Fuji Instax SQ6 Instant Camera Review - Fun at any cost?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лип 2024
- I bought a Fujifilm Instax SQ6. This is my video about it.
If you like the Square Instax film - The SQ10 might be a better option. At the moment on Amazon UK it's £158.99 amzn.to/2naLqrH
With the SQ10 you only print the pictures you want - so in the long run it will work out much cheaper to use.
--------------SUBSCRIBE-----------------
ua-cam.com/users/Techmoan?...
------------Merchandise----------------
teespring.com/stores/techmoan...
------------SUPPORT--------------
This channel can be supported through Patreon
/ techmoan
Patrons usually have early access to videos
------THANKS TO ------
Jerobeam Fenderson for the intro animation: oscilloscopemusic.com/
---------Outro Music----------
Over Time - Vibe Tracks • Over Time - Vibe Track...
-----Outro Sound Effect-----
ThatSFXGuy - • Six Million Dollar man...
-----AFFILIATED LINKS/ADVERTISING NOTICE------
All links are Affiliated where possible.
When you click on links to various merchants posted here and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network & Amazon.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to AMAZON Sites (including, but not limited to Amazon US/UK/DE/ES/FR/NL/IT/CAN) - Наука та технологія
The poor image quality is clearly caused by you not having enough fun when you took the pictures. Try wearing a silly hat next time.
Telling people they're doing it wrong is all part of the fun. Apparently.
Ah yes, a pink pussy hat would be ideal.
Or one with one of those propellors on top.
The packaging of the films suggests that there will be no issues with image quality as long as there are strictly attractive young females in front of the lens. Depending on the photographer, this could indeed be a lot of fun, or quite creepy.
The real problem was that he forgot to do the "Developing Dance". In the early 1980s we shot hundreds of Polaroids of oscilloscope traces with a Peel off type 'scope camera (work was paying).. The joke was that if you didn't wave the print around to cool it as it developed and do the "Developing Dance" your photo would come out rubbish.
Your placid tone when reading nonsensical comments always gets a chuckle out of me.
Please continue this great tradition.
Agreed!
I was waiting for the sample they had taken to substantiate their comments. But alas I was bitterly disappointed and had to put away my lynching rope for another day. You won this round, Techmoan, you won this round.
I like Techmoan for those moments. Also his Voice is relaxing, i could hear it for Hours without getting Bored or annoyed. :D
If you willing to make a follow up video collaboration why not send it to ua-cam.com/users/mattiasburling he does a lot of photo work with old camera/quirky cameras and see if he can do something with that sucker.
I love the comments that end with the passive-aggressive smiley. Like "well maybe you don't know anything about cameras :)" Is it weird that little ":)" makes the comment 100x worse and makes me want to slap someone??
I loved your dry read off of the critics! That was brilliant! As a photographer myself that loves to play around with different formats I'd love to defend my Fuji instax but not with any of those points. I only bring mine to social gatherings like parties and on vacation. The camera is a great conversation piece more than anything. Everybody wants their picture taken in the classic Polaroid style because it has such a mystical allure now. People also love to bring souvenirs and memories home from events and what could be better than a tactile photo with your friends, new and old? As long as your images are shot in direct sunlight or with decent flash indoors and the subject fills the frame nicely, you've got a hit photo. Yes, it is extremely limited, but that's what makes it so appealing when you get the hang of it and when the crowd responds to it. It's definitely not a camera for everybody but it does have an audience that sees value in it. I treasure my book of Instax memories and have much more fun looking at them in the book with just a couple photos per event than I do scrolling through a million duplicate photos of every single post possible on the computer. I also love going to a friend's house and finding a photo I took hanging on their fridge or in the walls of their room along with others they've collected. Maybe what it comes down to is that you're printing these photos today the same reason you would have 20 years ago, not because you want to show somebody a photo of your lunch or a nice looking car but because you shared an experience with somebody and you want to share that moment with other people. Really special moments deserve to be printed out.
Exactly! I do gig rowing and l love taking my camera to regattas! I've collected some really nice team pictures that are tacked on my wall next to my bed, they make me feel really happy when I look at them, because I know that my camera was in the moment with us, and captured exactly what it was like.
