leipol

Joined on Jan 18, 2006

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: A bunch of old cameras their manufacturers abandoned decades ago only show civilisation's lack of respect for its past, and increasing cluelessness about the medium of film photography, and photography in general.
Used film cameras are NOT the solution for further and expanded use of film, and the appreciation of art of photography which can be both digital AND analog. Only new and interesting film cameras, and innovation in new film camera design, will ignite love for analog photography. This project ticks those boxes, and it is more substantial than the autumn '17 edition of the Canon EOS M, or this month's issue of Sony a-something.

The market for some used film cameras is drying up. Less choice depending on what you want and the prices went up.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:08 UTC

Does Lomography has a comparable lens with M-mount?

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 17:27 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

Lightpath48: I was a Yashica retailer decades ago, using their TLR and Electro Series for my personal photography. The Electro 35 GSN was one of the great classics for many years. Though this new plasticky toy doesn't even come close, I'm guessing many will have fun with it, and some fairly nice images will result.

Depending on what these people expect from it. Think my old iPhone 4s wil give better images and the little Pentax Q is top compared to the Y35.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 08:27 UTC
In reply to:

hidden1: Does anyone else wished Yashica announced a real film camera instead?

Yes, and if reasonable affordable I would have been a backer.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 08:23 UTC
In reply to:

Vermeero: Looks to me like this whole idea is revolving around keeping the costs as low as possible providing a good looking camera.
Well... making a true film camera would eliminate the need for a decent sensor and digital part for storing the pictures and so can lower costs.
This camera will be a niche thing... film also is, so why would that be such a bad idea to make a real film camera? Or... is there some other brand which will make that happen?

I've read that Japan Camera Hunter would make a premium analog compact camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: This could be fun. Real film has got ludicrously expensive to process round here. I hope it does well for them. Maybe not for me, though. A lot of the charm with film cameras (the earlier ones anyway) was in the build/engineering and I can't see that being great at this price!

Leica built a digital rangefinder with no screen for reviewing/deleting. That one was a tad pricier...

An alternative: the original Polaroid Snap. No LCD, an optical viewfinder, 3 color modes, uses micro sd card and built in rechargeable battery. If no Zink paper in it only saves jpeg on card. With Zink paper it spits out a print after every snap.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: "... which looks more like a classic Polaroid than the credit card-sized Instax Mini film used by all of the company's other instant cameras."

Uh no, this is not correct. I've used the Fuji Instax 210 ($79 on Amazon) for years which takes the larger wide format film. The Instax 300 is an updated version. Amazon also sells a 100 pack of the Instax wide film for $85, so 85 cents per image.

This SQ 10 doesn't really work in my opinion - it's trying to do too much (which the article kind of points out). To make it a digital camera contradicts the entire point of a Polaroid.

And as others have already pointed out, the SP-2 printer is awesome and a much better solution if you want to print wirelessly from your digital camera or phone.

I love the Instax Wide format and the best is that a double pack of Instax Wide film is about the same price of a double pack of Instax mini. I recently got an Instax Wide 500 AF (second hand, mint condition including operating instructions in English). Would like to see that Fuji brings an updated version of the Instax 500 AF, a design from 1999, with deatures comparable to the mini 90 neo classic. Have no interest for the SQ10, already own for some years the Polaroid Z340 that uses 3x4 ZINK paper. An Instax Wide printer would also be nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

joeybob: $279.00 ... for the camera
$1.50 ... *per shot* for the film

Good luck Fuji

P.S. Please bring back FP-100c

+1, Fuji please bring back FP-100C or sell the machinery to another company who can make packfilm with the equipment.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 10:54 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: Wait, not all film rolls had 24 shots. I often used ones with 36 shots. I will need to change my shooting style.

Also, why can't there be an expedited overnight processing? Why wait 3 days?
OH, that might cost extra.

Now they have some with 39.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 11:45 UTC
On article Hot mess: Remembering the Leica M8 (157 comments in total)

I got the M8 in 2009 with a double rebate when the M8.2 was released. It was new with a 2 year warranty at a price comparable with a second hand at that moment. Never had any regrets about this purchase. Build quality is exeptional as expected from Leica. Went 1 time to Leica for remapping the sensor in 2012. That was the only issue I've had. Still using it with pleasure.
But I'm also still using my Voigthlander Bessa R2M when shooting film. Just like the rangefinder experience.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 17:06 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: Fuji got too excited on a recent instax wave and created this too expensive hybrid. I'll wait for analogue one. Instax wide owner.
PS. I don't like rhe design, too rounded. Make nice squared!!!

Besides Instax mini I'm also an Instax wide user. Would have liked if they released an Instax wide camera with comparable capabilities as the Instax min 90 neo classic + a monochrome version of the Instax wide film.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

barkersmadness: I bought myself a Lomo Instant (the San Sebastian one to be exact) and I must say I am rather disappointed with it. Most of the pictures have come out too dark and you never really know when to change the exposure and by how much. For a example, a picture I shot in the office (white walls) in the automatic mode (so with flash) by day came out really dark. I took a couple of pictures of our Christmas tree (with flash) and all of them turned out almost completely dark, even though I had changed the exposure. However, a picture taken at the beach will be way to bright. At the end of the day, it'll take you at least three films to "test" the thing and you will still be disappointed (I'm pretty sure I have wasted 3/7 films by now). It also seems to be rather too delicate, considering that it is almost entirely made of plastic (I unfortunately dropped it today and it seems to have loosened the batteries). Seems like a bit of a waste of money and I'm considering getting the Instax 90..

My Lomo'Instant that I acquired trough the Kickstarter campaign was also very disappointing. I shot 1 pack (1 op 10 pictures usable) and 2 pictures of a second pack. There it ended, it became a paper weight. Outdoors and using a light meter it gives just acceptable results, but indoors with flash: horrible picture quality. The second unfinished pack went into the mini 90. Never touched the Lomo'Instant again.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 18:03 UTC

I have the Polaroid Z340. It was the first Polaroid instant print camera using 3x4 Zink paper and had a design resembling the Polaroid Spectra/Image cameras. I was afraid that the 3x4 Zink paper one day would not be available anymore. Looks now that this isn't. In terms of quality the Zink prints don't reach the level of Instax Wide or mini film for color rendering. The 3x4 paper isn't much more expensive compared to the 2x3 paper.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 17:51 UTC as 10th comment

I owned the Polaroid Vision (Captiva) and used it until the 500 film was discontinued. In those days didn't know about the Olympus camera, later on I've read about this gorgeous interesting product. I also know that Polaroid had a printer using film to print digital images. Not sure if this was for 500 film.
Polaroid uses now ZINK technology.
I still hope that Fuji will pick up this idea, a digital camera with built in Instax mini printer. They already have Instax Share printers, bur perhaps the market for such a device is not interesting from an economical point of view.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:35 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Dervast: What about the printing costs per camera? Is instant film same cost (per print) on all those cameras? Which are the models that give a variety of films to shoot with ? (color, black and white variations)

Only for the Instax mini format, Monochrome.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2016 at 11:04 UTC

This roundup is only about the integral Fuji Instax mini film. Fuji makes also Instax Wide film, twice as big as the mini format. The wide film is not that much more expensive.
Vintage integral Polaroid cameras (SX-70, 600 and Spectra series) can use Impossible instant film but this film is expensive compared to Fuji Instax. Impossible released this year their own I-1 instant camera.
Sadly Fuji discontinued this year the FP-100 C pack film that could be used with Polaroid pack film cameras.
This is all analog.

If you would like to go the digital way there is the new released Polaroid Snap Touch or the original Polaroid Snap. With the Snap Touch you can decide to print or not to print. The original Snap prints every picture.

I'm using instant cameras for 46 years and prefer the analog instant. Besides the already mentioned there is also the New55 for b&w picture with negative in the 4x5 format.

Best

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
On article Leica-branded instant camera rumored to launch soon (43 comments in total)

Notwithstanding I have a Fuji Instax mini 90 I want one as my own Christmas present. The design is gorgeous. Something different when compared to other cameras that use Instax mini film. Perhaps a little expensive for a rebranded Fuji Instax but you only live once.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 14:13 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Fujifilm to introduce monochrome instax mini film (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

GuitarCamera Man: Exciting news, they have given me more incentive to buy an instax camera or Lomography Instant camera.

The Instax mini 90 is very good and Lomography have a kickstarter campaign running for a Lomo Instant Automat.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 10:17 UTC
On article Fujifilm to introduce monochrome instax mini film (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Attila Orhan: Are those Fuji cameras printing every shot taken? I'm looking for an instant camera for just printing the selected shots, not every shot taken. Is there such an instant camera on the market?

Fuji Instax cameras are analog. Polaroid has digital instant cameras that prints on ZINK (Zero INK) paper. If you just want to print selected shots, the Polaroid Z2300 is the available option. Other option: use smartphone, print selected picture on a printer. Polaroid has the Zip, Fuji the Instax Share. There are also other manufacturers of portable printers (Canon, LG, ...).

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm to introduce monochrome instax mini film (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: I've never seen it as cheap as you say it is. Retail is more like $10 per pack of 10.

I have to buy 5 double packs of instax mini films and then it costs 90 €. So it is 15 € for 1 double pack of 20 pictures. But buying just 1 pack of 10 pictures price is 11 €. It is at a well known shop in Antwerp.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »