil Collins' No Jacket Required album cover.
Saw that and instantly typed "ctrl F" to see if I wasn't the only one!
*high five*
Glad I was not the only one who realised that too
Or a scene from Susperia
Mereana Mordegard Glesgorv
As a Polaroid enthusiast who regularly shoots film that costs about $2.50/photo and just bought a brand new Polaroid that shoots film at the bargain price of $2.00/photo (or $16.25/photo including the cost of the camera and one pack of film) I have no grounds to tell you you're wrong about this camera/format. Mostly because you're right and I can't see any practical purpose to these cameras today. Just because I enjoy them and am willing to shell out to do so doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way or even understand. Its just a hobby at the end of the day.
Exactly. It's fun for the people who either didn't experience the medium, or people who want to re-live it.
Finally a reasonable person
I agree. I love the look of it, but I completely understand why people don't. I take pictures with my Pixel 2 when I want the sharpness and detail and such, and when I want to experience the moment in a more, in my opinion, meaningful way, I take a photo with an instant camera. Like you said, it's a hobby. There's a lot of debate in the fine arts community over digital versus hand drawn, but they're at least respectful enough to not say 'OH YOU JUST USED YOUR HAND WRONG!' One thing will never be for anyone. Digital photography won't ever be for everyone. It's the exact same with instant. And, of course, the style will never be for everyone. Whether it be a personal style - the filters, how someone frames it - or the medium. Art is subjective, and that includes how it's made.
I imagine you'd look a little like Flavor Flav with that hanging around your neck. 😂
I think that those that comment on the camera being, fun, fun, fun and retro, are younger people who don't realise that a decent camera from 60 years ago was capable of ultra high quality images if used properly.......... And yes it was fun as well
Yep... I'll put my old fully manual Minolta with some good slide film up against any digital, let alone instant, any day. Digital of course has many advantages over film but for image quality and yes, fun, an old manual cam with good glass is hard to beat.
Fun fact, Obama had the first digital presidential portrait taken, everyone else's portrait before him was taken on film, except the paintings of course. Still can't complain about the Reagan photo, unlike this instant thingy.
Daniel Borsos didn't know that, would have thought it would have happened before his presidency
Sootikins yes I still have my old 35mm chinnon camera, it was capable of excellent results, used with a macro tube I could take pictures of an ant !!!!!!
Hell yeah, the same people who get wet over a cassette or vinyl rerelease because its 'retro' and 'fun' with the bad quality sound, ignoring that an original print sounds perfect
I love that "smartphone quality" has become the benchmark. Wouldn't have guessed ten years ago that would be the case now.
Fun is very expensive nowadays
Man, I know logically that these photos aren't good from a technical perspective but I am absolutely in love with the aesthetic of them. Nit a huge fan of how expensive the film is and how wasteful the film is. Oh well. I can get mostly the same aesthetic with filters.
Decent review and the camera definitely produces low quality overpriced pictures. The purpose of the camera, for almost everyone I know who owns one though is to take pictures of people, mainly at parties. The fact it produces unreliable results is kind of the point. It's the antithesis of the ultra curated, doctored instagram photo.
Also interesting to note many of the people buying these would have had a high quality camera with infinite opportunity for curation in their pocket for the majority of their lives. The idea of low-quality, expensive photos being 'fun' seems inane for anyone who had to pay for film and get it developed as a necessity. But for some there's novelty in paying 2 bucks for one unreliable image of middling quality, us unbelievable as that is. To be honest, even for me, a good instant photo feels much more valuable than one on my phone.
Anyway, great video as always. :)
£9 for 10 photos ???
pauldzim Crazy isn’t it.
Adjusted for inflation, it's about one-third the amount that we paid for instant film in the 1980s. For me, the real shocker is the cost of the camera: £125 versus £22 for the Polaroid Sun 600 camera that I owned as a kid.
In the age of convenient digital photography, I suppose that if someone is going to go out of their way to use film price won't mean much
£9 for 10 attempts at photos more like.
I only remember Polaroid film being about a fiver..maybe I remember wrong.
Depends which decade you're referring to. The Polaroid film-packs in the 1980s cost £9.99 for 10 shots from Boots, as my mother often reminded me when I took yet another shot of the dog!
Lots of professional photographers in the comments, it seems.
'Proffesional' *cough* edgy instagram photography accounts full of borderline suicidal quotes *cough*
you don´t have to be a pro photographer to know that it isn´t just about sharpness.
@disarmsox...not sure if serious or not understand sarcasm...
Didn't like the camera. Always like the muppets. ;-)
-Dx
me tooo
I third that motion!
The muppets were spot on. Especially the punch line...
Some people have hacked up instax cameras to use as instant film backs with medium format cameras. It CAN look even better with nice glass and exposure control. Fun little things though and good review as always!
Berno Bruvn Mikcalson That sounds like an interesting read and maybe even an interesting project to work on.
Could you possibly link me to it?
エステティック Funk www.workinprocess.com.au/single-post/2017/06/13/Bronica-Instax-V2
petapixel.com/2017/11/04/rezivot-instant-film-processor-shoot-instax-film-camera/
Really a lot of potential in the film its self imo and the cost per shot isn’t bad either when compared to 120 film with process and scanning.
Berno Bruvn Mikcalson Much appreciated.
So, it's good for expensive, Instagram-filter-like, low quality, out of focus, images which are not useful for anything in particular and which can't be easily reproduced. Got it. Never thought I'd see anything which made camera phone images look good, but there it is.
denimadept phone cameras are pretty impressive nowadays. Usually not comparable when pixel peeping, but otherwise very impressive, especially considering lens-size
But phone cameras nowadays look great.
And you can in fact reproduce similar images, you just said it, Instagram (And many other ways). The only point of these cameras is both nostalgia and having physical photos you can actually grab and touch with your hands, maybe make an album with them or stick them on the fridge or wherever you like.
All of that is true, but you have to consider that you're getting instant physical pictures and the vintage aspect.
*Aaaand you dont have to deal with printers xDDD*
ᶘ ᴖᴥᴖᶅ One problem with that logic... The camera's a printer in itself.
The problem is, that iso 800 is way to high to take pics on a sunny day outside. That's why they are over exposed. You need iso 200 or maximum iso 400... thats why they look washed out...
By the way: really love your vids
So, rich hipster bait. "Oh this, it's the new Polaroid, you probably haven't heard of it."
Exactly my opinion about this. Almost the same as the Lomography craze
It's a 10/10 accessory for a date.
That's about all it's good for though.
The good thing with lomography, yes I know, is that at least it woke up interest in film again. And yes beyond the Lomo Choice of film most seem to go for, there are also special films that do ISO 25 for instance. Oh my! So, if it requires a lot of "such" pictures to keep that art alive. So be it.
Saying it's for "rich hipsters" is a bit much. £150 is not that expensive for a hobby. I'd buy some old used one if I wanted to take polaroid, but I think people tend to criticize and judge thing they don't personally want quite harshly.
Who hasn’t hear of Polaroid tho
You're holding it wrong.
;)
Would have been better quality with a different colour camera
I mostly think that the Instax films are pretty good but that they are not being given much chance to perform with Fuji's cameras. IOW, I think the film is better than the cameras.
Yes, the film is pricey but instant film always has been. It used to be that one could compare the cost of an instant photo with the costs of another film photo, say a Polaroid photo and a 35mm photo and while the cost were a bit closer, the Polaroid was still a bit more. The advantage of the instant photo was, of course, that you got your print immediately. That advantage is mostly gone now with the rise of smartphones and their screens. If one wants to share prints, I don't think there is yet a good pocket-able solution as none of the small pocket printers are very good either.
As well, if I were to consider using Instax film now, I would be looking at the Instax Wide film and the Mint Instakon RF70 camera. A bigger package--and more expensive--but a camera with real control over what you're putting on the film.
Thank you for the good overview and also for the new intro for the puppets!
Always appreciate your videos!
8:55 I noticed you weren't wearing your jacket in this photo. Was it not required where you were?
It's been uncommonly hot in Britain - Perhaps Her Majesty has granted special dispensation.
U need a loicence signed by the Queen herself. Gawd bless ya, Maam! Gawd bless ya!
[sweats profusely in a tight polyester jacket, keels over due to heat shock and dies before an NHS ambulance arrives]
loopshackr Look up Phil Collins - No Jacket Required and read his comment again.
エステティック Funk I think they got it, but just chose not to directly refer to it.
