What does /pee/ think about recent instant cameras? I'm

>and I just want to shoot and not think.
Bait?

Personally I think they're hugely overrated and more to the point overpriced. However the former is because I'm in a film ivory tower and the latter because I've no second-hand nostalgia or want for a physical photograph, which some of the younger folks using these things probably do.

IQ wise I remember them being basically alright. If you're comfortable paying whatever it is for 8 shots, then go for it.

>>2882309
You may as well get a 35mm film SLR that has auto modes on it

I recently got a Pentax p30 for £30 and it has a full auto mode, or aperture/shutter priority on it, plus you have the manual option incase you wanna use it too

>>2882311
>Bait?

No, just an uninformed retard/pleb. It just seems like an easy gateway to film point and shooting to me.

>>2882317
>2882317

I think he means that someone would answer the following to your requirement:

If you want to shoot and not think, just shoot yourself.

Fun as fuck my man.

Although Instax is a gateway to Instax Wide which is a gateway to Land Cameras.

Grand wizards using Mamiya Press cams with polaroid backs...

File: IMG_2689-1.jpg (544KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 750x1000px

Instax is the shit. Impossible project is a joke, and now the vultures have raised the price of FP through the roof, so Instax is pretty much the only game in town. The new cameras are expensive as hell and don't really add much over the old Instax Wide 210 camera (see if you can get one used). They're all cheap ABS nylon bodies with no manual controls and no manual focus. There are, however, some serious cameras made by Lomography and MiNT that, while more expensive, offer much more control.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:13 13:04:28

I've got a TL70 2.0 for my instant shooting needs. I also have an SX-70 but the film is way too fucking expensive, it just collects dust now.

I feel like TLR style camera is pretty much perfect for the instax mini's vertical film format. Good call there. The auto exposure is pretty shit, be prepared to waste some film because of it. It sucks that it only shoots in aperture priority. Also, due to the film being 800 ISO, and this camera's faster shutter speed being 1/500, you won't be able to shoot in daylight. You need to be ND filters for 100 bux.

Other than that, it's fun and other people have fun too.

Instax is good fun. Was given an instax mini camera by someone who owed me money. Great for parties and events since you can give people the prints and watch them develop in front of their eyes. Makes a fun holiday camera as well, since it's easy as fuck to use and the 800 speed film makes it suitable for all situations.

Only issue with it is the prints are hard to digitize in an effective manner

I'd love an instax camera with fully manual controls but I think that might be asking too much

buy a used one they aren't worth over 100$ given that the film is iirc over 1$ an exposure. Great for parties. Get the instax wide, the other one is really fucking small in a bad way.

>>2882399
>Impossible project is a joke
how so?

>>2884302
?

>>2884302
>>2885079
It's stupid expensive and the quality you get is garbage compared to original polaroid film

>>2884302
>I'd love an instax camera with fully manual controls but I think that might be asking too much
expensive, takes a gazillion years to develop, pretty bad and inconsistent image quality
>its a feature

>>2885227
>>2885230
In their defence they are reverse engineering the old film to try and get it as close as possible.
I get what you mean though because £2/photo is pretty steep!

>>2885241
Yeah I'm keen to see it when they get it right, but right now the price to performance is crazy.

Instax Mini is less than a $1 a shot, Instax Wide is about $1.50 and the quality is pretty great for what it is. Until Impossible Project pulls their finger out that's what i'm using

>>2885247
I've bought 3 packs from them and so far the first pack has had a very blue tint to it but I'm not sure if it's my camera or not

I have an instax mini. I only shot a few film packs through it in 3 years. Usually, I don't fuss over image quality, but on these cameras/film, it's so bad that it detracts from the whole experience.

I don't mind impossible's long development time as much as I do having to hide the photo right after and people dont get a chance to see it develop.

Thats why I only shoot instax now.

>no black and white instax film
>no film backs for instax wide (yet)

honestly the best thing about polaroids was using it with replaceable film backs to test exposure before wasting actual 120 film

the fun factor is pretty much gone

File: ChirsFSNoseBank.jpg (141KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 700x700px

>>2885273
>honestly the best thing about polaroids was using it with replaceable film backs to test exposure before wasting actual 120 film

Using it to test flash setups was the only thing I ever used it for.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	120 dpi
Vertical Resolution	120 dpi
Image Created	2008:05:09 17:40:38
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	700
Image Height	700

>>2885277
pretty much

>>2882309
Don't like them at all. It's a shit solution in many ways.

If I need to have a photo on the spot, I set up a Canon Selphy printer.
Not entirely as small, but I'm not THAT lazy either, and I prefer a better camera and printer, it affects the result,

>>2885273
>>2885277
I used a Polaroid back heavily when shooting 4x5 in college, and I'll admit that it was pretty magical. I wish I still had all of those pics, I stored them away in a big box with my old film gear, and said box was stolen in an apartment break in years ago.

>>2885288
The same kind of "magic" might be had with a midrange smartphone and portable printer today.

Or a networked actual dedicated camera with a speedlight, which will just give much better results.

In either case, you can keep digital backups or some light editing on the go, get more prints of the good shots, and your photos don't have to decay over time... basically, everything is better today, if you ask me.

File: 1375178232158.jpg (146KB, 1225x706px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1225x706px

>tfw semi-poorfag
>saved up for a pack of b&w Impossible film with black border
>go buy it at a local photography shop, hyped
>load the film in my old rainbow stripe sx-70
>try taking a picture
>button gets stuck
>the thing keeps taking overexposed photos, wasting all the film

>>2885291
the light of the scene actually exposing the film itself is what makes it magical. when you're scanning an image from a digital file, that's just lame. I'm sure it's fun, but it ain't the same thing. it's not really about getting a perfect print with instant photography. if you wanted that, just use a professional printing service for your professional digital files

>>2886269
I know that feeling too well. My 600 decided to shoot the rest of my film after an accidental drop.