Leica Instax Camera? Rumor

sevo said:
The inscription is a indication that this is no Leica draft but a photoshop job out of someones imagination - Leica are far more subtle about the degree of participation they have in their outsourced products...
Click to expand...
Agreed.

(BTW, the text doesn't match the lens inscription that is visible on some «rumor» photos; e.g. there's no decimal comma but a decimal point.)
 
I already have the Fuji Instax 90 and it is a really fun camera. But it is built to a super plasticky toy level quality. If this Leica is a rebadged Fuji, then it will do a dis-service to the perception of quality build.
 
unixrevolution said:
Honestly, I don't think the Fujis are overpriced at all.
Click to expand...

They're not. The Instax 90 is $128 at B&H in brown pleather (it did intro at a crazy $300!) . The Instax 70 starts at about $90 depending on colour.
I have both and the photos look identical so with the 90 you are paying for the style.

I use these at my gallery openings to give photos to customers and nothing puts a bigger smile on their faces. Adults and kids alike.
 
jsrockit said:
I was talking about the Neo 90 specifically. Compared to a similar Fuji model without the retro look it is. Obviously, not in any huge way though.
Click to expand...

Huss said:
They're not. The Instax 90 is $128 at B&H in brown pleather (it did intro at a crazy $300!) . The Instax 70 starts at about $90 depending on colour.
I have both and the photos look identical so with the 90 you are paying for the style.

I use these at my gallery openings to give photos to customers and nothing puts a bigger smile on their faces. Adults and kids alike.
Click to expand...

You both seem to think the 90 is all hat and no cattle, but it really isn't. The 90 has features and capabilities that are bespoke to it in the instax line, and you are paying for those features. Dual shutter buttons, one of which doubles as a selfie mirror, program autoexposure, a re-chargeable battery rather than expensive Lithium photo cells, and other features are tip-top among the Instax cameras, and the 90 is the only one where you can turn the flash completely off. It is not just a restyled 70, and I think at its current going prices, it's completely reasonable.

As for the smiles, I totally agree. I have said it before: "Some cameras are only cool to camera nerds, but instant cameras are cool even if you don't know an F/stop from a bus stop."

Chubberino said:
And the 70 and 90 have different features so saying they are the same except for the 90's styling is misleading.
Click to expand...

This is correct.

Huss said:
I already have the Fuji Instax 90 and it is a really fun camera. But it is built to a super plasticky toy level quality. If this Leica is a rebadged Fuji, then it will do a dis-service to the perception of quality build.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's fine for an admittedly cheap camera, but it's not Leica quality.
 
Last edited:
http://leicarumors.com/2016/09/13/t...era-will-be-announced-on-september-15th.aspx/

A little over $300 for a Fuji Instax isn't worth it. If the film itself had a little different look than the regular stuff then I'd be interested in that at least, but it more than likely won't. I'd consider paying a little more ($25-$30) more than a regular Fuji camera for the Leica because it looks better IMHO but that's a bit ridiculous haha.
 
unixrevolution said:
You both seem to think the 90 is all hat and no cattle, but it really isn't. The 90 has features and capabilities that are bespoke to it in the instax line, and you are paying for those features. Dual shutter buttons, one of which doubles as a selfie mirror, program autoexposure, a re-chargeable battery rather than expensive Lithium photo cells, and other features are tip-top among the Instax cameras, and the 90 is the only one where you can turn the flash completely off. It is not just a restyled 70, and I think at its current going prices, it's completely reasonable.
Click to expand...

I think all Instax cameras are, as you say, all hat and no cattle. When it came out it was $149. It was steep for what you get image wise in MY OPINION.
 
The Instax cameras give much better results than the MINT Rolleiflex copy instant camera.
And those are almost $400.
 
ulrich.von.lich said:
It's not about the law but the decence.

I was almost shocked to discover on the first iPod I bought the inscription "Designed by Apple in California Assembled in China". I have never bought another Apple product ever since.
Click to expand...

I know! And those darned Japanese Nikon and German Leica rangefinders! Isn't anything made in 'Murca anymore?
 
the instax wide is pretty solid --- i like it --- just seems leica is
grasping at straws... not sure what they're going for here... seems
hipster, skinny jean wearing, bearded, vegan, Iced, Half Caff,
Ristretto, Venti, 4-Pump, Sugar Free, Cinnamon, Dolce Soy Skinny Latte
drinking,buddy holly glasses wearing, film is not dead crowd... well...
f*ck me... those are the same guys that have ruined modern photography
 
nikonosguy said:
the instax wide is pretty solid --- i like it --- just seems leica is
grasping at straws... not sure what they're going for here... seems
hipster, skinny jean wearing, bearded, vegan, Iced, Half Caff,
Ristretto, Venti, 4-Pump, Sugar Free, Cinnamon, Dolce Soy Skinny Latte
drinking,buddy holly glasses wearing, film is not dead crowd... well...
f*ck me... those are the same guys that have ruined modern photography
Click to expand...

Those are the same guys that have saved film photography.

Like this hipster whose last film, filmed on film, made $2 billion this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Abrams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom