/p/ - Photography » Thread #2933056

[38 / 4 / ?]

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 05:14:52 No.2933056 View View Reply Original Report

>Forget medium format: Fujifilm announces new square-format instant camera (basically the same size and shape as Polaroid 600 pictures)

>http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/fujifilm-instax-square-announcement/#ixzz4LF2Njykj

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 05:18:36 No.2933063 Report

Quoted By: >>2933088

> Fujifilm’s Instax products outsell its digital products nearly four to one

Polaroid must've fucked up real bad.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1465089724640.jpg, 39KiB, 663x579

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 05:56:13 No.2933083 Report

Quoted By: >>2933086

>2.5" x 2.5" sized exposure
God fucking dammit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 05:59:36 No.2933086 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933083
>2.5" x 2.5"
>still using human parts as a standard of measurement

why are yanks such barbarians?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 06:03:42 No.2933088 Report

Quoted By: >>2933089

>>2933063
>Polaroid must've fucked up real bad.
They're literally a case study in business school for how not to business, so yeah you could say they fucked up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 06:10:18 No.2933089 Report

Quoted By: >>2933411

>>2933088

but what would they have to do then? the digital age was comming aggressively, it was either switch or die. they killed their film in 2007, how could have they known there would be an instant film resurgence 10 years later?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 07:11:17 No.2933096 Report

Quoted By: >>2933126 >>2933319

>>2933056
If this film is compatible with old 600 cameras, impossible project just got severely fucked by fuji

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 09:05:45 No.2933126 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933096
of course it isnt

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Sun 25 Sep 2016 09:27:20 No.2933129 Report

Quoted By:

>it is possible the camera could be noticeably smaller than an Instax Wide camera.
>because Wide 300 users were not actually trying to compensate for something anyway

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 17:00:22 No.2933319 Report

Quoted By: >>2937687

>>2933096
It's a 62mm x 62mm frame, while Polaroids use a 78.74mm x 78.74mm frame. That being said, maybe someone will find a way to hack it to be used in Polaroids; or maybe Fuji already thought of that and made it impossible to do so you have to buy their shitty Instaxes.

Also I don't understand why they can't revive their packfilms since they're making fucking bank from both Instax and their digital cameras.
All it would take is a X styled packfilm camera, market it as a "professional instax", and people would buy that shit up.

A. !IGEMrmvKLI

A. !IGEMrmvKLI Sun 25 Sep 2016 20:09:48 No.2933411 Report

Quoted By: >>2938084

>>2933089
Because almost all things relapse. It's playin with humans nostalgia. Mostly because that feeling produces a happier feeling.
Just like how yet say "Just like the good ol' times."

It's about serotonin and shit. It's an actual marketing scheme.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 26 Sep 2016 01:05:16 No.2933531 Report

Quoted By: >>2935539 >>2935540 >>2935543 >>2935545

Could they just release a good instax camera first? Something a bit more manual? Even a rangefinder, or a TLR would be fantastic. They would corner the market.

I think brain damaged film kiddies that would shoot such garbage would migrate digital platforms because of God tier film ones. The instax isn't going to make anyone drop shooting their Fuji digital camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:25:39 No.2935539 Report

Quoted By: >>2935543

>>2933531
>Something a bit more manual? Even a rangefinder
A rangefinder instax would be fucking awesome. I'd be the coolest kid at all the parties, plz Fuji.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:28:26 No.2935540 Report

Quoted By: >>2935548

>>2933531

There are good third party options.

You can also hack several good polaroid cameras to accept instax.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0500_Fuji_Fotorama_FP-1[1].jpg, 1MiB, 1500x1373

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:31:54 No.2935543 Report

Quoted By: >>2935548

>>2933531
>>2935539
You guys are talking about this+instax. ,Fuji you've already done it once, pls bring us salvation yet again

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:34:12 No.2935545 Report

Quoted By: >>2935558

>>2933531
there is already an instax TLR called the TL70. and while manual focus confirmation is great, not having manual exposure controls can be really annoying, and you only have like +1 or -1 exposure compensation. ive waste so many shots because of this

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:40:54 No.2935548 Report

Quoted By: >>2935549

>>2935540
Good third party options with in-production film?
Please enlighten me
>>2935543
With Instax Wide would be a dream come true

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:42:43 No.2935549 Report

Quoted By: >>2935557 >>2935569

>>2935548

There's the Mint TLR and the Lomo wide that both accept Instax wide and offer some degree of manual control and manual focus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:56:00 No.2935557 Report

Quoted By: >>2935577 >>2937689

>>2935549
Over $500 for a simple TLR and over $800 for a polaroid style SLR.
I'm not some cashed up trust fund hipster. Mint's website and marketing make me want to vomit, seems like paying for a "unique" gimmick more than anything.

The film price for the SLR is listed as $33, I hope to god that isn't per exposure?! Christ on a bike.