If you take into consideration that every photo you take is a complete gamble and it might be complete garbage, the price of the film is just ridiculous.
back in the days of film developing it was the same gamble :)
Yeah, I remember that quite well, but at least in the 90s or early 2000s film was so cheap that even after developing it the photos were very cheap. I mean a normal film had 36 pictures or so on it, imagine paying like 36€ for that.
I don't know why for sure but it reminds me of all the paper I wasted trying to get a letter right, on a typewriter. This was about 65 million years ago.
Normally I appreciate your reviews but this one had quite a bit of "I'm skeptical" from the beginning and is insulting. I bought the Fuji SQ10 because it is a digital/instant hybrid. I like reviewing my pictures before printing. I will not obviously sell you on my opinion but I can vouch that the unpredictable nature of the camera is what makes it interesting as well as the ability to print instantly. I am now experimenting with the Instax film in 1950s 127 and 120mm format reflex cameras. The best definition of creativity I have ever heard is "a synthesis of two dissimilar objects into a new thing." The Fuji cameras provide this. I think it is better for a company to offer innovative things which bolster the interest of enthusiasts rather than sit on existing technologies like Kodak and basically die from lack of innovation.
I have had a Instax 210 and for 4 years and really like it. I agree that it is expensive but the results (while not high quality) are great to capture a moment. The empty film cartridges also make handy frames
just fyi, iso800 is way too sensitive for daylight photography without the ability to adjust the aperture or exposure time, which is why the darken mode was so effective.
I was thinking this wonder if iso 800 is the only iso available
pnutmans Gaming it sadly is.
Yes, 800 ISO is the only one available but with a fixed aperture at f/12 you really will need that.
I thought the flash filters were boiled sweets at first!
Wow... that was the most nitpicky, morally self rightous and self centered (aka arrogant...) "review" I have ever watched.
For real
So Techmoan, it's pretty apparent that this kind of deliberately retro lo-fi photography is just not your thing. I give you props for still giving it a well-made and thoughtful review, showing us its functionality and features as well as its quantifiable flaws and quirks. For my part, I enjoy lo-fi photography for aesthetic reasons and use it as a sort of art hobby. I went with the Polaroid Originals One Step 2, which is basically a reissue of the old One Step but with some key improvements, such as an internal rechargeable battery and the ability to deactivate the flash by holding a button in as you shoot. Yes, the film is expensive, but if you like what you get out of it then it's worth it. Cheers.
Also, as a related aside, I also use a Diana toy camera, which is a cheap plastic toy camera that shoots film in a deliberately soft focused dreamy way, with unmetered exposure. This sort of lo-fi stuff is related in part to the vinyl revival and the return of cassettes and so on. Some think it's only for trendy hipster types, but there's more to it than that and I enjoy it. Not everyone's thing, of course.
Well actually I got that exact camera, a pack of film, a case for the camera, and colour lenses all for £35 because it was second hand and they never even used it :)
I really liked the middle bit - the moan part of Techmoan.
'It would be a conformist paradise of like-minded drones' 😂
You mean the Apple eco system?
Dear Sony,
You're missing out on the "Fun". Please release a Mavica and replace the floppy drive compartment with instant film.
Two techmoan vids in one week?!? 😰
DedElec
This is getting out of hand! Now there are *two* of them!
Techmoan did not have fun.
8 pounds for 10 ....damn hipsters are rich
yet they are some of the first ones to criticize money, yet they buy expensive things ASAP
It's why lattes are expensive
But ... did you have ... FUN? 🙄 😂
I know this video is older, but I love you techmoan, such hilarious commentary on the photos, especially the ones of yourself, you’re as bad as me
Sounds like a lot of inconvenience for a bit of "fun"... :\
It would be really nice if you'd do a review on Polaroid Originals gear!
Ι can't remember , have you reviewed any of the Canon selphy printers? They have perfect quality and cost per print is really affordable
Took a few photos with this in a Venice bar at the weekend which i handed out. People adored them. I literally didn`t have to spend a cent on Guinness or Prosecco for the rest of the night such was the gratitude. In comparison, nobody shared the remotest interest my perfectly exposed, wonderfully sharp Galaxy Note photos. People adore these little square photos that they can hold in their hand.
I'm with you. This is obviously not the camera to use if you want to take brilliant photographs. It's for taking charming pictures of people around you and giving them away instantly. Yes, the photos are expensive, but I'd rather forego another cocktail and put my money on a 10-pack when I go out with friends. And those of you who say that it's far better to buy a small, good-quality printer and use your phone: of course you're right, but … exactly how often do you bring your printer to a party or a bar?
So despite the previous comments about "not using it right", "wrong settings" etc, something I have learned using Impossible Project film in my vintage Polaroid cameras is the temperature plays a huge part in the chemistry. Impossible have been attempting to recreate the original polaroid chemistry, and the 3rd gen films are much better, but my 2nd gen batch had long development times (10+ mins) ad would display notable colour cast due to temperature -too cold and image came out blue, too warm and came out yellow. Using this over a few different seasons meant i was pocketing the print close to my body to "warm it up" during the developing cycle.
I'm not a user of Instax, so I've no idea if the chemical makeup would be affected in this way.. just a thought.
you can always break the tab on the back and use the empty cartridge to store the prints. no waste that way
“Don’t expect smartphone quality here”. Have we reached the point that Smartphones are a good benchmark?
Sadly yes. Its mind boggling how many people think their smartphone cameras are "magic" and are able to do all that a full frame interchangeable lens camera can....
@@Sabundy Why is that sad? We have quality cameras as a freaking afterthought attached to our minature computers that we can put in a pocket. That certainly doesn't seem "sad" to me, it seems like a wonderful example of our advancing technological knowledge.
@@Phobos_Anomaly You completely missed the point, and are making an argument that has nothing to do with what I said. I never said there was a single thing wrong with having a decent quality camera that was always in your pocket. There is nothing "sad" about that. Nor am I bemoaning technological advancement. My post is a reply to another person talking about someone using a smartphone camera as the benchmark. Something I was agreeing with him about in a broad sense. This is especially true when you see morons actually post on videos for full frame, interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras claiming their smartphones can do what the camera does (by all means let me know when professional wildlife, fashion, film, sports, wedding etc... Photographers all start using their smartphones to do their work). Picture quality, zoom dynamic range and low light performance is about the size of the sensor and the size and quality of the lens. Its why smartphones are now only catching up to entry level point and shoot compact cameras (which still have certain advantages you dont get on smartphones which is why the vast majority of youtubers and vloggers use compact cameras and not smartphones). So the point he made and that I agreed with was that its sad if someone thinks a smartphone is "the benchmark" for photography.
OR some people wondering why anyone would choose to use old analog or film cameras. The obvious reason being to capture a certain look and style you only get from film. Photography is after all an art form. Thus there are a myriad of styles or methods one might choose to use.
Convenience does not equal quality. Theres a reason millions of people still buy large screen tvs (because watching movies on a small smartphone screen is nowhere near the same thing), or millions buy game consoles (because playing games on a smartphone with a touch screen is kind of crap), or that vinyl sales continue to grow every year, or that there is a film revival taking place. The new stuff is good, and innovation and progress are important. However, that doesnt mean we need to throw away older formats or technologies that do what they do very well, and in some cases still better than newer ones.
@@Sabundy Such unnecessary verbosity! I personally don't know anyone that would argue that a smartphone's camera could hold up to a top-quality, high price, professional camera.
But for most people's needs, a smartphone's quality is not only adequate, but excellent in most cases.
No reason to be so defensive, my point was that the technology we have today in our pockets is mind-blowing. That, I don't find sad at all, and what's most amazing about it is that in 20 year's time, we will look back on the technology we have now as quaint and pedestrian.
My grandmother mentioned not having a camera and I'd like to get her one.
She won't like a digital one, and it's hard to imagine she'd have the patience for film. I'm thinking of something like this.
Based on the size and cost of that camera, it'd be better to just take the pic with your phone but have a portable printer like the Polaroid zip or similar.
Instant film is always softer comparing to normal one. You have to get your eyes-mind to the mode of instant film. Love it or hate it.
Great review, as always. I'll stick with my Polaroid 600, though I will say that cost is more of a concern with it than Fujifilm's offerings. The film is pricier for only eight shots, though they are the standard Polaroid size and much nicer looking. These instant cameras are a novelty of sorts more than anything, but I do love having physical photos to hold - they seem more genuine and can be tied to outings and memories more easily IMO. Not to mention the classic looks of the older models are bound to put smiles on people's faces (or make them shake their head in absurdity, haha).
