Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

i2-camera.polaroid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#71

Post by can16358p »

bowsamic wrote: post #57
can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

This isn't my experience. I know a lot of people with the fujifilm instax (which is admittedly much cheaper) and people use it quite a lot

Interesting. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I know almost nobody using these. I mean, I know a few people (using much cheaper ones) but that's it.

I doubt with this price tag they can sell enough to offset R&D and marketing costs.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#72

Post by jnovek »

vr46 wrote: post #30

My 600SE has been largely out for action for years, with only a trickle of film available. Results were predictable when Polaroid and Fuji peel-apart film were available. The modern Polaroid film is anything but predictable or even vaguely good, especially for the astronomical prices. Zink gives about the same qualities. Fuji Instax in all its forms won this battle and there’s a cottage industry of Instax-holding bac…

Is there another option out there or are you referring to the lomography back? I shot pack film for many years and switched to Instax Wide when that ran out, but I miss using a camera with manual focus.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#73

Post by bowsamic »

can16358p wrote: post #71
bowsamic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't my experience. I know a lot of people with the fujifilm instax (which is admittedly much cheaper) and people use it quite a lot

Interesting. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I know almost nobody using these. I mean, I know a few people (using much cheaper ones) but that's it. I doubt with this price tag they can sell enough to offset R&D and marketing costs.

I live in Europe. Perhaps it's a European thing.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#75

Post by tkiolp4 »

can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

I really hate perfect pictures with high resolution of people. You can distinguish all the little imperfections of their faces. Also, any digital picture that I take with the phone is never ever viewed again nor printed. I wouldn’t pay 600 for the polaroid, but I get the selling point.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#77

Post by snom380 »

vr46 wrote: post #30

My 600SE has been largely out for action for years, with only a trickle of film available. Results were predictable when Polaroid and Fuji peel-apart film were available. The modern Polaroid film is anything but predictable or even vaguely good, especially for the astronomical prices. Zink gives about the same qualities. Fuji Instax in all its forms won this battle and there’s a cottage industry of Instax-holding bac…

Do you have a link to any of those adapters? Have a 600SE and a 3D printer, would be nice to give a new life to the camera.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#78

Post by tomjen3 »

can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

Yeah its completely pointless as a value proposition.

I mean I just go done scanning all my predigital photos because analog photos suck. Why would anybody want this?

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#79

Post by tomjen3 »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #29
ruined wrote: post #14

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…

You can buy a digital photo frame (essentially a screen with a bit of firmware) thats nice for 100 dollars.

You can load all the pictures you want there and see them as often as you like, you can share them with others and actually keep them around for your entire life.

The fact that not taking as many as you want is a feature to you, I don't know what to say about that other than if you were responsible for taking photos of any trip we were on together, I would make you scan and share them.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#80

Post by igetspam »

can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

I hate using my phone as a camera. I own a digital camera for that reason. I don't own a good photo print because they are either ridiculously expensive or crap and I haven't found the good-cheap (of the "pick two" triangle) yet. I'm the market for this. I'd much rather keep my photos offline.
Post reply on HN