I do not need another camera. I do not need another camera.
Looks like it was just dropped: a brand-new Polaroid camera.
Price: $599.
Details here.
I do not need another camera. I do not need another camera.
Looks like it was just dropped: a brand-new Polaroid camera.
Price: $599.
Details here.
Hmmm. It looks rather a lot like my vintage One-Step camera from, I don't know, the early 80's? I know it didn't cost 600 bucks, but hey, inflation, I get it. By comparison, the film seems almost reasonably priced, but then it doesn't need to contain a battery like the old stuff.
Can't blame Polaroid for putting a big number on it, sending it out in the market, and seeing how it does.
Just saw it on my social feeds this morning.
Glad I don't have the money to spend on it right now.
That's very interesting, as the automation was what always pushed me away from Polaroids. At ~$2/shot, however, the camera itself is only part of the cost. Film is going to add up quickly, especially if it's good.
My GF is an instant camera junkie - I'm not sure I should show this to her.
Just got the pop-up: 10% when you join their community.
All this talk has me interested in that project that Ricoh/Pentax has been working on:
Saw a video review about it this morning. Reviewer estimated with supposed battery life, you'll spend $210 in film cartridges before the battery wears down.
I think they're neat, but I couldn't justify spending that much on something that's really more of a novelty/throwback.
-Rob
Colin Wood said:All this talk has me interested in that project that Ricoh/Pentax has been working on:
i learned off a Pentax K1000 long long long ago.
It's nice that it has features that will likely very much improve the quality of the photo.
I guess there are some very limited use cases where it would actually be useful (I don't know, maybe a party thing or something...?). I suspect in most cases, for most people, even if you really wanted a hard copy very quickly, some sort of linked wireless printer would be far more practical.
It appears to actually expose film (based on the animations). I wonder how this actually would differ from a camera that just had a small printer in it (if that is even possible).
Obviously though, most of the appeal is in the "gimmick" of it, if you will.
One nice side effect I can see is that it will really teach to you only take pictures you really want. ESPECIALLY with a digital, it is super easy to just blast away, and end up with hundreds of photos, then have to sift through them looking for the good ones.
aircooled said:I guess there are some very limited use cases where it would actually be useful (I don't know, maybe a party thing or something...?). I suspect in most cases, for most people, even if you really wanted a hard copy very quickly, some sort of linked wireless printer would be far more practical.
It appears to actually expose film (based on the animations). I wonder how this actually would differ from a camera that just had a small printer in it (if that is even possible).
Fujifilm offers camera/printers, too, but there’s something special about a Polaroid.
Kodak, too.
So now a whole new generation of kids can be scarred for life after digging through their parent's closet.
You'll need to log in to post.