I think I'll stick with the camera on my phone. These instant cameras may be for "fun", but the cost of the film cartridge is no joke in my opinion.
That red-filter selfie looks like part of an Andy Warhol.
Techmoan , I have a story for you.
I was second shooting for an eeexxxxpensiveeee wedding. So, the bride and groom wanted a photo booth (with fun props).
We were going to get a little computer set up. Then run a dye sub printer during the after-party. One of us would sit there and print the images off, etc. It'd be great quality and fun and quick.
Then the guy who hired me had...an idea.
We got a Fuji instant camera (forget the model, this was like 2011 or so I think). So we had this $100 or less camera with crappy quality, and istant film.
Then we set up the booth, with funny props.
Then...We duct taped a wireless infrared flash pickup to the flash on the camera. And put the trigger on a set of $10,000 (ish) profoto flashes with accessories and battery packs. LOL. Set it all up and...omg.
The results were AMAZING. It was the hit of the wedding. I was stuck over there for hours. People LOVED it. The images were "low quality"...but yet.. sooooooooooo nice.
To this day it's one of the funniest but most creative things I've seen done.
So it's crap, wasteful and expensive, but it's fun. I think I'll pass.
It’s just a trend thing.
Okay I'll bite. As someone who loves instant film my beef is with these cameras, not the film. I've shot Instax wide film in a large format camera and the results are lovely, what lets these down are the plastic lenses and the lack of proper control over the images. This stuff is lovely and frankly magic when you see it appear infront of you but the cameras really do it no justice. I'm currently working on a project to saw off the eject mechanism from one of these cameras to apply it to a professional (for the 1970s) medium format camera so I can get some actually sharp, in frame photos. If it ever works.
Interesting that the old photos taken years ago don't seem to have faded much. That's sometimes a problem with these kind of "for fun" cameras. I guess Fuji don't muck about.
I think its quite obvious that the people that like to buy and use instant cameras such as the Fujifilm dont care about picture quality as their top priority. Its more about the tactile nature of it and the retro or nostalgic feeling if using them.
There has to be a market for this and obviously they must be making money otherwise there would not be so many companies making these cameras as well as the film (which is where I assume they make most of their money).
I may have zero interest in these cameras given their low picture quality, but Im glad they still exist in the same way I am glad that vinyl still exists.
Great review! This camera reminds me of the old Polaroid 600 cameras. I love my SX-70, which offers manual focus and brightness in an SLR fashion, but in today's environment, instant film cameras are more a novelty than a daily use camera. I think the convenience and quality of digital really has changes the way we take photos. On a one week holiday I might take ten analogue prints, but 500 digital...then choose which of those to print for a photo album. Keep up the great reviews! You're the best!!
good review as always, but one thing that bugs me is, a lens on a phone is really bright and fix at f1.8 or around there. The lens on the sq6 is around f12.5 and onwards and made of plastic if I put a camera phone sensor behind that lens at iso800 and looked at the raw file with on processing it would properly look wors
Great video! By the way it's pity, that Fujifilm stopped making their FP line of instant film (FP-100C, 100C Silk, 100B, 400B, 3000B)... It was (and if you still can find it, it is) the best instant product out there... great proofing material in analog photography studio for a medium format camera with a Polaroid back or a "fuel" for some Polaroid Land camera (folder) or other that use type 100 instant film (I do own and sometimes shoot a Polaroid 600SE - often nicknamed a "goose" by the instant film shooters community - and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with a Polaroid back that takes type 100 film)
I agree, that the quality isn't really there, but I can't say I don't love the instant print with those cameras where you do your own settings and focusing... and I keep those negatives, so I can bleach them to reclaim and scan (negatives have a black anti-halation layer which also serves as protection from light when it's developing and it needs to be bleached to get rid of).
Personally I don't mind it being unsharp or funny looking, because if I shoot serious stuff I do it on the medium format, so I can relax in my spare time with a 35mm P&S (Olympus μ[mju:]-II) or the instant film - I can just take the 600SE, light meter and a pack of FP-100C and that's it. I do mind, however, that the prices for pack film skyrocketed to insane levels.
Brilliant review mate, way to expensive, terrible picture quality, and as for the environment side of things with the waste absolutely shocking, and you have to have fun as well unbelievable. 🤣🤣🤣
"...I don't expect smartphone quality images out of this [single-purpose camera]." Yep, unless one is shooting medium-format or larger, there's a reason why film and really cheap film cameras are dead.
My thoughts exactly.
35mm has made a comeback in the photography scene. Obviously people are using slrs and not 35mm point and shoots
Max Freedman 35mm point and shoot values have shot up to absurd amounts. If you want proof just go look at japan camera hunters website and look at some of the prices. Its insane
CordialColt I was more talking about the camera you bought for $50 in 1975
That was an expensive one! I used a Kodak Instamatic X-15F using 126 film and flipflash. mmmm... quality... mmmm...
If you wan't instant photos, buy a X-Series Fujifilm Camera (X100F, Xpro2, etc) and an Instax printer. About these instant cameras: You really need to have a decent grasp of composition, values, lightning, etc. to get nice looking results. The fun lies withing the challenge, getting out the best of shit quality but if you're a casual photographer, who never has studied composition, you're probably going to have a bad time.
I think I paid around $20 for my Polaroid camera back in the '90s and the battery was in the film pack so you never had to buy any.
Over the past few months we have binge watched everything you have done (You’re our Netflix) and we assumed we saw everything! (We even became Patrons to get more)... the google tv suggested this video! No idea how we missed it!
But video related, this seems ok for what it is and is a better film format in size for an instant print camera and has that Polaroid look and feel to it.
Anyhoo, back to seeing if google finds any more hidden videos.
Yay more techmoan !!!!!!!
Good Lord that red filter shot makes you look like Phil Collins on the No Jacket Required album 😂
Too expensive to have "Fun"! If someone ask the question: "Why the photo companies like Kodak went bankrupt?". Their main source of income were selling film. That's made photography a expensive proposition. For me is rubish buying a camera with film in these days.
Don't let salty comments meddle with your review! Please tell us if you personally recommend it, and your honest opinion. That's the reason we're watching your videos!
Useful video, thanks! Sometimes Techmoan videos cost me money (the tape deck I bought) and sometimes they save me money (I can enjoy the pointless gadgets vicariously!)
Not sure the waste thing is an issue. You can buy a lot more plastic and foil than that for a tenner ;)
Just an FYI, the "metallic coating," was just plastic according to the "プラ," ("pura") recycling mark.
I think you also may need to consider that (in my opinion) these films are optimized for portraits, which you did not really take in this video. If you still have the camera, I would strongly recommend shooting outdoor portraits in some kind of shade or indirect sunlight. Even by a window (with flash OFF!) renders beautiful portraits. Consider looking up Matt Day’s review of the Lomo Instax Wide camera to see examples of what I’m talking about.
Love the sarcasm in your video. I've wanted a polaroid camera precisely for the "fun" of having only one picture of something and not being able to replicate it. But the price doesn't scream fun to me.
This is something that you would buy for your daughter who knows nothing about photography but she thinks this will make an artist out of her. The camera will end up sitting on a shelf as decoration because it's too cumbersome to carry around, the pictures are bad and the film is expensive if daddy isn't buying it.
lots of people getting in to this type of photography, so you could be very wrong.
CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG each to their own
and daughters too
I think that daughter relationship needs some work. ;)
I’ve got an Instax mini 9 and a wide 200. Had lots of fun with them.
I’d recommend an instax 100, 200 or 210 to anyone thinking of getting into instant photography because they cameras are a lot cheaper second hand on eBay than the square range. I got my 200 for £12.
Its fun for us who loves aesthetic photos 👌😍
I can't help but feel like the type of person to buy one of these is also the type of person to buy a crosley briefcase turntable.
It's funny to see people say they went this for "vintage feel". Film cameras never perform that bad.
You can get the same effect with a smartphone picture if you use the imagemagick --fuck-image-quality command line option.
Yes they did, a 110 was just about always terrible. The Kodak disc camera was rediculus. For people that hate on smart phone cameras the do not remember what they replaced.
If I wanted to go for vintage feel, I'd get something like Pentax Spotmatic and do it the right way.
I wouldn't normally comment on your excellent tech reviews but what can I say ................. after watching your muppet scene I can confirm that you are as mad as a box of frogs. Keep up the great work mate. Be seeing you.
The idea behind instant cameras was that you didn't have to wait to finish a roll of film and then wait for it to be developed. The polaroid cameras from the past weren't great but you got a picture right away without having to wait weeks. With phone cameras we get to see the picture immediately. There is no need to print the picture.
There is every need to print the photo if you want to put it on view somewhere or if you want something real, physical in your hand....not on a screen
disarmsox Then get a little portable photo printer. Better quality and cheaper in the long run.
no1DdC but it's not the same experience - it's not just the end result, it's the process.
arguably the process and experience of using a portable or even a standard printer could be just as enjoyable for someone.
Seshpenguin each to their own
I love shooting film, I can get nice sharp 12 megapixel scans from 35mm and even better with medium/large format. That being said when I bought my instax wide I was surprised by how often the camera underexposes pictures. To add insult to injury I payed $130 for the camera and a pack of film :/ While the gimmick of instant film is cool the pictures are not.
Also the lens is a lemon and the auto-focus is bad. The viewfinder is terrible too, very inaccurate.
So if you take 500 photos you could have gotten a smartphone and a photo printer for the same amount of money!
You could've but that's not the point.
pnadk But you would clearly not have had as much fun!
luckily I saved money and bought a cheap phone not an iphone so now I can justify the costs of the camera and film haha
Nothing wrong with wasting money on "fun" stuff, but this thing is obviously overpriced junk, intended to exploit rich kids, who think everything "retro" is cooool (Rickets is very "retro", perhaps someone should bring that back, too?). Even my Dad's old Polaroid land-camera was better than this & he got fed up with it pretty quickly, because of the naff picture quality & the high price of the film!
It looks like a toy for instagram users, who miss the old instagram logo ;)
I've never seen instant photos with a black frame before. I can definitely appreciate black frame, and I'm surprised that a white was the industry standard (maybe the white plastic was more economical).
Techmoan being passive aggressively sarcastic is hilarious.
I was similarly disappointed with the images I got from the SQ6, but I love instant film so I got the SQ3 Instax printer to use with my smartphone and Fujifilm cameras and it does a terrific job with the better quality images from the phone/X100V
Outro for the win!
no offence, but I think you should stick to your regular reviews in which you are the top! In Photogaphy I think you are not complete in your research on the products, or comparing them to others. This should not be about the Mini or the Square. It sould be about the SQ6 and SQ10, where combining digital with real "chemical printng" is a money saver... And instant photography is all about sharing real pictures, instead of social media ones... After some years thiw photo on your drawer will still be there, while thw photo of your phone will be burried on the Terrabytes of a hard disk or far way on cloud...
ruclips.net/video/sMIl4TA7wYU/видео.html
Excellent. Hey I used to live in Bolton, right up the motorway. Thanks from Orlando
Give Polaroid Originals a try. Impossible rebranded and is on the 4th generation of film now. They've come a long way and you don't need to buy a $400 camera to use it
wtf, I just started shooting on 35mm film which is expensive, but this is just madness!
J4ZZ i shoot 35mm too , and its not that expensive compared to fuji intant cameras , and if you think this is expensive look for polaroid original or meduim or large format
Brian Segarra Yes I just meant expensive compared to digital.
By your logic, we have to spend more to get a cheaper photo,
Thanks for addressing waste in this video. It's something we all need to start considering!
actually the statics on waste, how much space it will take up over time, and recycling... show, it isn't much concern at all.
I love this channel but I can't stand the long list of tedious pedants in the comments. It's one of the few channels where I never bother to read the comments.
In a few words, it's a expensive toy for young people.
Or, art farts who think they're creating .... art.
This looks awesome! I wish I could afford one!
Fun for the rich.
Love the Polaroid-like effect on the photos myself but yes cost is prohibitive for some.
Even in it's day instant film looked bad and the pictures faded very fast. People dealt with it because there was no other way to see a picture instantly.
The forerunner to snapchat ;)
Great review as always!! I have a soft spot for cameras like this...
Tell me where I can get a pink one please! 🌈 It's so funny how men are afraid of certain shades!!