The only good comment on this video lol
As a Polaroid enthusiast who regularly shoots film that costs about $2.50/photo and just bought a brand new Polaroid that shoots film at the bargain price of $2.00/photo (or $16.25/photo including the cost of the camera and one pack of film) I have no grounds to tell you you're wrong about this camera/format. Mostly because you're right and I can't see any practical purpose to these cameras today. Just because I enjoy them and am willing to shell out to do so doesn't mean everyone else should feel the same way or even understand. Its just a hobby at the end of the day.
Exactly. It's fun for the people who either didn't experience the medium, or people who want to re-live it.
Finally a reasonable person
I agree. I love the look of it, but I completely understand why people don't. I take pictures with my Pixel 2 when I want the sharpness and detail and such, and when I want to experience the moment in a more, in my opinion, meaningful way, I take a photo with an instant camera. Like you said, it's a hobby. There's a lot of debate in the fine arts community over digital versus hand drawn, but they're at least respectful enough to not say 'OH YOU JUST USED YOUR HAND WRONG!' One thing will never be for anyone. Digital photography won't ever be for everyone. It's the exact same with instant. And, of course, the style will never be for everyone. Whether it be a personal style - the filters, how someone frames it - or the medium. Art is subjective, and that includes how it's made.
The red filter seems useful if you want to replicate Phil Collins' No Jacket Required album cover.
Saw that and instantly typed "ctrl F" to see if I wasn't the only one!
*high five*
Glad I was not the only one who realised that too
Or a scene from Susperia
Mereana Mordegard Glesgorv
I love that "smartphone quality" has become the benchmark. Wouldn't have guessed ten years ago that would be the case now.
I think that those that comment on the camera being, fun, fun, fun and retro, are younger people who don't realise that a decent camera from 60 years ago was capable of ultra high quality images if used properly.......... And yes it was fun as well
Yep... I'll put my old fully manual Minolta with some good slide film up against any digital, let alone instant, any day. Digital of course has many advantages over film but for image quality and yes, fun, an old manual cam with good glass is hard to beat.
Fun fact, Obama had the first digital presidential portrait taken, everyone else's portrait before him was taken on film, except the paintings of course. Still can't complain about the Reagan photo, unlike this instant thingy.
Daniel Borsos didn't know that, would have thought it would have happened before his presidency
Sootikins yes I still have my old 35mm chinnon camera, it was capable of excellent results, used with a macro tube I could take pictures of an ant !!!!!!
Hell yeah, the same people who get wet over a cassette or vinyl rerelease because its 'retro' and 'fun' with the bad quality sound, ignoring that an original print sounds perfect
You really should be having more fun. That's where you're going wrong.
Man, I know logically that these photos aren't good from a technical perspective but I am absolutely in love with the aesthetic of them. Nit a huge fan of how expensive the film is and how wasteful the film is. Oh well. I can get mostly the same aesthetic with filters.
I imagine you'd look a little like Flavor Flav with that hanging around your neck. 😂
Some people have hacked up instax cameras to use as instant film backs with medium format cameras. It CAN look even better with nice glass and exposure control. Fun little things though and good review as always!
Berno Bruvn Mikcalson That sounds like an interesting read and maybe even an interesting project to work on.
Could you possibly link me to it?
エステティック Funk www.workinprocess.com.au/single-post/2017/06/13/Bronica-Instax-V2
petapixel.com/2017/11/04/rezivot-instant-film-processor-shoot-instax-film-camera/
Really a lot of potential in the film its self imo and the cost per shot isn’t bad either when compared to 120 film with process and scanning.
Berno Bruvn Mikcalson Much appreciated.
Fun is very expensive nowadays
Hipsters be like "straws are bad, now let me throw out all this plastic from my ten blurry photos"
I have had a Instax 210 and for 4 years and really like it. I agree that it is expensive but the results (while not high quality) are great to capture a moment. The empty film cartridges also make handy frames
Always happy to see a new video of yours, especially when there's a puppet bit at the end. Thanks for all the hard work.
I bought one of the colourful ones for my mum for Mother’s Day last year. It did it’s job as a nice gift that she puts to a practical use.
Decent review and the camera definitely produces low quality overpriced pictures. The purpose of the camera, for almost everyone I know who owns one though is to take pictures of people, mainly at parties. The fact it produces unreliable results is kind of the point. It's the antithesis of the ultra curated, doctored instagram photo.
