>Forget medium format: Fujifilm announces new square-form

> Fujifilm’s Instax products outsell its digital products nearly four to one

Polaroid must've fucked up real bad.

File: 1465089724640.jpg (39KB, 663x579px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 663x579px

>2.5" x 2.5" sized exposure
God fucking dammit.

>>2933083
>2.5" x 2.5"
>still using human parts as a standard of measurement

why are yanks such barbarians?

>>2933063
>Polaroid must've fucked up real bad.
They're literally a case study in business school for how not to business, so yeah you could say they fucked up.

>>2933088

but what would they have to do then? the digital age was comming aggressively, it was either switch or die. they killed their film in 2007, how could have they known there would be an instant film resurgence 10 years later?

>>2933056
If this film is compatible with old 600 cameras, impossible project just got severely fucked by fuji

>>2933096
of course it isnt

>it is possible the camera could be noticeably smaller than an Instax Wide camera.
>because Wide 300 users were not actually trying to compensate for something anyway

>>2933096
It's a 62mm x 62mm frame, while Polaroids use a 78.74mm x 78.74mm frame. That being said, maybe someone will find a way to hack it to be used in Polaroids; or maybe Fuji already thought of that and made it impossible to do so you have to buy their shitty Instaxes.

Also I don't understand why they can't revive their packfilms since they're making fucking bank from both Instax and their digital cameras.
All it would take is a X styled packfilm camera, market it as a "professional instax", and people would buy that shit up.

>>2933089
Because almost all things relapse. It's playin with humans nostalgia. Mostly because that feeling produces a happier feeling.
Just like how yet say "Just like the good ol' times."

It's about serotonin and shit. It's an actual marketing scheme.

Could they just release a good instax camera first? Something a bit more manual? Even a rangefinder, or a TLR would be fantastic. They would corner the market.

I think brain damaged film kiddies that would shoot such garbage would migrate digital platforms because of God tier film ones. The instax isn't going to make anyone drop shooting their Fuji digital camera.

>>2933531
>Something a bit more manual? Even a rangefinder
A rangefinder instax would be fucking awesome. I'd be the coolest kid at all the parties, plz Fuji.

>>2933531

There are good third party options.

You can also hack several good polaroid cameras to accept instax.

File: 0500_Fuji_Fotorama_FP-1[1].jpg (1MB, 1500x1373px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1373px

>>2933531
>>2935539
You guys are talking about this+instax. ,Fuji you've already done it once, pls bring us salvation yet again

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4
Photographer	Brian Scott Peterson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2011:10:03 04:00:05
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	57.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2933531
there is already an instax TLR called the TL70. and while manual focus confirmation is great, not having manual exposure controls can be really annoying, and you only have like +1 or -1 exposure compensation. ive waste so many shots because of this

>>2935540
Good third party options with in-production film?
Please enlighten me
>>2935543
With Instax Wide would be a dream come true

>>2935548

There's the Mint TLR and the Lomo wide that both accept Instax wide and offer some degree of manual control and manual focus.

>>2935549
Over $500 for a simple TLR and over $800 for a polaroid style SLR.
I'm not some cashed up trust fund hipster. Mint's website and marketing make me want to vomit, seems like paying for a "unique" gimmick more than anything.

The film price for the SLR is listed as $33, I hope to god that isn't per exposure?! Christ on a bike.

I've seen images from the Lomo that turn me completely off, I wasn't aware it had shutter speed / aperture control though?

>>2935545
>TL70

THAT PIECE OF SHIT FUCKING SUCKS

FUCKING GIMMICKS

HAVE YOU SEEN THE PICTURES IT SPEWS? ITS TOTAL TRASH HOLY SHIT. A PINHOLE CAMERA DELIVERS BETTER IQ. I DUNNO WHAT WAS I THINKING WHEN I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HALF DECENT. ALSO PRICY.

FUCK THEM GOOD. IM ANGRY YES.

If they didn't just cancel production of the film, I would just buy an FP-1

:C Why, Fuji?

File: SHIT.jpg (132KB, 408x644px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 408x644px

HAH GOOD OLE TIMEY CAMERA LMOA

JUST LIKE UR OLD ROLLEI AMIRITE GUYZ?

>>2935549
>Lomo wide
>Bel air

Since when are auto-exposure and zone focusing any decent level of manual control? you're still essentially guessing the focus and letting your camera guess the exposure

>>2935558
It delivers the kind of quality I expect from instax film. IQ on film (which instax is) is a property of the lens and film combo. TL70 is the only instax camera on the market that let's you confirm your focus, so your subject is as sharp as the lens will allow. and the lens elements are glass, not plastic lomo shit.

I think fuji instax printer might be more your thing if you want digital quality prints

>>2935571

CORPORATE FUJI SHILLING IS REAL LOL.

>>2935574
back to the reddit

>>2935557
>I'm not some cashed up trust fund hipster.

Then don't shoot instant film. Even Fuji's cheap, point-and-shoot all-plastic instax cameras pretty fucking expensive, so i don't know why you think a more seriouser camera would be cheap.

>>2935571
Waiting till the X200 or giving up and saving up for the X100T + The instax printer will probably be my fate... We could've had something Fuji

Does anyone trust Fuji to carry on making this shit after a few years?

>>2935577
I wouldn't shoot seriously on it, just for nice shots to be able to give people, I like the sentiment of instant shots, people appreciate it, something that can't be reproduced like a digital shot.

Also fuck waiting for printing; a decent photo printer is out of my budget anyway.

I really don't think it's too much to ask for a rangefinder style camera with manual focus, shutter and aperture that takes instant film that still exists.

>>2933319
Fuji can't make money on an "Instax Pro" camera if that film is also compatible with everyone's old Lands. Why do you think this square format is being released in a proprietary size?

God I can't wait for the Instax fad to die.

>>2935557
The Polaroid-style SLR is nothing but a refurbished SX-70 with some SLR-680 parts and a new mobo to accept their shutter-priority attachment. I almost traded-in one of my SX-70's to have it upgraded, but said fuck it when they told me I wouldn't get my original (albeit modified) camera back.

>>2937687
>can't wait for the instax fad to die
>presumably likes instant film
Good riddance instant film.

>>2937687
the problem with instax film in a packfilm camera is theres no way to eject the print. if someone wanted to make a graflex back for instax wide it'd work just fine otherwise. i just doubt youd make much. theres one guy that modifies the lomo backs for mamiyas and he wants like $400 for one.

>>2937687
the money is in the film, not the shitty cameras. it's why kodak would sell cameras at a loss.

>>2933411
But you can't actually go straight from being modern to being retro, can you? There has to be like 10 years in between and brand-wise it won't make sense at all if you suddenly start marketing your regular products as old-school.

Fuck a dedicated Instax TLR or RF or whatever, just make me an Instax back for my Hasselblad.

Hell, you can get a basic 50x kit for cheap enough these days that buying a used Hassy and an Instax back would probably still be cheaper than some shitty dedicated Instax camera, and the glass and mechanics would be a billion times better.

>>2938084
>see: Coca-Cola """Classic"""