New Instax Square SQ10 : here it is the first affordable square sensor

[coelacanth]

That sounds super convenient, awesome and fun, and despite my personal feelings of preferring a "pure" film experience I can see that being really nifty!

I hear you. Part of me definitely thinks about the pure film experience, but the convenience and more economical nature are definitely convincing. Plus the exposure to conventional film sheet is still being made so it is really an interesting digital-analog mix.

 

[coelacanth]

I've always liked the look of instant film, even if my wallet didn't extent to using it often.. however I'm not so keen on instant printing paper that uses thermal dye layers. A different look.

Fuji seems to use "Instax" to denote these two different technologies.

Sug, how does this new SQ10 thermal dye printing paper (if that's what it is? Hard to tell from Fuji's site, but I can't see how it can be anything else given it can reprint from digital files) compare to "real" instant film that forms an image from light?

Lynn,

SQ10 uses conventional Instax instant film sheets with integrated chemical pack just like other Instax cameras. It's just in square format rather than portrait format of Instax mini film sheets.

My understanding is that the camera makes an analog exposure to film surface internally, only thing is that the projected image is a digital image, not coming from taking lens like conventional film camera.

 

[brbo]

SQ10 sensor size is smaller than iPhone's.

Still, the pixel density is very low. With pixels that big and considering built-in printer's resolution this being effectively an 0.5MP camera one would expect insane ISO capabilities. But it tops at iso1600. How great would it be to have a "party" camera that "shoots" instant film and doesn't need flash?

On the other hand, flash that goes to 11 is probably part of the charm...

 

[taomei]

Sug, how does this new SQ10 thermal dye printing paper (if that's what it is? Hard to tell from Fuji's site, but I can't see how it can be anything else given it can reprint from digital files) compare to "real" instant film that forms an image from light?

Well, it's definitely not a thermal paper - it's the exact same chemical pack and rollers that push out the film just like the Instax mini, and basically it has a printer built in like the SP-2 Instax mini printer.

So far what I like about this device is that it's a fun digital-instant-hybrid so I kill two birds with one stone when shooting with friends and comes along with my 35mm or medium format rig more often as I don't need to carry a separate digital either.

Also, it's not a square-format sensor - when the camera is used to compose "live-view" you can see under the info overlay that the sensor actually 'sees' more of the scene to the left and right of the cropped area.

The JPEG files from it have some leeway for recovery and pushing the shadow detail, which is nice and promising. I hope they add the ability in the future to use this as a printer for files taken from other cameras into the uSD slot or via USB, in a future firmware update.

 

[taomei]

My understanding is that the camera makes an analog exposure to film surface internally, only thing is that the projected image is a digital image, not coming from taking lens like conventional film camera.

Nope, it's not a twin-lens camera - it's a pure digital exposure, which is then sent to a printer like the SP-1 or SP-2 Instax printers. This allows you to set a 'filter' and compose the scene in B&W / various filters and corrections even before you click the shutter.

 

[coelacanth]

Nope, it's not a twin-lens camera - it's a pure digital exposure, which is then sent to a printer like the SP-1 or SP-2 Instax printers. This allows you to set a 'filter' and compose the scene in B&W / various filters and corrections even before you click the shutter.

Guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say it was a twin-lens camera.

Can you describe what you mean by "digital exposure, sent to printer" part? I owned SP-1 in the past. My understanding was that SQ10 (and SP printers) got an internal projector to project the image that was of course originally shot digitally and expose the film with it. I don't think I understand how the image can be "sent to printer" digitally as the film is a regular (larger) Instax film.

 

[coelacanth]

BTW, here is a size comparison.

L to R: Instax mini, Polaroid 600, Instax Square.

 

[taomei]

Guess I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say it was a twin-lens camera.

Can you describe what you mean by "digital exposure, sent to printer" part? I owned SP-1 in the past. My understanding was that SQ10 (and SP printers) got an internal projector to project the image that was of course originally shot digitally and expose the film with it. I don't think I understand how the image can be "sent to printer" digitally as the film is a regular (larger) Instax film.

It's not a projector - it's a tiny precise matrix light bar that 'prints' the exposure to the film before the rollers break the pack and spread the chemicals over it. This is how the SP-1 / 2 work as well.

 

[coelacanth]

It's not a projector - it's a tiny precise matrix light bar that 'prints' the exposure to the film before the rollers break the pack and spread the chemicals over it. This is how the SP-1 / 2 work as well.

Great. Thanks very much for the explanation. So it is exposed via light like any instant film, but done so by moving bar instead of full-image projection. Makes sense.

Part of me wishes that SQ10 could act as Wi-Fi printer like SP series, but another part of me likes that it is a self-contained camera kept simple. One can of course use microSD card to print images from other cameras, but I'm intending to keep it as an instant camera with post processing and re-print capability for now. I'm sure there will be SP printers and conventional Instax cameras for the square film in time.

 

[rolfe]

I just got mine today -- feels pretty well built, much more so than the regular Instax plastic cameras. Somebody commented that it was slow to print, but I certainly didn't think so. The print pops out in about 5 seconds. Looks like fun...

Rolfe

 

[coelacanth]

I just got mine today -- feels pretty well built, much more so than the regular Instax plastic cameras. Somebody commented that it was slow to print, but I certainly didn't think so. The print pops out in about 5 seconds. Looks like fun...

Rolfe

And the display shows the picture sliding out of camera as the film sheet comes out. Cute. 🙂

 

[taomei]

I just made a great discovery this evening that may be interest to people on the fence about the printing abilities - it allows prints off the uSD card using JPEGs from other cameras!

I tested 3 digital cameras I had lying around on JPEG mode sticking the uSD back into the SQ10 after shooting it on the other cams: Leica M240 (fail), Sony RX100V (success!), Nikon D810 (success!)

The SQ10 crops the JPEG to the center square and lets you apply filters / exp comp / vignette using its interface. The Leica JPGs couldn't be read by the SQ10 for some reason.

 

[infrequent]

Pretty cool Taomei. Btw, love the UI on this camera. Very modern and clean unlike the X cameras. Hope the designers share notes across these teams!

 

[Out to Lunch]

I will definitely buy one for my teenage son. And then borrow it.

Excellent idea. Some two years ago, I bought a load of Instax Wide film -very nice to use, and by the time it's all gone, the Square will have come down in price.

 

[KEH]

iPhone photo of a photo of a camera. The Leica is my M-A with newly CLA'd Canon 35/2.8 (thanks DAG!).

The Instax seems pretty cool. I look forward to working with it, to see what it can do. A BW print test is a priority.

Cheers,
Kirk

 

[GarageBoy]

BTW, here is a size comparison.

L to R: Instax mini, Polaroid 600, Instax Square.

What film is your actual Polaroid? That's too nice to be impossible

 

[Oren Grad]

I've used my SQ10 to print scans from 6x6 cm negatives, one each from B&W and color, to see how they would come out. Afraid I can't get image posting to work here so I can't show anything just now. The B&W was so-so but the color print was quite good and surprisingly natural-looking, though the color palette was slightly out of whack, particularly in the greens.

One caution: it seems that the camera crops the images that it prints. I don't mean just from the camera's 4:3 sensor to the square format, but from the square images you see on the camera's screen - what comes out in the print is less than what you see on screen. This is true whether printing an imported file or one captured by the camera. If you want to print an imported file without cropping, I guess you'll need to pad it with a margin in your photo editor, so that it's the margin that gets cropped off. Might take a bit of tinkering to find just the right margin size.

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

What film is your actual Polaroid? That's too nice to be impossible

I was thinking the exact same thing

 

[coelacanth]

I was thinking the exact same thing

It's an actual Polaroid 600 film shot a decade ago. 😉

 

[skucera]

The 800 x 800 print resolution seems low. Can someone scan a print at high resolution and post it so we can see what the printed output looks like?

I'm not sure if it will truly be any better than my old Digital Elph and my old Selphy dye sublimation printer. Maybe I'm just jaundiced, but the SQ10 seems like a low resolution camera matched to a low resolution film printer that just happens to output Instax instant prints, but lower resolution than normal analog Instax cameras. Or am I missing something? I hope I am.

I have a few old Polaroid cameras (Spectra, 600, and Land) but the expense of Impossible film keeps me from using them except on special occasions. Instax cameras have intrigued me because the film is still being made and it's affordable, well, more affordable. Selphy dye packets and paper are affordable too. I'm conflicted, clearly.

Scott