Is a Instant Camera really good or not?

It's funny but it's still shit. Everything full auto is shit.

Buy the fuji mini 90 if you want slightly better control over your exposure.

They're fun, but merely novelties.

>>2983382
Just wait until Fujifilm or some third party camera company tries to make a more *serious* Instax camera. Sure the MiNT is there, but you'd think by now they would take a hint after discontinuing one of the most iconic peel pack films ever produced and compensate. What a bunch of retards they were haha lmao aliens dude.

Either that or do what >>2983385 says and cop a Neo 90.

>>2983382
Very shit. Both expensive and poor quality.

The Canon Selphy printer is however doing an actually good job and cheaper per print, get that if you want to hand out photos on the spot.

>>2983408
>carrying a printer
That's autistic as fuck

>>2983408
I just Googled the Canon Selphy and jesus that thing looks horrid and is quite big. The instax cameras are fun to use at parties and shit.

The Lomo Instant Wide actually looks decent, but the price is so laughable. The instax lineup is quite average, their prices are also too high.

>>2983410
You bring it to places in the cases where it works. Its super easy in many instances, in the particular parties and events and shit almost everyone uses these things at.

If it doesn't work in some situation, share the image digitally or hand it over the next time you meet.

>>2983419
>buying new

>>2983424
Used Lomo's are rare and still way overpriced. If you're talking about that instax's then yeah you can pick them up pretty cheap used

>>2983382
It's better than Polaroid, for sure. It would be nice if they made Instax backs for old cameras that took Polaroid backs.

Also, hyped for the new square format Instax.

>>2983435
>Also, hyped for the new square format Instax.
62x62mm is fucking tiny though

I'm still waiting for them to bring out monochrome for the wide film

>>2983433
>If you're talking about that instax's then yeah you can pick them up pretty cheap used
I picked up one for my niece a few years ago for 30 euros like new with the box and a pack of film.

Fuji instax printer and any smartphone can act as an instant camera, or any Fuji cam for that matter.

Waiting in vain for Fuji to release an instax wide printer.

Ffs do it nipnong faggots.

dumbo here, how do I scan my instax pics without getting reflections/glare in the shadows? I only have a dslr to scan with

>>2983453
>macro lens, ring flash, low iso

The lenses are shit but the film stock is pretty good. There are adaptors that let you put the wide stock on the back of a MF Hasselblad, it won't be as good as a standard negative (the multiple development layers and the actual picture being embedded in gelatin blurs it) but it still blows a standard 35mm print out of the water with the right scanner (the image also sits deeper in the print than standard photographic printing film).

the mini 90 is kawaii as fuck. It makes snapshitting fun and you can hang em on your wall rather than pollute the internet. Instax colors are surprisingly nice.

>>2983435
>>2983440
No way the pictures on the website are actual sample shots, though. The color palette is beautiful, and, well, not like anything we've seen of Instax so far.

I want to be surprised.

>>2983410
you are carrying a printer in the camera with the instax

File: 1380484144562.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>2983927
not a printer. its an exposure, not a print, no ink sweety.

>>2983382
frustratingly small.
At least Polaroids were a workable size

>>2984830
The instax is a digital camera you cuck

>>2987279
Are you retarded?

>>2985226
Is not that small actually. The size is also good for puting in a wallet.

>>2983817
Clearly they are digital shots with vsco and a border shopped in. I disagree about instax colors though. When you get a proper exposure with fresh film it looks really great. The problem is it's not very versatile and the cameras have shit meters.

>>2987333
>The size is also good for puting in a wallet.
thats way too small. also how are you gonna look at your pics if they're in a wallet, genius?

>>2983817
It's going to be the same emulsion.

>>2983382
I want one. Preferable the mini 90. But I may just get an SP2 to pair with my x-t10.

>>2983453
Go to your local university library and use their scanners.

I just bought an instax mini 30 for peanuts.
Looking forward to messing around with it when the film I ordered on eBay gets here. It's very clearly not a serious photography tool, though, no.

>>2988619
>clearly not a serious photography tool
Any tool is as serious as the job it's used for.
Avedon could make a portrait of the Pope with an Instax Mini if he wished.

File: 455048_dt.jpg (15KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x236px

>>2988208

>>2988643
Did that sound really deep and meaningful in your head?