Ulfric M Douglas: Is that Polaroid she's holding significantly smaller than they used to be?
As the other poster stated, this isn't Polaroid. It's Instax. Plus, this is Instax Mini, which measures 2 x 3 inches. But there is a larger Instax camera, the Fuji Instax 210, which shoots 4.25 x 3.4 inch images. That's closer to the Polaroid prints you're thinking of. But the Instax 210 is a much larger camera than this Instax Mini 90.
3dreal: My costs of dealing with digital data is higher than the instant output.
@Sessility - Oh, wow, what a huge "cost" it would be to connect to a computer, upload, and print! LOL. Who has time for that!? Might as well just get one of these Instax cameras, and print out your cherished memories onto credit card sized images of abysmal quality!
Seriously though, you don't think it costs "your time" to earn the money it takes to buy costly Instax film (currently selling for $18 for a pack of 20 sheets on Amazon)? Only to get images that have no archival potential, aren't enlargeable, aren't uploadable, aren't re-printable, aren't duplicatable, and are of low quality?
If people actually saw how small these instant prints are, and actually saw the low image quality they produce, you wouldn't quite be so enthusiastic. Heck, just use your smart phone's camera, upload directly to print labs, and the quality will still be much better! And cheaper, too. My local Walgreens photo lab prints images uploaded directly from smart phones.
RichRMA: Ad agencies kill me. Their ideas about "20-somethings" are all the same. Bearded, always breaking out the acoustic guitar, impromptu jam sessions, some trendy, formerly intolerable beer on hand...
Ah, face it, you guys are just applying a form of generalized bigotry, a condescension of anyone who doesn't look like you. Hating someone just by how they look, or assuming that they are "smelly" simply based on someone looks. Yeah, that's awesome. Pat yourself on the back for that one, LOL. George Zimmerman would be proud of you. Thank goodness they actually used Caucasians, because I'd hate to hear what you would have said about people of other ethnicities.
So are you suggesting that ad agencies should instead use ugly, out-of-shape, acne-riddled, Walmart-shopping, poorly-dressed schmoes with bad teeth, wearing mustard-stained tee-shirts, sitting around eating junk food while smoking bongs? Product images are generally supposed to be aspirational. If you've ever looked in an Ikea catalog, you'll also notice that those interiors look waaaay better than the actual homes and rooms that Ikea furniture actually ends up in. Yes, product photos aren't supposed to reflect *actual* reality. Instead, it's usually a idealized, pristine, fantastical, stylized version of reality. Ads are generally aspirational because they want you to also aspire to buying the product featured in the aspirational ad. Think of SUV's shown driving through beautiful wooded forests or across African savannahs. Obviously, most SUV's never go beyond the concrete jungles of today's urban sprawl
@Sam Carriere - So then don't factor in those other costs. Just consider the cost of the digital camera and memory cards, just like you would consider the cost of the Instax Mini 90 and its Instax film. Make it an apples-to-apples comparison. Camera + media. In the case of digital, it's the digital camera + SD cards. In the case of these Fuji cameras, it's the Instax camera + Instax film. Digital is still way cheaper. After all, you don't *need* computers, printers, software, back-up drives to shoot digital. (Besides, most people already own a computer, so that's not really an added cost. And there are free image-editing softwares, so that's not necessarily an added cost either.) And as for printing from digital, there are plenty of places that will print your digital photos straight from your memory card for pennies. Just plug your card into the kiosk slot. You don't *need* to buy your own printer. All these additional things for digital are simply optional, elective costs.
utomo99: If it is retro style why it did not use AA Battery ?AA Battery easier to find everywhere
@utomo99 - the USB cable plugs into a small wall outlet unit. So charge times are fast. Such cable/outlet combos are pretty common these days. Mini USB on one end of the cable, full-size USB on the other end of the cable, and the full-size USB plugs into the wall outlet unit. That means you can also disconnect the wall outlet unit and plug the full-size USB end into a computer for offloading images, and/or charging. So having the USB/charger is very versatile and flexible. Plus, it'll also charge your phone, if your phone charges via micro USB!
mad marty: this camera is so 2010. Which enthusiast still needs a tiny-sensor enthusiast-compact camera???The only reason why the manufacturers don't build mft-sensor-compacts is to sell more lenses for the evils.The G16 just makes no sense for me.
Canon probably knows what the market is for this camera is more than you know. It may not make sense for you, but it obviously must make enough sense for Canon. Ultimately, it's their business, isn't it?
Peter62: So boring...just another cash cow for Canon?
Nothing new since years now, dynamic range far behind Nikon. And the mirrorless camera EOS M is a joke compared to the competion.
I sold my Canon gear recently and switched to SONY NEX. Beautiful little cams with APS-C sized sensors.
Wake up, Canon!
Actually, it's smart business. Canon will sell plenty of these cameras, with very minimal investment. That makes sense when you consider just how small the market is these days for cameras such as these.
As for the EOS M, yes, it's "a joke", but that is hardly Canon's final and only release for the mirrorless market. On the contrary, it's merely Canon's first release, something to get their toe in the door. Now Canon has their new Dual Pixel CMOS. Expect future models to be more compelling. But what's the hurry? The mirrorless market isn't exactly taking over the world just yet.
@3dreal - a lot of compact cameras can be charged with a micro USB cable, the same connection that most smart phones now use. I know Sony is doing that with their compact cameras. So basically, if you have a charger for your smart phone, you can also charge up your Sony compact camera. In fact, the Sony pocket compact I bought a few months ago didn't even have a separate battery charger. You just leave the battery inside the camera, connect the mini USB charger, and plug it into the electrical output, or any USB slot. I think that's they way it should be with all compact digicams, just like it is with a smart phone. Using AA batteries, and the very large chargers that they need (if you're talking about rechargeable AA's) is archaic. No one is screaming for a smart phone that takes AA's!
Kind of silly to worry about batteries that can be found everywhere when the camera only has a 10-shot "film" capacity, and the "film" that it uses definitely can't be found "everywhere."
Besides, retro "style" need only apply to the exterior "style" of the camera...strictly superficial.
CFynn: How big are the prints?
They look bigger than the imaging area of many "medium format" cameras.
The outputted image size is 2.13" x 3.4"-- about the size of a credit card.
wootpile: I like the form factor! Wish they would make a digital version
It'd be the X100, X20, X10, or XF1. This retro style form factor isn't exactly new for Fuji.
I doubt it. $15 will buy you 20 Instax Mini shots. Less than $15 will buy you a 16GB SD card. And a 16GB SD card will most definitely get you more than 20 shots! In other words, you can buy SD cards every time you shoot digital, never erase them, and use these SD cards as your accumulating storage; your "costs of dealing with digital data" would still cost a fraction of what it costs to shoot with these "instant output" cameras.
No, you don't shoot these Instax cameras for the cost savings. You do it because you like having instant prints, even though they cost a lot more than dealing with digital data.
Christoph Stephan: "why bother with the bulk of an SLR?" Simply, framing with the screen at arms length 1. negates any advantage image stabilisation may offer, and this gets even worse with huge telephoto lenses like te EF 100-400mm L IS 2. is still a pain in bright light making composition - the essence of creative photography - guesswork3. Optical finders consume less battery power than screens and EVF. Battery empty - no photos.
For me the EOS M and other viewfinderless garbage will always be a cup which I will let pass by, give me an SLR with decent OVF anytime.
My current philosophy is that I only "bother with the bulk of an SLR" when someone pays me to (I shoot weddings and portraits). But for my own shooting, like when I'm just walking around town, or traveling, or whatever, I always grab my mirrorless (m4/3) gear. So much lighter, so much more compact, so much less obtrusive and noticeable. It's really nice to have both DSLR and mirrorless. I feel sorry for people who think it has to only be one or the other.
Sviz: Since this is basically a 40MP sensor, I don't understand why Canon didn't make it output a 40MP image, instead of combining the information from pairs of photosites and output a 20MP image. Can someone explain me?
"Since this is basically a 40MP sensor..."
You might as well stop there, because you're wrong.
biancmb: I would have loved to upgrade my 60D to the 70D, in order to gain more resolution and maybe a camera that has a better shutter-noise (one that does sound like a shutter, not like a lashed wiggly sole). But after your review (preview) I am really not convinced of the image quality offered.
A bunch of equipment nerds who get their jollies off of the sound of a mirror and shutter snapping. Woohoo! I think I felt that way about cameras when I was...16 years old! LOL. I guess some people measure their masculinity based on the sound of their shutter. I guess it's like gun nuts who think they want guns to survive some imagined impending apocalypse where they can be heroic gun-toting survivalists -- it makes them feel manly. Or people who buy a massive gas-guzzling SUV, even though they have no practical need for one. Again, it feeds their sense of worth and masculinity. These days, I want my cameras as quiet as possible. Or I'd want the shutter to go away entirely. A loud shutter and mirror sound just sounds anachronistic to me, like having a rotary dial on a telephone.
biancmb: Why should still photographers be penalized by new technology? A new camera should take better pictures. Stills. They should make specific models for video. All manufacturers are just trying to make more money by targeting average users. Just admit it. Semi-pros and pros are being left behind. Most people do not even know what DOF is and cannot even use manual focus...
What in the world are you talking about? Photographers have it better than ever. Better than any time in photographic history. And yet, some whiners continue to complain as is they are being forced to go back to using 1990's era digital cameras, LOL.
"All manufacturers are just trying to make more money by targeting average users."
Yeah, God forbid manufacturers actually try to "make money!" Well, with the camera market being decimated as fewer and fewer people are buying cameras these days, I don't think that's a bad strategy. If you can't take better pictures with today's cameras, blame yourself. I think "stills" photographers are being served just fine. So now they need to expand the appeal o their products beyond just those people who take "stills" photos. Why? Because they need to make freakin' money to stay in business, you fool!
Nuno Souto: Another one trying to make a name for himself by dissing film and its users.Soooooooo boring...
He's merely stating the obvious. It's something that we've all known for a while now. That's not "dissing film." Besides, I'd hardly say that "dissing film", especially at this late stage of the game and at a point where film is barely even used anymore, is even newsworthy or enough to "make a name" for anyone. LOL.
G3User: These images don't impress me. Camera manufactures strive to produce great images from their products and then this guys throughs a yellow instagram filter on them, very unprofessional. I would expect this from my teenage daughter but not a pro. The expressions of the 2 people at the top are not very nice, they are saying to the Frank " I have no respect for you, put that camera down".
"The expressions of the 2 people at the top are not very nice..."
Uh, have you ever even seen this show? LOL. Oh, wait, you probably don't own a television. Sorry, but these aren't meant to be Sears portraits. Clearly, you don't understand the atmosphere of the show, which is appropriately reflected in these images.
Fazal Majid: Film was never this sharp? I take it he has never seen the humongous, yet finely detailed prints of Avedon's "In the American West".
Yeah, but Avedon shot those images on a Deardorff view camera with 8x10-inch sheets of film. Shooting with a huge, clunky large format camera with 8x10 sheet film is a pain in the butt to work with. I'm pretty sure Ockenfels is comparing to film formats that he might have been using to do these kinds of shots back in the film days, like 6x4.5, or 6x7 at most, not some enormous woodframe 8x10 view camera.