Also interesting to note many of the people buying these would have had a high quality camera with infinite opportunity for curation in their pocket for the majority of their lives. The idea of low-quality, expensive photos being 'fun' seems inane for anyone who had to pay for film and get it developed as a necessity. But for some there's novelty in paying 2 bucks for one unreliable image of middling quality, us unbelievable as that is. To be honest, even for me, a good instant photo feels much more valuable than one on my phone.
Anyway, great video as always. :)
Great review! This camera reminds me of the old Polaroid 600 cameras. I love my SX-70, which offers manual focus and brightness in an SLR fashion, but in today's environment, instant film cameras are more a novelty than a daily use camera. I think the convenience and quality of digital really has changes the way we take photos. On a one week holiday I might take ten analogue prints, but 500 digital...then choose which of those to print for a photo album. Keep up the great reviews! You're the best!!
THANK YOU! Finally a good review, with comparison and everything that's important to know before buying the camera.
£9 for 10 photos ???
pauldzim Crazy isn’t it.
Adjusted for inflation, it's about one-third the amount that we paid for instant film in the 1980s. For me, the real shocker is the cost of the camera: £125 versus £22 for the Polaroid Sun 600 camera that I owned as a kid.
In the age of convenient digital photography, I suppose that if someone is going to go out of their way to use film price won't mean much
£9 for 10 attempts at photos more like.
I only remember Polaroid film being about a fiver..maybe I remember wrong.
Depends which decade you're referring to. The Polaroid film-packs in the 1980s cost £9.99 for 10 shots from Boots, as my mother often reminded me when I took yet another shot of the dog!
So Techmoan, it's pretty apparent that this kind of deliberately retro lo-fi photography is just not your thing. I give you props for still giving it a well-made and thoughtful review, showing us its functionality and features as well as its quantifiable flaws and quirks. For my part, I enjoy lo-fi photography for aesthetic reasons and use it as a sort of art hobby. I went with the Polaroid Originals One Step 2, which is basically a reissue of the old One Step but with some key improvements, such as an internal rechargeable battery and the ability to deactivate the flash by holding a button in as you shoot. Yes, the film is expensive, but if you like what you get out of it then it's worth it. Cheers.
Also, as a related aside, I also use a Diana toy camera, which is a cheap plastic toy camera that shoots film in a deliberately soft focused dreamy way, with unmetered exposure. This sort of lo-fi stuff is related in part to the vinyl revival and the return of cassettes and so on. Some think it's only for trendy hipster types, but there's more to it than that and I enjoy it. Not everyone's thing, of course.
Yay more techmoan !!!!!!!
Hey Techmoan, I've been watching your videos for about three years or more now, and I absolutely love them. The content is well put together, the images, sound, camera direction, et al. is just fantastic and it really makes my day to come home from work or get out of bed and see a new video from you. I know you're not much into taking critique from us in the peanut gallery, however I wanted to express one pet peeve I have which occasionally comes up in your videos. I'm talking about the way you seem to feed the trolls, so to speak. I just find it to detract from the content that I love to come here for. I don't know if you'll see this, and I certainly hope I don't end up in one of your videos, but I felt the need to finally put in my 2 pence on the issue. Thanks for all the great content over the years Techmoan! :)
An organized, carefully thought-out review. Thank you!
Lots of professional photographers in the comments, it seems.
'Proffesional' *cough* edgy instagram photography accounts full of borderline suicidal quotes *cough*
you don´t have to be a pro photographer to know that it isn´t just about sharpness.
@disarmsox...not sure if serious or not understand sarcasm...
just fyi, iso800 is way too sensitive for daylight photography without the ability to adjust the aperture or exposure time, which is why the darken mode was so effective.
I was thinking this wonder if iso 800 is the only iso available
pnutmans Gaming it sadly is.
Yes, 800 ISO is the only one available but with a fixed aperture at f/12 you really will need that.
Love the sarcasm in your video. I've wanted a polaroid camera precisely for the "fun" of having only one picture of something and not being able to replicate it. But the price doesn't scream fun to me.
Honest and down to earth video, and quiet amusing, keep up the good work .
Outro for the win!
The problem is, that iso 800 is way to high to take pics on a sunny day outside. That's why they are over exposed. You need iso 200 or maximum iso 400... thats why they look washed out...
By the way: really love your vids
YES! Puppets!!! I love those sketches. You do a brilliant job Mat. Thanks as always.
It’s nice and cool that you get to review film cameras occasionally besides the usual cool and interesting electronics you come across.
Great review, as always. I'll stick with my Polaroid 600, though I will say that cost is more of a concern with it than Fujifilm's offerings. The film is pricier for only eight shots, though they are the standard Polaroid size and much nicer looking. These instant cameras are a novelty of sorts more than anything, but I do love having physical photos to hold - they seem more genuine and can be tied to outings and memories more easily IMO. Not to mention the classic looks of the older models are bound to put smiles on people's faces (or make them shake their head in absurdity, haha).
I really liked the middle bit - the moan part of Techmoan.
Another fascinating video, I had no idea that the XC99 had such an extensive service history. Thanks Ed, as good as always!
Thank you for the very comprehensive review it was very interesting to watch. On a personal note don't be embarrassed about liking pink cameras we all have our personal preferences.
Its fun for us who loves aesthetic photos 👌😍
I mostly think that the Instax films are pretty good but that they are not being given much chance to perform with Fuji's cameras. IOW, I think the film is better than the cameras.
Yes, the film is pricey but instant film always has been. It used to be that one could compare the cost of an instant photo with the costs of another film photo, say a Polaroid photo and a 35mm photo and while the cost were a bit closer, the Polaroid was still a bit more. The advantage of the instant photo was, of course, that you got your print immediately. That advantage is mostly gone now with the rise of smartphones and their screens. If one wants to share prints, I don't think there is yet a good pocket-able solution as none of the small pocket printers are very good either.
As well, if I were to consider using Instax film now, I would be looking at the Instax Wide film and the Mint Instakon RF70 camera. A bigger package--and more expensive--but a camera with real control over what you're putting on the film.
Thank you for the good overview and also for the new intro for the puppets!
Always appreciate your videos!
I love your new puppet warning message :D
I admire your patience. Very entertaining video.
It would be really nice if you'd do a review on Polaroid Originals gear!
Normally I appreciate your reviews but this one had quite a bit of "I'm skeptical" from the beginning and is insulting. I bought the Fuji SQ10 because it is a digital/instant hybrid. I like reviewing my pictures before printing. I will not obviously sell you on my opinion but I can vouch that the unpredictable nature of the camera is what makes it interesting as well as the ability to print instantly. I am now experimenting with the Instax film in 1950s 127 and 120mm format reflex cameras. The best definition of creativity I have ever heard is "a synthesis of two dissimilar objects into a new thing." The Fuji cameras provide this. I think it is better for a company to offer innovative things which bolster the interest of enthusiasts rather than sit on existing technologies like Kodak and basically die from lack of innovation.
Many thanks for the detailed review including the costs. Cheers
I used to work in a camera shop, selling all kinds of stuff, from point and shoot through high end slr and used stuff including 35mm. We had an Instax camera on our shelves when I started and it was still there when I left. Only ever sold the film and even that was extremely rare.
Excellent. Hey I used to live in Bolton, right up the motorway. Thanks from Orlando
So despite the previous comments about "not using it right", "wrong settings" etc, something I have learned using Impossible Project film in my vintage Polaroid cameras is the temperature plays a huge part in the chemistry. Impossible have been attempting to recreate the original polaroid chemistry, and the 3rd gen films are much better, but my 2nd gen batch had long development times (10+ mins) ad would display notable colour cast due to temperature -too cold and image came out blue, too warm and came out yellow. Using this over a few different seasons meant i was pocketing the print close to my body to "warm it up" during the developing cycle.
I'm not a user of Instax, so I've no idea if the chemical makeup would be affected in this way.. just a thought.
I'd be happy to watch a lot more of the funny skits that are sometimes at the end of these videos :) Keep them up please.
Excellent review, thank you!
If you take into consideration that every photo you take is a complete gamble and it might be complete garbage, the price of the film is just ridiculous.
back in the days of film developing it was the same gamble :)
Yeah, I remember that quite well, but at least in the 90s or early 2000s film was so cheap that even after developing it the photos were very cheap. I mean a normal film had 36 pictures or so on it, imagine paying like 36€ for that.
I don't know why for sure but it reminds me of all the paper I wasted trying to get a letter right, on a typewriter. This was about 65 million years ago.
Ι can't remember , have you reviewed any of the Canon selphy printers? They have perfect quality and cost per print is really affordable
As always a great video
I love this channel- specifically with muippets. No other channel has fair and unbiased reviews with muppets.
Dear Sony,
You're missing out on the "Fun". Please release a Mavica and replace the floppy drive compartment with instant film.
Useful video, thanks! Sometimes Techmoan videos cost me money (the tape deck I bought) and sometimes they save me money (I can enjoy the pointless gadgets vicariously!)
Not sure the waste thing is an issue. You can buy a lot more plastic and foil than that for a tenner ;)
I know this video is older, but I love you techmoan, such hilarious commentary on the photos, especially the ones of yourself, you’re as bad as me
I love your response to the comments.
I thought the flash filters were boiled sweets at first!
Didn't like the camera. Always like the muppets. ;-)
-Dx
me tooo
I third that motion!
The muppets were spot on. Especially the punch line...
I want to grow by exploring, appreciating and treasuring all the moments of my life. I badly want to have an instant camera but as of now, my parents won't allow me because its too expensive. Its so nice to look back and remember how we choose to fight and be happy in life. Instax camera will always have special place in my heart. God bless you more for allowing everyone to be happy and pursuing their pasion.
Don't let salty comments meddle with your review! Please tell us if you personally recommend it, and your honest opinion. That's the reason we're watching your videos!
Interesting that the old photos taken years ago don't seem to have faded much. That's sometimes a problem with these kind of "for fun" cameras. I guess Fuji don't muck about.
Great video! By the way it's pity, that Fujifilm stopped making their FP line of instant film (FP-100C, 100C Silk, 100B, 400B, 3000B)... It was (and if you still can find it, it is) the best instant product out there... great proofing material in analog photography studio for a medium format camera with a Polaroid back or a "fuel" for some Polaroid Land camera (folder) or other that use type 100 instant film (I do own and sometimes shoot a Polaroid 600SE - often nicknamed a "goose" by the instant film shooters community - and Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with a Polaroid back that takes type 100 film)
I agree, that the quality isn't really there, but I can't say I don't love the instant print with those cameras where you do your own settings and focusing... and I keep those negatives, so I can bleach them to reclaim and scan (negatives have a black anti-halation layer which also serves as protection from light when it's developing and it needs to be bleached to get rid of).
Personally I don't mind it being unsharp or funny looking, because if I shoot serious stuff I do it on the medium format, so I can relax in my spare time with a 35mm P&S (Olympus μ[mju:]-II) or the instant film - I can just take the 600SE, light meter and a pack of FP-100C and that's it. I do mind, however, that the prices for pack film skyrocketed to insane levels.
Yes! I saw puppets and the hairs on my arms stood. Thanks for another excellent video. Your take on video comments is delightful. This makes my day, and possibly week.
This looks awesome! I wish I could afford one!
I think you also may need to consider that (in my opinion) these films are optimized for portraits, which you did not really take in this video. If you still have the camera, I would strongly recommend shooting outdoor portraits in some kind of shade or indirect sunlight. Even by a window (with flash OFF!) renders beautiful portraits. Consider looking up Matt Day’s review of the Lomo Instax Wide camera to see examples of what I’m talking about.
8:55 I noticed you weren't wearing your jacket in this photo. Was it not required where you were?
It's been uncommonly hot in Britain - Perhaps Her Majesty has granted special dispensation.
U need a loicence signed by the Queen herself. Gawd bless ya, Maam! Gawd bless ya!
[sweats profusely in a tight polyester jacket, keels over due to heat shock and dies before an NHS ambulance arrives]
loopshackr Look up Phil Collins - No Jacket Required and read his comment again.
エステティック Funk I think they got it, but just chose not to directly refer to it.
I like how different comments were selected from a previous review and summarised in a few words.
Love all these videos you produce and have been following for quite a while now. What do you do with all the equipment that you end up purchasing? Do you repurpose, sell it or just store it away? Keep up the great informative work!
Based on the size and cost of that camera, it'd be better to just take the pic with your phone but have a portable printer like the Polaroid zip or similar.
'It would be a conformist paradise of like-minded drones' 😂
You mean the Apple eco system?
Thanks for the excellent review and the puppets!
Good Lord that red filter shot makes you look like Phil Collins on the No Jacket Required album 😂
So, it's good for expensive, Instagram-filter-like, low quality, out of focus, images which are not useful for anything in particular and which can't be easily reproduced. Got it. Never thought I'd see anything which made camera phone images look good, but there it is.
denimadept phone cameras are pretty impressive nowadays. Usually not comparable when pixel peeping, but otherwise very impressive, especially considering lens-size
But phone cameras nowadays look great.
And you can in fact reproduce similar images, you just said it, Instagram (And many other ways). The only point of these cameras is both nostalgia and having physical photos you can actually grab and touch with your hands, maybe make an album with them or stick them on the fridge or wherever you like.
All of that is true, but you have to consider that you're getting instant physical pictures and the vintage aspect.
*Aaaand you dont have to deal with printers xDDD*
ᶘ ᴖᴥᴖᶅ One problem with that logic... The camera's a printer in itself.
That red-filter selfie looks like part of an Andy Warhol.
I love the vignette at the end. Funny! :)
I’ve got an Instax mini 9 and a wide 200. Had lots of fun with them.
I’d recommend an instax 100, 200 or 210 to anyone thinking of getting into instant photography because they cameras are a lot cheaper second hand on eBay than the square range. I got my 200 for £12.
“Don’t expect smartphone quality here”. Have we reached the point that Smartphones are a good benchmark?
Sadly yes. Its mind boggling how many people think their smartphone cameras are "magic" and are able to do all that a full frame interchangeable lens camera can....
@@Sabundy Why is that sad? We have quality cameras as a freaking afterthought attached to our minature computers that we can put in a pocket. That certainly doesn't seem "sad" to me, it seems like a wonderful example of our advancing technological knowledge.
@@Phobos_Anomaly You completely missed the point, and are making an argument that has nothing to do with what I said. I never said there was a single thing wrong with having a decent quality camera that was always in your pocket. There is nothing "sad" about that. Nor am I bemoaning technological advancement. My post is a reply to another person talking about someone using a smartphone camera as the benchmark. Something I was agreeing with him about in a broad sense. This is especially true when you see morons actually post on videos for full frame, interchangeable lens, mirrorless cameras claiming their smartphones can do what the camera does (by all means let me know when professional wildlife, fashion, film, sports, wedding etc... Photographers all start using their smartphones to do their work). Picture quality, zoom dynamic range and low light performance is about the size of the sensor and the size and quality of the lens. Its why smartphones are now only catching up to entry level point and shoot compact cameras (which still have certain advantages you dont get on smartphones which is why the vast majority of youtubers and vloggers use compact cameras and not smartphones). So the point he made and that I agreed with was that its sad if someone thinks a smartphone is "the benchmark" for photography.
OR some people wondering why anyone would choose to use old analog or film cameras. The obvious reason being to capture a certain look and style you only get from film. Photography is after all an art form. Thus there are a myriad of styles or methods one might choose to use.
Convenience does not equal quality. Theres a reason millions of people still buy large screen tvs (because watching movies on a small smartphone screen is nowhere near the same thing), or millions buy game consoles (because playing games on a smartphone with a touch screen is kind of crap), or that vinyl sales continue to grow every year, or that there is a film revival taking place. The new stuff is good, and innovation and progress are important. However, that doesnt mean we need to throw away older formats or technologies that do what they do very well, and in some cases still better than newer ones.
@@Sabundy Such unnecessary verbosity! I personally don't know anyone that would argue that a smartphone's camera could hold up to a top-quality, high price, professional camera.
But for most people's needs, a smartphone's quality is not only adequate, but excellent in most cases.
No reason to be so defensive, my point was that the technology we have today in our pockets is mind-blowing. That, I don't find sad at all, and what's most amazing about it is that in 20 year's time, we will look back on the technology we have now as quaint and pedestrian.
It's funny to see people say they went this for "vintage feel". Film cameras never perform that bad.
You can get the same effect with a smartphone picture if you use the imagemagick --fuck-image-quality command line option.
Yes they did, a 110 was just about always terrible. The Kodak disc camera was rediculus. For people that hate on smart phone cameras the do not remember what they replaced.
If I wanted to go for vintage feel, I'd get something like Pentax Spotmatic and do it the right way.
Had a good laugh when you read the comments for the other review, but I laughed harder when the new "puppet warning" showed up. Cheers from Brazil!
Solid, unbiased review.
Two techmoan vids in one week?!? 😰
DedElec
This is getting out of hand! Now there are *two* of them!
