[ruined]

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 around a brick?

if you are a camera hacker check out the OpenSX70 project.

edit: specs on the shop page https://www.polaroid.com/en_us/products/i2-polaroid-camera

98mm/f8 to f64 (28mm equiv), shutter 1/250 (seriously?), and AF is infrared so you'll hate it. fuckin analog yo

[doctorpangloss]

> 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 practically a war hero, and yet, who the fuck knows who he is outside of Walter Isaacson readers?

Polaroid.com picked some cool photographers. It feels like social media adjacent stuff without being so low brow. I'm surprised they didn't do Elsa Dorfman. They are missing a lot of opportunities with the heritage. Of course they didn't show me a Andy Warhol, but then again, they probably don't have the rights to do that.

If you're going to be a heritage brand, you ought to think how to equip the greats, the Weegees and the Diane Arbuses, who could surely make interesting stuff with a Polaroid. But if they lived today, they'd use a D700 and an ultrawide, a DSLR composes a lot better than an LCD screen or an EVF and sensor technology has practically peaked in 2014 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyiS-mrp1c). The real problem is that Apple is so painfully apolitical, social media photography on iPhones is the layperson equivalent of crapstraction, so they'll never deliver something advertises that it's for "getting the shot," they'll stick to advertising that it's for "getting the shot [of the totally uncontroversial everyman thing that is personally interesting / sentimental only to you]." You know, something consumerist and literally disposable, like a polaroid.

[dtagames]

I highly recommend Edwin Land's biography, The Instant Image. The title refers not to the method of photography but how the device was invented -- conceived as a complete product in one mental flash that took years of real scientific invention to bring to technical fruition.

[crossroadsguy]

> another Jobsian figure

This characterisation (tagging? clubbing?) comes across as an insult to those figures.

[crossroadsguy]

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 want.

I also looked and take photos and then again looked at those photos. These people just take photos and never and never look at those photos usually again.

[vr46]

I don't think manual focus SLRs (If that's what you mean) are going anywhere now, there's widespread popularity for film photography and the "better" cameras (mechanical or reliable) are fetching silly money. And plenty of unreliable, hard-to-repair cameras are also fetching silly money.

BUT - the value prop has totally changed. Running costs are very high, for processing and scanning or printing, and where digital had high upfront costs initially for computers, everyone already has those now anyway. Plus the variety and diversity of film photography has narrowed considerably. I have a Kodak reference manual/catalogue here from the mid-1990s and the variety and versatility of film is something to behold. And that was just Kodak.

Infrared film? Colour or Black and White? Lith film, Ortho film? Here you go. Kodachrome? Yes, what speed would you like?

So there were things that digital can't easily do now that film could do, but without the film, that value prop has gone, and film cameras versatility has gone with it. If you, we, I, want film photography to thrive and be more than a dead language, we will really need it to do things that digital can't, apart from being slow, expensive and crap in the eyes of many.

[moritz]

There’s people for whom “slow, and every shot is expensive” is a feature [1] but I agree – especially the loss of (color) film diversity has been hard to swallow and made everything considerably less fun. I still enjoy it, but I don’t know what I’ll do once my stash of deep frozen film runs out. With Fuji most probably having left the game, there won’t be competition for a cheap, basic color film – which IMHO is the thing that’s required to get more people into shooting film.

[1]: e.g. recently https://www.404media.co/how-and-why-to-get-into-film-photogr...

[stavros]

I don't understand it, but I have half a mind to mod CHDK to only let you take 72 photos a day.

[deepGem]

I was an ardent manual film photography fan. Heck, I even bought a medium format camera. The hassle of developing film was too much even in the US. What won over digital is not just the freedom to click a million pictures, but the freedom to run your own darkroom on your PC/Mac.

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.

[donatzsky]

The Pixii digital rangefinder might be for you then (except for the poor battery life).

https://pixii.fr/

https://www.macfilos.com/2023/04/17/new-kid-on-the-block-the...

[nimajneb]

I saw the Pixii for the first time today actually. It's unfortunately way above my budget. The other commenter explained a high end bare bones camera. I've always a much lower tier camera without a screen on the back. Like just take less than $1000 and remove all that extra stuff. Just give me ISO, shutter, aperture (if not on lense), shutter button, and AF selector, on the body. And make it compact, maybe even like a point and shoot with a fixed focal length lens. That's my pipe dream for a digital camera.

[deepGem]

Agreed not shelling out 3K for a camera, it's not the Vision Pro. My sweet spot price for a camera like this is $500. A fabulous 35-200mm zoom, a great sensor and all manual. The only other aspect I wonder about is in camera image stabilization. How can that be achieved without sacrificing battery life.

[moritz]

Fuji X100 almost checks all the boxes (imho that’s why it’s sold out all the time). Would they dare to make one without a screen? Guess it’s unlikely, unfortunately.

[moritz]

It’s hard… What’s so fascinating about film cameras is that they are little mechanical wonder machines. Have you ever held an Olympus OM1 or 2 in your hand? Beautiful, and it’s insane what they managed to fit in such a small package. But “mechanical” is not where our world of solid state electronics is heading. Even if one of the camera manufacturers had an incentive, I imagine remaking their older cameras isn’t really possible. The tooling is gone, obviously, but so is the knowledge… like Ricoh/Pentax is rumored to have a new Film camera in development and they had to bring back guys from retirement. And they went for a less complex compact, not an SLR. Now that they all went mirrorless for their digital offerings, the manufacturing competence for the prism and mirror unit will dwindle fast.

Like you I hope someone manages it. Shooting film is so satisfying!

[bpye]

Ricoh are developing a new film camera under the Pentax brand - which may or may not make it to retail. IIRC not an SLR - but still in that direction.

The only other “serious” option - as in not a Holga or something - that I can think of is Leica - but then you’re spending into the tens of thousands of dollars… Also not an SLR but it is interchangeable lens of course.

[crossroadsguy]

I am looking for an SLR. My best photography related memory is from a Nikon FM3A that I borrowed from a relative as a teenager for some time. Where I live there isn't an active used SLR market in a way that can be trusted and purchased. Maybe I will try my luck with one of the trusted sellers in the USA once someone from here is coming back.

No, Leica is not an option - both on the price front and that not being an SLR. What I want is really a compact mechanical SLR.

[rluhar]

I bought a Nikon FE2 recently from keh.com. There are plenty of manual focus film SLR cameras available. You may also want to try your local camera store. Mine has a good selection of used cameras and lenses. Things are more expensive than they used to be but there are still plenty of options available.

[crossroadsguy]

I would try to order online next time someone is coming from USA. KEH is one of the sites I planned check to order from.

(Local scene isn’t really great where I live. I tried.)

[tomjen3]

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.