Polaroid camera thread

>>3057961
>Polaroid
That's my favorite may-may!

>under $100?
Second-hand. Craiglist that shit. Don't make a thread for one stupid question.

>>3057961
I tried your pic related
Its a fun toy
But its packaging is absolutely cringeworthy
Would use as toy camera if it looked more like not a fucking under 4yo toy egg

>>3057961
>asks for a Polaroid camera
>posts Instax

The mini8 is decent, but it prints tiny pictures and is more for taking selfies with your girlfriends to post on Instagram than any actual objects or scenery.

The Instax 210 is okay too, but the wide format is weirdly proportioned. Other than that, it's not bad. Cheap film, instant development, easy to use though very ergonomically awkward.

If you're talking about Polaroids only, yes, you can probably buy a used camera from the 600 series for less than $100. You do NOT need to buy a refurbished one from Mint or Impossible Project. You still do, however, have to buy their incredibly expensive, non-instant film.

If you're willing to pay a little more, the folding SX-70 is the holy grail, IMO. But that, too, will require you to buy Impossible film at $24 per 8 pictures, as well as separate flash attachments( either disposable flashbars or rechargeable electronic one)

>>3058312
Sweet thanks so much

>>3057961
Its cool and neat that instant photos are coming back but man these things so such shit. Like the camera is ugly, the film, while actually being really good is so tiny.

Just claw through your local antique malls until you find a real one.

>>3058312
>Impossible film at $24 per 8 pictures
Fuck them for that man. Fuck them for that and add on the fact it takes like 45 minutes to develop

File: IMG_20170121_0001.png (2MB, 1047x1251px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1047x1251px

>>3058322
Agreed. What pissed me off most is the fact that they released their own camera, with its own format, and STILL chose to only put 8 pictures per pack. But unfortunately we have no choice

Used photo pro sells working SX70s for under 100 when available.

File: maxresdefault[6].jpg (141KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1920x1080px

>>3057999
Mini90 is the only remotely sane looking Instax. It's a fun party toy for the few minutes it takes you to burn through 10 exposures, but not much beyond that.

>>3057961
I picked my 636 for about 25 dolars.

>>3058347
sx 70?

File: IMG_20170121_0002.png (2MB, 1014x1276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1014x1276px

>>3058390
The mini90 has some nice features like double exposure and macro mode, but at that price point you might as well get a real Polaroid. Spec-wise, it's no better than the mini8. And it isn't even leather and metal; it's all plastic.

>>3058453
Yup

Isn't it better to buy a compact printer? I mean it's the same size and it can print stuff from your phone or a big camera.

>>3058815
Should I invest in a sx-70? My 636 can't never focus properly to infinity(plastic shitty lens).

How much should I pay for it?

>>3058920
Analog media captures data that digital can't

>>3059150
Like """photons"""? CMOS captures EMR just fine.

File: Cinderella Castle.png (2MB, 1038x1258px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1038x1258px

>>3059127
I'd say yes. The SX-70 can focus from 10 inches to infinity, and I believe a little closer if you buy macro lens.

I bought it for $140 on eBay a little over a year ago. It came with the camera, the leather case, and the original documents. I wouldn't pay any more than $200 for it. Don't buy the official refurbished cameras, it's not worth it.

Is there really a difference between the Leica and Fuji branded Instax film or are Leica fanboys looking for a difference where there is none.

>>3058347
How did you do the long exposure?

File: Go Go USA!.png (2MB, 1032x1251px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1032x1251px

>>3059396
I put it on a stepladder. The newer models (that is, not the original leather and steel) have tripod mounts, but mine doesn't. The SX-70 has an electric eye that automatically sets shutter speed. I think it can go from 1/175 seconds to 10+ seconds.

File: a1492316664_10.jpg (205KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1200x790px

What (second hand) polaroid type camera should I buy for under $100? Something I can hopefully just find on ebay or something

I'm just looking to take instant pictures with a vintagey look for memories and to paint from

anything apart from the SX-70? if anyone knows how much the film would likely cost me per shot too that would be great

ty :)

>>3060313
should I get the Polaroid Land Camera 1000? they seem to be on ebay for ~$40

File: s-l1600.jpg (205KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x1600px

how is the 1000S different from the 1000 apart from being black?

>>3060325
I hate niggers too

File: IMG_20151019_220723_01.jpg (489KB, 2384x2908px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2384x2908px

>>3060313
>>3060321
Did you ignore the entire thread? Get a camera from the 600 series. The box-type SX-70 (aka 1000) is nice but doesn't have built-in flash. The film WILL cost you $3 per shot. $4 if you use the 1000 because you'll have to buy separate flash attachments, either flashbars at $10 each or a rechargeable electronic flash for around 30, or a new one from Mint for 90.

>>3060325
As far as I know, they're pretty much all the same.

>>3060313
Get instax, not Polaroid.
Choice of film sizes, much better quality film and about a quarter the price per shot.

>>3060409
I can see that you're a nice person but why are you answering to ignorant posters like >>3060313
?

>>3060409
thanks I'll look for a 600 series then. I did read the thread I just couldn't find out what I wanted

File: Grand Circuit Raceway.png (5MB, 2070x2488px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2070x2488px

>>3060475
Excuses to post my photography basically

>>3058347
MiNT Time Machine?
Beautiful!

File: Tower of Terror.png (5MB, 2100x2496px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2100x2496px

>>3060597
No, original SX-70.

File: 1 - 1.jpg (536KB, 2072x2536px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 2072x2536px

>>3060612
My bad I hadn't read the whole thread.
Did you use a remote shutter to take the 10 second shot?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2072
Image Height	2536
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:03:25 11:48:17
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2072
Image Height	2536

File: New Doc 31_1.jpg (276KB, 2404x2948px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 2404x2948px

>>3060638
Nice! Haven't been able to get colors quite like that. What camera did you use?

And no, I put it on a stepladder and held the shutter button with my hand.

File: 1 - 7.jpg (660KB, 2163x2564px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 2163x2564px

>>3060654
>Nice!
Thanks!
>Haven't been able to get colors quite like that. What camera did you use?
I was very happy with the colours too. It was shot with my original SX-70 (literally the first SX-70 shot I took)
I'm sending it off for minor repairs though because the viewfinder has a scratch on it, making it damn near impossible to focus properly haha.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:24 23:15:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2163
Image Height	2564