What does /p/ think about the Fujifilm instax mini 8? A friend

>>3008929
if you want to buy it, you should get an instax wide instead

>>3008929
It takes really shitty pictures honestly.
I have a fleeting interest in instant photography, I've got two SX-70s and I bought mini 8 for the sake of continuing the hobby without having to pay Impossible Film prices.
The end of the day the thing that attracted me to instant photography, aside from the tactile aspect of it was those soft dreamy colors and depth of field you get with the SX-70. You get none of those things with the mini 8, they're just liked dated cell phone pictures; featureless and completely boring no matter how hard you try.

my girlfriend has one
it is a piece of shit to be quite honest.

>>3009076
The issue with Instax cameras is that they blow out highlights in anything but a dark room.

The mini 90 is great. Also own the wide. They're coming out with a square model in a couple months.

File: 1482722861597.jpg (37KB, 191x226px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 191x226px

>>3009826
>Square format, but the exposure is just as small as the mini

>>3009827

I'm not really interested. But what is /p/'s problem with instax size? Are ya'll farsighted? It's perfect for wallets and collages n stuff. And if you want bigger there's the wide. I end up using the minis more than the wides anyways.

>>3009849
It's a samefag shitposting.

There's nothing wrong with the instax mini format and the film, the cameras made for it are the big problem.

>f11
>iso 800

The daylight exposure always sucks.

File: November 2016.jpg (472KB, 1033x1229px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1033x1229px

>>3009076
Agreed. I've got an polaroid because of a similar passing interest, and an instax, and the polaroid is way better. It can be tricky now knowing if you got the shot you want, but..

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:06 18:41:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1033
Image Height	1229

File: polaroid size comparison instax wide mini fuji fp-100c old kodak.png (3MB, 1600x1152px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1600x1152px

>>3009849
It's fucking tiny man. I'd get a wide, but I wish they could make them more compact.
I'd fucking bust nut if they made a folding Instax with more manual controls, but that's a pipe dream.

>>3008929
The build quality on these is shit... they should have just kept making packfilm.. fucking instax trash. the 210 camera is the worst built film camera in history Polaroid cameras were so fun and carefree and they always worked. the land cameras the 600's the 70 .. they just always worked.. i like the instax wide format i guess but their fp-100c was just so much better.. The camera's that can use it are better and there is no ink pocket left over.. why the fuck they stopped making it i have no idea. the mini is fucking useless.. i have no idea why you would pay for little tiny pictures .. i am not buying a specific camera and film for wallet photos... fucking retarded format.

File: c763eb0d-da88-4717-96c3-bbf83e397a98.jpg (78KB, 920x756px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 920x756px

>>3009076
get a lomo Instant

File: resize83.jpg (363KB, 1000x789px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1000x789px

>>3008929
I have the wide 3hunnid, and in the right conditions it's nice, however those right conditions are limited. It underexposes like a bitch, I tried taking photos in a fairly well lit forest and the photos came out almost black.

You get next to no control, you have two focus options (0.9 - 3m & 3m - infinity), and a lighter/darker option (the difference between the two is almost nothing). At 0.9 - 3m the viewfinder is accurate, at 3 - infin you have to frame slightly down and to the right. If you don't want the flash firing you have to cover it with something as there's no option to turn it off.

Really it's a piece of shit most of the time, I've wasted so much film trying to figure out how it works in different situations. The only reason I bought it is because I love the wide format and I found it for a bargain price.

The Lomo Instant Wide looks so good, but the price is fucking ridiculous and no one here is selling used.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5 II s
Camera Software	K-5 II s Ver 1.06
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-12-15T22:43:41+10:00
Exposure Time	3 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1000
Image Height	789
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>3009960
>lomo Instant
200 dollars.... kys

File: DSC_1676.jpg (262KB, 861x572px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 861x572px

>>3009960
I'd prefer to continue shooting with this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D50
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	774
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:26 15:39:00
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	861
Image Height	572
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1472668319202.jpg (209KB, 1085x1217px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1085x1217px

>>3009960
>$200 for a plastic instant camera
At that point I might as well pay someone to mod an instax back onto my Polaroid 240.

What would be some alternatives to the Instax Mini, apart from the other Fuji cameras already mentioned here?
I'm really interested in it as well, but would want my pictures to turn out with an alright amount of lighting.

File: instax.jpg (61KB, 720x470px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x470px

>>3010571
the instax mini format as a whole is retarded and you are retarded for liking it. we are talking about finished one off photos here. It is the end product.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3010571
Impossible Project film or FP100C. Either way you're paying through the nose, but at least the IP film isn't going to dry up any time soon.
Apparently the founder of IP is trying to resurrect peel apart film, so there's a small sliver of hope there.

>>3010586
he failed

fuji is a shit company and they can go fuck themselves

>>3010591
Wait what ever happened to his collaboration with New 55? Did they split or did Fuji throw lawyers at them?

>>3010599
new 55 makes 4x5 "instant" film for like 80 dollars a pack.

How is the Polaroid Snap? Worth the extra bucks or should I stick to the Mini 8?

File: IMG_1344.jpg (1MB, 2150x2947px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2150x2947px

>>3010930
Get the snap touch
Much more features for like $60 extra bucks and you get to see your photos as you take them, and chose if you want to print them or not.
Also the camera can become a wireless printer for your phone

>>3011086
You realize zinc printing is not photography right?
Instant film is an actual analog photograph.. those chinese zinc printers use a laser to print a low resolution digital image.

>>3011383
I think the more modern Zink printers have a higher resolution, but yeah they're not really instant cameras; more like point and shoots with a thermal printer grafted on.

I'm not a huge fan of the format, nor the build quality. If you want to take good instant pictures, get yourself a polaroid and some impossible film. It's expensive, but way more fun to shoot. Also you'll feel like using an actual camera instead of a cheap toy.

>>3012359
if I were going to tote around an instant camera it would be to pass it around at a party so everyone can get a cool souvenier or something silly like that, and in such a scenario I'd rather not have each press of the shutter cost $5. Are you using your polaroid for art photography or something "serious" like that?

>>3012365
its 3 bucks per shot and its not that crazy expensive... spending 20 bucks for every one to have fun at a party is not a big deal

>>3012442
you're going to parties that consist of just 6 other people?

>>3012359
so you talk about the instax being a cheap toy, when it produces far better and consistent results, and the impossible film is utter shit, and expensive. The only appeal polaroids have is the square format, and that doesnt justify the price at all

>>3012472
stop victimizing his imagination anon

Why doesn't Fuji produce a proper Instax Wide camera with non-shit build quality and proper camera features? The Mini 90/Sofort are a step in the right direction quality and feature wise, but the mini format is just too small.

>want to get an SX 70
>dont want to spend 20 bucks for 8 photos

>>3012602

Probably because their instax line already essentially prints money for them, so there's little reason to invest the considerable dosh into developing a brand new camera that will cost way more and probably sell way less.

>>3012602
This >>3012706. The minis are their best sellers and main focus. All I want is some monochrome for my wide, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

>>3012472
first of all there are 8 shots... secondly you don't need to give every fucking person at a party a souvenir you are not a fucking clown.. 8 photos is plenty.

File: ea7.jpg (364KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 3840x2160px

>>3012727

>uh, NO, you can't have a picture these are REALLY expensive and i only brought 8

>>3012731
no one would ever even bring this up.. your not holding the fucking thing the entire time.. what are you saying you gonna bring 6 packs of Polaroid film to a party stand around and take a photo of everyone and hand them out? do you even have any friends buddy?

File: IMG_4847.jpg (511KB, 1366x911px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1366x911px

>>3012742

Uh, you should be holding the fucking thing the entire time, and even if you don't, why be stingy? Half the fun of instant is creating a photo, the other half is giving them away.

>>3009071
Seconded. I have an instax wide and it's dope.

File: Fujifilm_INSTAX_300_Wide.jpg (39KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x800px

(I don't want to make a new thread because it's kinda related to this)

Is Instax Wide a good option for an absolute instant photoraphy begginer? I love how Polaroid-type photos look but the film is really expensive and I don't want to waste it on shitty, failed shots much. Is the Instax easy to use?

>>3015041

Pretty much all instant is a good option for the absolute instant photography beginner. 90% of all instant cameras ever made were basically toy cameras with very little to no control.

Instax is your best bet because it's widely available and cheap compared to project impossible. If you can pick up a used wide camera, go for it.

>>3015041
Yeah, it'll be fun for you. It's the perfect party camera: it works well even if you're drunk and have never held a camera before.

Not great for landscapes though.

I've realized that taking digital pics (your phone, compact, w/e) at gatherings is completely pointless if you don't get prints in the moment.

