>The only polaroid that can actually focus >Starts at $350

>>3142896
ill sell you mine for 200

Mine can focus and it's not this polaroid.

Buying one isn't the problem. The film itself is expensive as fuck. $35 for 8 shots.

I sell mine for 50. It takes pictures but the mirror mechanism is so slow that it is overexposing as fuck.

Also,
>20 bucks for 8 pictures of a shitty film

File: IMG_2640.jpg (1MB, 2447x2347px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2447x2347px

>>3142896
I got a new SLR 680 from a deceased man i didnt know. AF is fast as fuck. they go for $500+ wanna buy mine?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6
Camera Software	8.3
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:12 19:07:57
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	40
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	2.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2448
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_7512.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>3143010
and the pictures are nice and sharp too

[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	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:01 08:56:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>3142896
>can't tell if serious or trolling

>>3142896
That isn't the only Polaroid that can focus. Look at the old peel-apart pack film polaroids. You can get those for super cheap, and a lot of them have rangefinder focus mechanisms. Last I checked, Fuji even still sells a type of film for them, which looks a lot nicer than Impossible Project film.

>>3142896
The film is ridiculously expensive.

Apart from that, I imagine much of the fun might be that the photos look all like terrible snapshits and people expect terrible snapshits. Maybe the "no expectations" part is what you consider fun?

As far as I'm concerned, I hate these expensive shit boxes. If you want "instant" prints, I'll bring a Canon selphy. Still costs a lot, but it's like 16x cheaper regardless and it lets me use a real digital camera.

>>3142896
How old are you?
I guess less than 25.
Leave this board and never come back.

>>3143072
FP-100 was discontinued back in Jan 2016 though

>camera marketed as fun carefree shooting with friends
>film is the most expensive out of all of them
>makes you not want to shoot anything

File: nobuyoshi-araki-untitled-flower-series-of-3-polaroid-photographs-photographs-polaroid.jpg (98KB, 550x236px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 550x236px

>>3143079
A R A K I
>>3143072
Big Shot film stats at $130

>>3143114
Shit, it was?

Damn, I knew FP3000b and FP100b were gone, but I thought FP100c was still alive.

>>3143176
>A R A K I
Yea, with fancy lighting even Polaroids look somewhat okay. I'm sure a woman in bondage could also be at least marginally appreciated on Polaroid.

But I bet the guy wouldn't have gotten famous with these (it's more the >300 books and the fancy porn "art" pictures, isn't it?). And it's not even like he is mainly continuing with them.

Honestly, forget Polaroid if you want to be like Araki. Sure, maybe show off your fantastic art skills with a smartphone (typical shit camera of the day that people know and can directly relate to) in order to prove you're a fucking genius or something. It's probably good marketing.

But Polaroid? I can't see why you'd do that. Well, if you want to, good luck. But you're not becoming Araki even if you happen to make equally good Polaroid shots.

>>3143228
I still have six packs of them. After I run out of those I may transform my Polaroid 110A into a handheld 4x5 rangefinder, so I can try out this large format meme. That Rodenstock 127 mm f/4.7 is so good.

>>3143010
kinda awesome that it focuses by sonar

File: photo_2017-08-16_22-28-54.jpg (124KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1000x1000px

I found mine at a garage sale for $7

>>3143079
if you're using a printer, it requires post-processing of some form, else it looks like fucking shit. canon selphy in particular prints out really muted colors compared to any other kind of printer

>>3143359
tfw bought sonar AF sx-70 for 25 USD

>>3143359
I got mine for free because I was friends with one of the owners of the antique store.

File: db51b45ec53c709e97dab531e7249f54_original.gif (533KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 680x383px

>>3143014
Hey from Chicago
And OP you just have to be patient and shit. I sold my Polaroid SX-70 on eBay with a bunch of bundled shit for 100 dollars :(
I'm going to get pics related because it is the cheaper square format option.

File: 0284_Mamiya_Universal_127mm_f4.7_6x9_Polaroid_(5461772034)[1].jpg (915KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1500x1000px

>The only polaroid that can actually focus
BTFO

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2011:02:11 14:44:00
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.09 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3143361
> canon selphy in particular prints out really muted colors compared to any other kind of printer
As far as I'm concerned, the prints are virtually identical to any other kind of inkjet photo printer by Canon or Epson that I've seen, so I can't really agree with that. You probably used some weird settings.

Polaroids, on the other hand, well... not exactly brilliant colors on these in general.

>>3143789
delusional or flat out lying. don't have to take my word only, read reviews out there, they all say the same thing

>>3143796
All of them? Wow, then show me all these reviews that say that for a current CP1200 or new CP1300 or such.

I'm particularly interested in those that at least tried to somewhat objectively measure the color spectrum or such.

>>3143780
Is that a zoom lens on a rangefinder? How can it be two focal lenghts?

>>3143842
>Is that a zoom lens on a rangefinder? How can it be two focal lenghts?

You can do that with a lens design like Leica's Tri-Elmar line for their rangefinders. Basically, not a true zoom lens, just lets you flip between three different focal lengths (but not any focal lengths other than those), and the mechanism that changes the focal length also selects the new set of frame lines for you.

Of course, in this case, I think what's happening is just that that same lens hood works on the 100/3.5 and the 127/4.7 and they labeled it accordingly. Googling the Mamiya press camera, I get results on lenses made with those two focal lengths, but not any sort of zoom/multifocal lens.

>>3143780
>Not a polaroid by default
>Large formant polaroids can focus I was talking about normal sized ones.

>>3142896
My gf just found and bought this for like 8 dollars from an old guy selling old stuff from the back of his truck in town this weekend. Not sure if it works yet, but if it does then she's been quite lucky

I saw one of these at a thrift store yesterday for less than a dollar. It was beat to shit, though, to the point that it probably wasn't functional any longer.

>>3142896
>Tfw I lost 20 SX 70 camera bodies in a breakup

>>3144639
Did you start with 40 as a couple and divide them evenly?

>>3142896
The funnest form of photography is analog film photography.
Fuck shitty intant gratification polaroids.

>>3144622
Follow up: I went back to the thrift store and grabbed it.

>>3143518
Hey from Chicago!
Can you recommend any photo stores besides Central Camera that sell film and/or develop E6?

>>3144784
polaroid IS analog film anon

>>3144784
are you retarded?