41–50 of 119 posts
I don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+
I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a 'regular' one that's $120. Maybe this is the Teenage Engineering model.
Teenage Engineering stuff seems completely impractical. Is that the appeal? Take the record player. It looks cool. But only plays 7" records. Through built in speakers. You can use external speaker, but through a 3.5mm plug? What's the use of something like that? Maybe the idea is to use it as decoration? I don't get it. All their products are like that.
It's not even their product, it's just a white labelled version of an existing Japanese toy!
I don't really get how this gets made. Instant cameras do not cost $500+
Some people REALLY like the shitty quality aesthetic that Polaroid pictures give. I personally don't, but I do know people who like the "flash full power straight to your face and the result is grainy" -thing.
I remember my father bringing back a polaroid camera from work in the eighties. It was amazing. Snap, a blank photo rolls out and a few seconds later the image appears. I can see the magic of that. At the time it was innovative because until then, you had to use film. Wait for the film roll to fill up, it to be developed and printed, etc. There would be days/weeks in between taking the photo and seeing the photo.
I think the process is the bit that's magical and what appeals most to people; not the esthetics. Which are indeed a bit meh. You get a not so great photo instantly. It's not the same when you use a great digital camera to take a photo, then make it look like crap with some filters to emulate the polaroid look, and then print it on a high quality printer. It's much easier and it should replicate the esthetics perfectly. But without the old school process it just isn't the same.
The problem isn't even the price. Usually I don't even look at the price of a device until I know how good it is, then I start considering, whether it is worth it. And only then, separately, I would consider whether it is worth it to me at that price.
The real catch, before one needs to discuss the camera itself, is the film. I had thought that Polaroid stopped making the original films very long ago. They were quite good, but the modern clones less so. Some comments here in the discussion seem to point to the fact, that these new films are quite inferior. And that unfortunately seals the case for me (and probably many others). A camera with original quality Polaroid films would have sold well, disregarding its price. After all every single short is extremely expensive. But unfortunately, this seems to be a technology lost to mankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Products like this cost what people will pay for them.
That's true for any product.
For any single producer your statement is true of course, if they raise prices of people will just buy from the other producers. But for the product at large the price should (with perfect competition) stabilise at a point where all the producers would make more if they all increased prices together (so consumers are actually willing to pay more, but because of competition the price is lower).
this is clearly targeted at the segment that wants something nicer than the dwindling stock of refurb SX70s, but is too cheap for Mint's SLR670. so the only thing that surprises me is it's not an SLR. just about the only thing this could possibly beat an SX70 on is the autofocus if it's good, maybe shutter speed but they seem cagey about it, and maybe durability. the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry…
> the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry around a brick? Edwin Land was the Steve Jobs of that era, the SX70 was the iPod of that era. His Wikipedia page: a pathetic 3,000 words. Dieter Rams (another Jobsian figure) doesn't figure much better, but nothing he ever designed was as big as the SX70, as brilliant as he was. And Land was actual scientist, he made meaningful technologies for WW2, he's practi…
This characterisation (tagging? clubbing?) comes across as an insult to those figures.
this is clearly targeted at the segment that wants something nicer than the dwindling stock of refurb SX70s, but is too cheap for Mint's SLR670. so the only thing that surprises me is it's not an SLR. just about the only thing this could possibly beat an SX70 on is the autofocus if it's good, maybe shutter speed but they seem cagey about it, and maybe durability. the foldable sx70 is just too nice. who wants to carry…
I really hope that in my lifetime, and hopefully very soon, manual SLRs make a comeback. If not a come back then started manufacturing of the old greats again. I loved the photography but not the disposable digital photography. No, I was never an expert photographer and I don’t even want to be one. I just loved taking photos and the whole process of it and the fact that you couldn’t just take any number of photos you…
What I really need now is a compromise. I want the freedom of my own digital darkroom but I need a fully manual and digital camera with an incredible 4-6 month battery life. So cut everything out of the camera that sucks battery - the LCD screen, the motors, just have the sharpest lens and the best sensor, bring back the optical viewfinder. In fact, I wouldn't even mind having film as a backup, in case the battery runs out.
Sure this will add a bit of weight and all that, but this will appeal to those photographers who love the process, and believe that the end result takes care of itself. I can't help but draw parallels to programming but I'll refrain from doing so.
Being at the right place at the right time, perhaps takes a week of backcountry hiking, so be it. I need a camera that doesn't run out of juice, and has zero lag, for that once in a lifetime shot.
On similar lines, we have auto focus and manual focus, 2 extremes why not a middle ground, assisted focus ?. Nikon AI and AI-P lenses had this ideology, but surely that didn't survive.
No thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a 'regular' one that's $120. Maybe this is the Teenage Engineering model.
Teenage Engineering stuff seems completely impractical. Is that the appeal? Take the record player. It looks cool. But only plays 7" records. Through built in speakers. You can use external speaker, but through a 3.5mm plug? What's the use of something like that? Maybe the idea is to use it as decoration? I don't get it. All their products are like that.
Basically. If you look at Teenage Engineering as a high end fashion brand, it makes a lot more sense.