I remember taking my compact digital, and someone had one of those new thermal printing Polaroid point-n-shoot. Cheap little shit, but being able to hold a print, no matter how shitty was such a better experience for everyone involved.

Will there ever be an instant camera that let's me manually control the aperture AND the shutter speed?! That would seriously save me a lot of trouble with improperly exposed instant film.

How does the concept of carrying a portable printer compare to an instant camera?

I imagine it would be clunky but the photos are probably much higher quality.

>>3015046
>>3015073

Thank you both for the help, I'm going to order one soon!

>>3015083
I have a Selphy that I bought a hardcase for. It's portable in the sense that I can take it to gatherings, but not walkaround portable like an Instax printer that'd fit in a small bag.

>>3015041
>>3015104

DO NOT BUY THE 210 (the black camera)

>>3015081
instax wide back for better cameras

>>3015675

??? The 210 is fine.

>>3015675

Why not? Bad for beginners like me? Or just bad overall?

>>3015111
Any thoughts or feelings you could share on the Selphy? It looks like fun.

For instant photography I went with a Lomo Instant Wide with the extra lenses. I got lucky and got it on ebay from an auction, and because I had a gift card I ended up paying $85 total. Highly suggest it if you can find it cheaper than its retail price. If not just stick with the Fuji cameras.

File: 210.jpg (312KB, 420x1200px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 420x1200px

>>3015679
>>3015702
the 210 is a hunk of shit and it WILL break. Period I guarantee the 210 will break on you. Its entire function relies on a series of plastic gears. The final two gears have small plastic flats that go into the metal rollers. There is a huge amount of force on this component and it is made of cheap non reinforced plastic. They have a huge failure rate and had to be redesigned very quickly.

>>3016866

My 210 is still going strong and >>3012758 represents maybe 1/3 of the photos I've taken with it. It's been abused at parties, dropped, bounced around in my jeep and who knows what else over the last five years.

>>3016916
congratulations you got lucky and your little plastic gear held up that doesn't mean shit. I have taken apart 20+ 210s and all of them exhibited this failure. failure in this mode is not only probably but likely. It is a physical reality. This part was not properly engineered. The part is not physically capable of taking the load it is required to take. You got very lucky and your parts just happened hold up for now. that does not mean this random person should buy a 210. It is a failure prone camera and they should choose another product.

>>3016919

Huh. My friend's 210 never broke either. Interesting. In fact, I've never heard of one breaking. You're the first person I've ever heard say there was a problem.

Regardless, the 300 retails for the same price the 210 did (I think) so there's not really a reason not to get the 300. It's not like you're trying to talk people into the mini 90.

>>3016927
i honestly don't know why your bringing up anecdotal evidence vs failure rates i see as as camera repair person but whatever. And yeah the 300 is not as shitty. The best products are instax wide backs for better cameras.

>>3016929

20 or so broken copies of an extremely popular, extremely cheap and plastic camera that has been on the market for the better part of a decade does not, to me, indicate a bad camera. It means the opposite, really.

Do you have any advice on a instax back?

>>3015717
The selphy gives you a print that's about 4x6. Bigger than any instant film. It's also way cheaper than instant film. Since it uses dye-sublimation process for printing, the paper you buy already comes with all the ink dye thing needed to print that amount. This means no fucking around with cleaning ink nozzles, calibration, running low on ink, and all that usual bullshit. So I can store it for long periods of time without worrying about it.

The con, of course, is that it doesn't give you those inkjet vibrant colors. While it uses the same process as used by those one-hour photo prints, Selphy is consumer grade, so it's not quite up to the same quality. Just print at 300 DPI and the detail will be very crisp, otherwise you'll see pixelation.

They also sell batteries for the Selphy, so you can use it in areas without electrical outlets. No computer needed, just pop in the SD card or USB connection. Would be fun to take to the those birthday parties at the park. You can have the most amazing camera gear, but he who delivers first wins.

I also have a TL70 2.0, which is really fun but REALLY expensive ($400). One of the downsides of shooting instant film is that once you give the picture away, you'll never see it again if you don't know that person. I have many regrets in that area.

>>3016929
The failure rates you mention are also anecdotal m80

>>3016932
>>3016980
the failures are based on an engineering fault. The design in inherently poor and in most cases cannot take the stresses it should have been designed to take. Any irregularity in the injection molding of a single sub 2mm plastic tab will cause complete camera failure. That is a physical reality and a fact based analysis. You saying you don't know people who had their cameras break doesn't mean shit.