I've seen images from the Lomo that turn me completely off, I wasn't aware it had shutter speed / aperture control though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:58:21 No.2935558 Report

Quoted By: >>2935571

>>2935545
>TL70

THAT PIECE OF SHIT FUCKING SUCKS

FUCKING GIMMICKS

HAVE YOU SEEN THE PICTURES IT SPEWS? ITS TOTAL TRASH HOLY SHIT. A PINHOLE CAMERA DELIVERS BETTER IQ. I DUNNO WHAT WAS I THINKING WHEN I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HALF DECENT. ALSO PRICY.

FUCK THEM GOOD. IM ANGRY YES.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:58:57 No.2935559 Report

Quoted By:

If they didn't just cancel production of the film, I would just buy an FP-1

:C Why, Fuji?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SHIT.jpg, 132KiB, 408x644

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:05:12 No.2935566 Report

Quoted By:

HAH GOOD OLE TIMEY CAMERA LMOA

JUST LIKE UR OLD ROLLEI AMIRITE GUYZ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:07:38 No.2935569 Report

Quoted By:

>>2935549
>Lomo wide
>Bel air

Since when are auto-exposure and zone focusing any decent level of manual control? you're still essentially guessing the focus and letting your camera guess the exposure

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:14:36 No.2935571 Report

Quoted By: >>2935574 >>2935934

>>2935558
It delivers the kind of quality I expect from instax film. IQ on film (which instax is) is a property of the lens and film combo. TL70 is the only instax camera on the market that let's you confirm your focus, so your subject is as sharp as the lens will allow. and the lens elements are glass, not plastic lomo shit.

I think fuji instax printer might be more your thing if you want digital quality prints

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:19:09 No.2935574 Report

Quoted By: >>2935576

>>2935571

CORPORATE FUJI SHILLING IS REAL LOL.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:24:04 No.2935576 Report

Quoted By:

>>2935574
back to the reddit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Sep 2016 19:26:43 No.2935577 Report

Quoted By: >>2935992

>>2935557
>I'm not some cashed up trust fund hipster.

Then don't shoot instant film. Even Fuji's cheap, point-and-shoot all-plastic instax cameras pretty fucking expensive, so i don't know why you think a more seriouser camera would be cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 05:42:57 No.2935934 Report

Quoted By:

>>2935571
Waiting till the X200 or giving up and saving up for the X100T + The instax printer will probably be my fate... We could've had something Fuji

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 06:17:34 No.2935952 Report

Quoted By:

Does anyone trust Fuji to carry on making this shit after a few years?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 07:22:02 No.2935992 Report

Quoted By:

>>2935577
I wouldn't shoot seriously on it, just for nice shots to be able to give people, I like the sentiment of instant shots, people appreciate it, something that can't be reproduced like a digital shot.

Also fuck waiting for printing; a decent photo printer is out of my budget anyway.

I really don't think it's too much to ask for a rangefinder style camera with manual focus, shutter and aperture that takes instant film that still exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 01 Oct 2016 19:23:20 No.2937687 Report

Quoted By: >>2937827 >>2938065 >>2938074

>>2933319
Fuji can't make money on an "Instax Pro" camera if that film is also compatible with everyone's old Lands. Why do you think this square format is being released in a proprietary size?

God I can't wait for the Instax fad to die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 01 Oct 2016 19:28:38 No.2937689 Report

Quoted By:

>>2935557
The Polaroid-style SLR is nothing but a refurbished SX-70 with some SLR-680 parts and a new mobo to accept their shutter-priority attachment. I almost traded-in one of my SX-70's to have it upgraded, but said fuck it when they told me I wouldn't get my original (albeit modified) camera back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 01 Oct 2016 23:55:33 No.2937827 Report

Quoted By:

>>2937687
>can't wait for the instax fad to die
>presumably likes instant film
Good riddance instant film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 02 Oct 2016 09:57:39 No.2938065 Report

Quoted By:

>>2937687
the problem with instax film in a packfilm camera is theres no way to eject the print. if someone wanted to make a graflex back for instax wide it'd work just fine otherwise. i just doubt youd make much. theres one guy that modifies the lomo backs for mamiyas and he wants like $400 for one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 02 Oct 2016 10:17:26 No.2938074 Report

Quoted By:

>>2937687
the money is in the film, not the shitty cameras. it's why kodak would sell cameras at a loss.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 02 Oct 2016 11:15:34 No.2938084 Report

Quoted By: >>2940241

>>2933411
But you can't actually go straight from being modern to being retro, can you? There has to be like 10 years in between and brand-wise it won't make sense at all if you suddenly start marketing your regular products as old-school.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 02 Oct 2016 19:09:38 No.2938366 Report

Quoted By:

Fuck a dedicated Instax TLR or RF or whatever, just make me an Instax back for my Hasselblad.

Hell, you can get a basic 50x kit for cheap enough these days that buying a used Hassy and an Instax back would probably still be cheaper than some shitty dedicated Instax camera, and the glass and mechanics would be a billion times better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Oct 2016 21:20:58 No.2940241 Report

Quoted By:

>>2938084
>see: Coca-Cola """Classic"""

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches