9 ms·
The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera
- macintosh-hd 3y agoSuper cool. I want to pick one of these up one day, but first I need to get around to buying a full frame digital camera…
- BugsJustFindMe 3y agoFor that price? I have no words.
- turndown 3y agoI don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+
- oh_sigh 3y agoProducts like this cost what people will pay for them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Sosh101 3y agoThat's true for any product.
- Epa095 3y agoTja, with more competition the price (should) approach production cost. For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).
- allenu 3y agoI was shocked to see the price tag on this. On the other hand, I could see it being used as mostly a marketing tool to provide an aspirational product to essentially set an anchor price that makes all their other lines feel more affordable. I honestly found that when I looked at their product line, all of a sudden, a $150 instant camera felt "affordable" after seeing the $600 one. I won't be buying one, but this had some small effect on me.
- iNerdier 3y agoIt’s an analogue camera with all the complexities involved in making something that exposes and results in a physical object and with relatively low production numbers and a high r&d spend required to make it. Why, coupled with a lack of anyone making anything else like this for Polaroid film would you think it would be dirt cheap?
- allenu 3y agoI didn’t think it would be “dirt cheap”. It’s a surprising product to make in a world where there are already more affordable models produced by the same company to satisfy the urge for instant photos and everyone already has a camera in their pocket for around the same price.
- theshrike79 3y agoSome people REALLY like the shitty quality aesthetic that Polaroid pictures give. I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
- jillesvangurp 3y agoYes, and it's not even that hard to emulate the effect digitally. I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo. I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoI, for one, love the innovation in film technology. Yes, most of it is not new - printing polaroids has been around for decades and the rest of the camera looks like it was salvaged from digital cameras in the last 10 years. This style of photography is just the complete opposite of what we'll all grown to expect from cameras. We expect them to have microscopic resolution so we can view the photos on 5 inch wide screens. We expect to click one button, and then spend hours tweaking the photo in arbitrary ways until we get an effect that would have been achieved if the aperture was set slightly wider. The tech is pretty meh and it's probably overpriced, but that's entirely besides the point.
- system16 3y agoThere are other much cheaper models. I might not be finding it, but their site doesn't make it immediately apparent what the differences are to justify the huge difference in price: https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/collections/instant-cameras https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/collections/instant-cameras
- armadsen 3y agoThis one has full manual exposure settings (not available in any previous Polaroid integral camera, as far as I know), plus shutter priority and aperture priority, continuous autofocus using LiDAR, external flash sync, a better lens, ability to use both 600 and SX-70 film, a “real” light meter, a much more sophisticated viewfinder, and probably something I’m forgetting. It really is significantly more capable than the existing, cheaper models. Worth noting that this is seen as competing with the SX-70, which was previously the “serious” choice for Polaroid shooters. The SX-70 was $1300 in today’s dollars at launch, and fully refurbished ones are several hundred dollars now. My impression based on reading reactions from people in the target market for this camera (ie serious Polaroid enthusiasts) is that the camera looks great and the price point isn’t crazy.
- ruined 3y agothis is clearly targeted at the segment that wants something nicer than the dwindling stock of refurb SX70s, but is too cheap for Mint's SLR670. so the only thing that surprises me is it's not an SLR. just about the only thing this could possibly beat an SX70 on is the autofocus if it's good, maybe shutter speed but they seem cagey about it, and maybe durability. the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick? if you are a camera hacker check out the OpenSX70 project. edit: specs on the shop page https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera 98mm/f8 to f64 (28mm equiv), shutter 1/250 (seriously?), and AF is infrared so you'll hate it. fuckin analog yo
- crossroadsguy 3y agoI really hope that in my lifetime, and hopefully very soon, manual SLRs make a comeback. If not a come back then started manufacturing of the old greats again. I loved the photography but not the disposable digital photography. No, I was never an expert photographer and I don’t even want to be one. I just loved taking photos and the whole process of it and the fact that you couldn’t just take any number of photos you want. I also looked and take photos and then again looked at those photos. These people just take photos and never and never look at those photos usually again.
- bpye 3y agoRicoh are developing a new film camera under the Pentax brand - which may or may not make it to retail. IIRC not an SLR - but still in that direction. The only other “serious” option - as in not a Holga or something - that I can think of is Leica - but then you’re spending into the tens of thousands of dollars… Also not an SLR but it is interchangeable lens of course.
- crossroadsguy 3y agoI am looking for an SLR. My best photography related memory is from a Nikon FM3A that I borrowed from a relative as a teenager for some time. Where I live there isn't an active used SLR market in a way that can be trusted and purchased. Maybe I will try my luck with one of the trusted sellers in the USA once someone from here is coming back. No, Leica is not an option - both on the price front and that not being an SLR. What I want is really a compact mechanical SLR.
- orange_joe 3y agoI understand the unlikelihood of this, but to really capitalize on the film craze they need to produce a higher “resolution” instant film. Old peel away film was fantastically high quality particularly when paired with a genuine glass lens (most current instant film cameras have a plastic lens). Improving the lens can only go so far without improving the film stock.
- shiftpgdn 3y agoYou can 3d print a modified instax wide back for some medium format cameras. Hasselblad has always had an instant film back with some minor modifications. The photos look amazing.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoIf it wants to compete with digital, sure. That's not the point though. There's a world of "low-fi" photography that's closer to art than modern photography has become.
- jug 3y agoI have a hard time seeing this going anywhere. Features of lens sharpness and manual controls seem at odds with the intent of spontaneity and the lack of medium quality, so much of your effort is thrown away once you print. In none of their samples for aperture/shutter/auto did I even see the typical differences between the modes such as bokeh or motion softness due to let us say limited sensor size and print quality. Or their samples were just poor as showcases. In that case, addons to polaroidize your smartphone (printer for smartphone) seems like a much better idea since you already carry a large set of controls to influence an output in your favorite apps, and already designed with the outset of limited optics (e.g. fake bokeh), and indeed that product already exists. You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will (multiple friends/family etc)
- dotancohen 3y ago> I have a hard time seeing this going anywhere. My daughter has a previous model. I came to the conclusion that this camera is not for consumers, rather, maybe useful for events or pubs to photograph participants and to immediately place on an event wall. Though I've never actually seen the device used for this purpose, I honestly can not find another use case where another device already popular on some market is not a better fit.
- kawsper 3y agoThe company I work at does exactly that! We bring it for parties or events and have a wall of pictures at our office.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> or pubs I mused about buying one for the bar I frequent. But the price of the unit and the expendables is way too much to shoulder it myself, especially considering the unit could be damaged or stolen.
- fragmede 3y ago> You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will For the some of the remaining use cases for Polaroids, that's a bug, not a feature.
- vr46 3y agoMy 600SE has been largely out for action for years, with only a trickle of film available. Results were predictable when Polaroid and Fuji peel-apart film were available. The modern Polaroid film is anything but predictable or even vaguely good, especially for the astronomical prices. Zink gives about the same qualities. Fuji Instax in all its forms won this battle and there’s a cottage industry of Instax-holding backs being 3D-printed to retro-fit older cameras like the 600SE or anything with a Graflok connection. That said, if the outcome of modern Polaroids is exactly what you’re after and an SX70 is not your cup of tea, here’s your new toy.
- jnovek 3y agoIs there another option out there or are you referring to the lomography back? I shot pack film for many years and switched to Instax Wide when that ran out, but I miss using a camera with manual focus.
- vr46 3y agoI have the Lomo back, but I use it on my Speed Graphic. Results vary. This is a printed-to-order back for the 600SE that I was considering: https://www.ebay.com/itm/134203663096?amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0JSxVjM6jpqv%2BP18X0x%2BHAhPXtFFgxoTAiG6C9%2Bh9zYNCVoVO7%2BzM0aBFowwAhgjQB2OLyYoR8sEPNzmmPSjCwMM6DUQLbqcnMKRDwHx2L4DBQXZCRS7%2BfxuTeL31ugveNCQOmPekRm4tj%2B1KnC9r5cQja6LQD3SZwSWarAsHS9KElN1lGrxLPXAfx0QJoztp%2B7tggZUV6GUS%2BMjfcZ5Cq0IGOsAZ4Qa6e2BnNVFV61upDLYNd47cHNVWOGiXbJU99whMHmEnf5tsLy5Byiqg7g%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR9Kho57OYg https://www.ebay.com/itm/134203663096?amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA0...
- stinkydougie 3y agoit's not a modded back, but the NONS SL660 might be of interest.
- snom380 3y agoDo you have a link to any of those adapters? Have a 600SE and a 3D printer, would be nice to give a new life to the camera.
- system2 3y agoAre there crazy people who would pay $599 for this?
- DGCA 3y agoGood review from an awesome channel: https://youtu.be/kBJzE6TI__Q?si=Csi_ofFIu2iAeliO https://youtu.be/kBJzE6TI__Q?si=Csi_ofFIu2iAeliO
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y agoI rather use a software for similar composition instead of paying that kinda money.
- _ph_ 3y agoAs my farther had and used a polaroid camera, seeing this announcement made me curious. The camera definitely looks nice though its ancestors were definitely easier to carry thanks to their folding capacity. On the other side, you wouldn't get any of those cameras for their size today. So a bit more bulk might be ok, it also saves you from fiddeling with the mechanism. The problem isn't even the price. Usually I don't even look at the price of a device until I know how good it is, then I start considering, whether it is worth it. And only then, separately, I would consider whether it is worth it to me at that price. The real catch, before one needs to discuss the camera itself, is the film. I had thought that Polaroid stopped making the original films very long ago. They were quite good, but the modern clones less so. Some comments here in the discussion seem to point to the fact, that these new films are quite inferior. And that unfortunately seals the case for me (and probably many others). A camera with original quality Polaroid films would have sold well, disregarding its price. After all every single short is extremely expensive. But unfortunately, this seems to be a technology lost to mankind.
- can16358p 3y ago600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.
- supermatt 3y agoIt is showing €699.99 for me. But that is a bargain compared to when they first came out! https://legacybox.com/blogs/analog/how-much-was-the-first-polaroid-camera https://legacybox.com/blogs/analog/how-much-was-the-first-po...
- can16358p 3y agoThat would even be cheap for that era. But for today's age with all the alternatives and advanced devices, it's extremely expensive.
- bowsamic 3y agoThis isn't my experience. I know a lot of people with the fujifilm instax (which is admittedly much cheaper) and people use it quite a lot
- jamal-kumar 3y agoI know a ton of younger people who love these things too, great for parties
- can16358p 3y agoInteresting. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I know almost nobody using these. I mean, I know a few people (using much cheaper ones) but that's it. I doubt with this price tag they can sell enough to offset R&D and marketing costs.
- bowsamic 3y ago
- EGreg 3y agoI recently bought Instax by Fujitsu for $70. It’s great for parties! But also $1 per photo basically
- nunodonato 3y agothe price per photo is what deters me from buying one. You will end up thinking twice (or thrice) before snapping an instant photo, because.. "is this really worth $1?". Having that said, I've seen you can buy these in bulk and the price goes down.
- slim 3y agothinking before shooting was the norm before digital. that's why we had great photohraphers.
- jbarham 3y agoFujifilm also sells Instax printers (https://instax.com/printer/ https://instax.com/printer/) that you can print to using smartphone apps. Note that the printers use the same film cartridges as the Instax instant cameras.
- somishere 3y agoIn Australia 35mm cameras worked out to about this (for decent c41 developed at a decent print shop), even before smartphones / digis went mainstream.
- kkarimi 3y agoPolaroids really make an event memorable, but for that they don’t need to be super configurable like this camera. Cool toy though!
- beesyrup 3y agoI really hope affordable and compatible film comes out so I can have fun with my SX70 again :(
- billfruit 3y agoFujifilm Instax Evo Mini hybrid (instant + digital ) camera seems a much better instant camera, it costs less than 200$.
- bichiliad 3y agoThe fact that this exists has rekindled my hope for new, mass-manufactured 35mm cameras. There are plenty of good used ones around, but repairs can be so expensive (if you can find someone willing to service your camera).
- Jemm 3y agoWhy? Even in the day these were mostly used as novelty, party cameras or for shots you didn't want the photo finishing shop to see.
- ricardobayes 3y agoIt would be good if it was "dual mode", capable of capturing digitally and print out too.
- what-no-tests 3y agoDoes it come with a curled mustache or do I have to grow my own?
- rekabis 3y agoIt’s good that these kinds of instant-photo cameras are still available. They are essential not only in forensics investigations, but also any other field where photographic inimitability is required; where the photo itself cannot be intercepted or altered or faked prior to its final physical copy, and where that physical copy can be trusted to be an accurate representation.
- manuelmagic 3y agoIt's still not clear if the lens is made of glass like the SX-70 or the SLR-680.
- azhenley 3y agoPlastic according to Kai’s video on it: https://youtu.be/qCi9NSk7IZQ?feature=shared https://youtu.be/qCi9NSk7IZQ?feature=shared
- superchroma 3y ago700 euros, oh my goodness! I would honestly expect it to be able to capture digital versions of the images too for that money.
- armadsen 3y agoFuji has a couple Instax cameras that do that. They’re not as feature-filled as this camera, but they’re pretty cool.
- iancarroll 3y agoInterestingly it’s $599 USD or 699 EUR, wonder why it’s more expensive in Europe.
- mattlondon 3y agoThis often happens. Sometimes it is because all taxes are included in the non-US price. Other times it is just profiteering.
- pgeorgi 3y agoAlso the 2 years mandatory warranty that needs to be priced in.
- Foobar8568 3y agoVAT, Price in the US rarely includes it.
- pmontra 3y agoConversely, a digital camera that at a 700 Euro pricepoint also captures images on film? By the way, everybody have a digital instant camera in their pocket. It can also share them on the internet and send them to friends. It has unlimited poses and it can print to film if one really wants to. It can cost way more than 700 euros or less than 100.
- billfruit 3y ago