You're holding it wrong.
;)
Would have been better quality with a different colour camera
Muppeeeets! Yaaaay!!!
Oh, and a good review as usual. 😄
Over the past few months we have binge watched everything you have done (You’re our Netflix) and we assumed we saw everything! (We even became Patrons to get more)... the google tv suggested this video! No idea how we missed it!
But video related, this seems ok for what it is and is a better film format in size for an instant print camera and has that Polaroid look and feel to it.
Anyhoo, back to seeing if google finds any more hidden videos.
I think I paid around $20 for my Polaroid camera back in the '90s and the battery was in the film pack so you never had to buy any.
was even more wasteful though, these batteries are still half full when the photos are used up
8 pounds for 10 ....damn hipsters are rich
yet they are some of the first ones to criticize money, yet they buy expensive things ASAP
It's why lattes are expensive
Well actually I got that exact camera, a pack of film, a case for the camera, and colour lenses all for £35 because it was second hand and they never even used it :)
Techmoan , I have a story for you.
I was second shooting for an eeexxxxpensiveeee wedding. So, the bride and groom wanted a photo booth (with fun props).
We were going to get a little computer set up. Then run a dye sub printer during the after-party. One of us would sit there and print the images off, etc. It'd be great quality and fun and quick.
Then the guy who hired me had...an idea.
We got a Fuji instant camera (forget the model, this was like 2011 or so I think). So we had this $100 or less camera with crappy quality, and istant film.
Then we set up the booth, with funny props.
Then...We duct taped a wireless infrared flash pickup to the flash on the camera. And put the trigger on a set of $10,000 (ish) profoto flashes with accessories and battery packs. LOL. Set it all up and...omg.
The results were AMAZING. It was the hit of the wedding. I was stuck over there for hours. People LOVED it. The images were "low quality"...but yet.. sooooooooooo nice.
To this day it's one of the funniest but most creative things I've seen done.
Thanks for addressing waste in this video. It's something we all need to start considering!
actually the statics on waste, how much space it will take up over time, and recycling... show, it isn't much concern at all.
The idea behind instant cameras was that you didn't have to wait to finish a roll of film and then wait for it to be developed. The polaroid cameras from the past weren't great but you got a picture right away without having to wait weeks. With phone cameras we get to see the picture immediately. There is no need to print the picture.
There is every need to print the photo if you want to put it on view somewhere or if you want something real, physical in your hand....not on a screen
disarmsox Then get a little portable photo printer. Better quality and cheaper in the long run.
no1DdC but it's not the same experience - it's not just the end result, it's the process.
arguably the process and experience of using a portable or even a standard printer could be just as enjoyable for someone.
Seshpenguin each to their own
Great video as always. Really glad you covered the wastage point. First thing I thought when you said it spat out a plastic cover prior to each photo being taken. I understand film is really sensitive to light exposute but there must be a more eco friendly way of packaging it.
I just bought an instax mini 9. I love it. It is not the perfect camera but I like it when going out with friends to have some small memories of a beautiful time.
But ... did you have ... FUN? 🙄 😂
wtf, I just started shooting on 35mm film which is expensive, but this is just madness!
J4ZZ i shoot 35mm too , and its not that expensive compared to fuji intant cameras , and if you think this is expensive look for polaroid original or meduim or large format
Brian Segarra Yes I just meant expensive compared to digital.
I never thought I'd see the return of point-and-shoot film.
It's so cool you show these videos. A lot of people are into retro photography but in this case it'd be a rip off for most people who wouldn't realise without info like this.
"...I don't expect smartphone quality images out of this [single-purpose camera]." Yep, unless one is shooting medium-format or larger, there's a reason why film and really cheap film cameras are dead.
My thoughts exactly.
35mm has made a comeback in the photography scene. Obviously people are using slrs and not 35mm point and shoots
Max Freedman 35mm point and shoot values have shot up to absurd amounts. If you want proof just go look at japan camera hunters website and look at some of the prices. Its insane
CordialColt I was more talking about the camera you bought for $50 in 1975
That was an expensive one! I used a Kodak Instamatic X-15F using 126 film and flipflash. mmmm... quality... mmmm...
Techmoan did not have fun.
This video have so much FUN
That picture of you with the red flash makes a great Steven Wilson style album cover!