Fuji Instax
If you recall Polaroid’s One Step cameras, Fuji's Instax will be familiar. It's the only game in town for consumer instant undigital photography now that Polaroid is defunct. There is Zink, which is digital, and which I haven't yet tried. If you have, let us know.
If you like instant pictures, you’ll like the Instax. The format is a pleasing 3 7/8” wide, 2 3/8” high image, a more horizontal configuration than the SX70 (or Polaroid’s 600, for that matter) was. The Fuji Instax film’s dynamic range is broader than what I recall of Polaroid’s comparable offerings. Super-simple Lighter-Normal-Darker settings allow for fine-tuning the exposure, though unless the scene is backlit or very contrasty, the auto exposure is right on. Avoid dark situations for best results, as flash coverage is limited, and ambient light will always look better. Daylight photos look great.
I embraced digital photography more than a decade ago, but that doesn’t diminish the appeal of this kind of camera. The opposite is true. It’s great for bringing to a party and leaving pictures as a gift. At about $1 per image for the film, it’s not cheap to use, but the handful of family photos I take with it are more likely to be kept and enjoyed -- seen -- than are the thousands I have taking up space on hard drives. Those of us used to the scale of compact digital cameras or iPhones will find the Instax bulky. I haven't found its size to be a bother, but it's not small enough to carry around without noticing. Convenince isn't the thing with this camera. To me taking, and giving, instant photos has been worth the trouble.
Available from Amazon
Manufactured by Fuji
Favorite (15)
Kevin
Camera is nearly $50 + $1/photo. Doesn't seem like a good option, especially if you already have a digital camera. You can buy one of those portable digital printers fairly cheap nowadays, and some of them have batteries. I usually bring mine to special occasions and at the end, print out the good photos for the guests. Furthermore, I can print out duplicates for those that want it. It isn't cost-effective compared to just printing out the 4x6s at CVS for 20 cents a piece when I factor in the cost of the printer, but it is far less than $1/photo at this point
Moon
Haha! You bring a camera like this to any party I've been at and you're bound to get slapped silly at least once!!
:D
elon
@ Kevin:
You're correct in that it's not the most cost-effective way to make pictures quickly. To me it's worth every cent to watch an image develop before my eyes, and to my taste picture quality is far more pleasing than anything even high-end digital capture produces.
@ Moon:
I'm awaiting an invite. ; )
-es
c-dub
Discussions about economics tend to ignore the aesthetics of the experience, and the pleasure of use. I don’t think anyone would stand around anymore to watch a printer print, but I’ve never seen a developing Polaroid that didn’t attract a small crowd. As much as I love new technology, I often prefer analog technologies because they’re accessible, and they’re varied. They’re accessible in the sense that you can often deduce how they work through observation, unlike digital processes, which are essentially invisible. And they’re varied in the sense that they rely on assorted electrical, chemical and mechanical principles that are inherently more diverse than their binary counterpart.
I often think of these digital/analog debates in the context of Ray Harryhausen’s effects in the old Sinbad movies that I watched as a kid. They were full of stop-motion special effects that seem laughable now, but I loved them, and still do. They were accessible to me, even as a little boy: my dad’s explanation of how stop-motion worked only made the effects more fascinating. Now, most fathers would be very hard pressed to explain CGI effects beyond a cursory, “It’s all computers.” I tend to think that mysteries are only compelling if they aren’t too mysterious.
Getting back to this example: the cheapest photo printers are around $150, with a cost-per-print somewhere between 30 cents and a buck. So this isn’t such a silly option: you’d spend less with this camera until you had printed several hundred photos – by which point a lot of people would have felt compelled to purchase a newer, shinier digital printer for even more money.
Kathy Gill
Kevin, you might have covered it earlier, but an alternative (of sorts) is the Polaroid bluetooth/USB printer. It's been available at Costco and Sam's Club (and is also available at Amazon) and is about $50. It produces 2 x 3-inch borderless color images in under a minute; cost per print is also about $1, IIRC. However, it's not as tactile an experience as the camera.
William Sommerwerck
The statement that this Fuji is "the only [current] game in town" is simply not true.
Fuji manufactures three types of peel-apart Colorpack film, and Colorpack cameras are readily available on eBay, at thrift shops and garage sales, etc. The better models have glass lenses and a rangefinder, and take accessories that allow easy portraits and closeups.
I have a Polaroid 360, whkch includes its own electronic flash. It gets attention, and people love seeing the pictures. It's fun in a way that digitial is not. And no, I"m not an anti-digital fart -- I have an Olympus E-500 and a Canon 5D2, as well.
elon
@William:
Excellent tip. You could buy Fuji pack film and use it in older Polaroid cameras, including my personal favorite, the 600SE (AKA Goose).
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_600SE
That route produces better pictures and a slightly larger image, though if you don't know the cameras well it takes a little homework.
As for currently made and readily available cameras, the Instax was the only game when I wrote this review, but I see Fuji now offers smaller versions of the 200 I use: a Mini55i and Mini7, which produce credit card-sized photos.
Fern
I just purchased one of these off Amazon for my wedding. I'm getting a photo taken of each party and slipping it in a custom guestbook that has instax sleeves. It's been a lot of fun doing some test shots. The camera is really big, btw! Looks like a toy for kids. I loved Polaroids, and the Instax is a worthy successor. It is more expensive than digital photography, but I agree that because it's tangible it can be much more fun and meaningful. I also only shoot film (35mm) and I think the image quality can't be touched by digital. Hopefully film will never die, as more people realize that film is a very special medium.
Sarah Fredricks
Thank you for this review. I was just on ebay scouring for what is left of Polaroid film, it is now september and the last batch had an expiration date of Aug, 09.
Tragic.
I saw fuji instant film and was curious, and a few clicks led me to this great review.
will have to pick up one of these funky little toys.
thank you much!
Nancy Ireland
Polaroid would be very unhappy to learn that they are now "defunct"! They have just come out with a fabulous new instant camera called the Polaroid PoGo. See a review of it at http://www.asharpeye.com/articles/081709.shtml. It is more expensive than the Fuji reviewed here, but it is small, easy to use, the photos dry instantly and have a peel-off back so they can be put in scrapbooks, used as place cards, whatever. I love mine and I just received it a month ago after waiting for it to be released. I have used the PoGo printer for about a year which allows you to print photos off your mobile phone.