Retro-Grouch
Well-known
So the Evo Mini has given me a bad case of GAS... For $200, and the cost of a couple of packs of film, I can have a new device that lets me encounter the world in a completely new manner, photographically. It would be money much better spent than buying another used lens, of questionable use, and of which I already have too many. Has anybody had their hands on one of these yet? Your experience? Or just your thoughts on the camera? You have to admit, it's a cute little devil. Fuji knows how to work us!
Richard G
Mentor
You've infected me. Very cute.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I must admit I did not know about the Evo Mini! I'm not very familiar with the Fuji offer.
I read the informations about it and really seems somethiong interesting. The small size of the photo could be a limit for someopne, but we cannot expect miracles and the small size of the camera is a plus, in my opinion.
I'll keep an eye open about it, thanks for the head up!
I read the informations about it and really seems somethiong interesting. The small size of the photo could be a limit for someopne, but we cannot expect miracles and the small size of the camera is a plus, in my opinion.
I'll keep an eye open about it, thanks for the head up!
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
The prints are small, of course. But since the camera also creates a digital file, easily downloaded to phone or PC, I imagine the image can be printed conventionally to any size you wish. Resolution is the big question, though. I can't seem to find specs on how many megapixels the tiny 1/5 sensor might be. For myself, using the camera would mean I accept working within the parameters it offers, embracing the small, one-of-a-kind image and its possibly mediocre resolution. That's how I approach any camera I pick up.
Beyond that, I've been considering getting some form of Instax Mini for a while. A lot of my work involves environmental portraiture in rural areas at rodeos, fairs, etc. Since I shoot medium format film in those situations, following up with an image (print or email) for the subject involves a very long delay, and there's no screen for chimping the image immediately. Sometimes subjects are a bit anxious or suspicious of just what I'm up to; being able immediately to give someone an Instax print (albeit not an image identical to what was shot with the "real" camera) seems like it would be a real ice-breaker and a great way to connect with people, possibly drawing in more subjects.
B&H says they'll have the Evo in stock sometime in early May. I think I'm gonna do it!
Beyond that, I've been considering getting some form of Instax Mini for a while. A lot of my work involves environmental portraiture in rural areas at rodeos, fairs, etc. Since I shoot medium format film in those situations, following up with an image (print or email) for the subject involves a very long delay, and there's no screen for chimping the image immediately. Sometimes subjects are a bit anxious or suspicious of just what I'm up to; being able immediately to give someone an Instax print (albeit not an image identical to what was shot with the "real" camera) seems like it would be a real ice-breaker and a great way to connect with people, possibly drawing in more subjects.
B&H says they'll have the Evo in stock sometime in early May. I think I'm gonna do it!
Ricoh
Well-known
Having read your opening message above I watched a YouTube review even though it was past lights out here.
I believe the sensor delivers 5MP.
Tempting, but the credit card prints make it less tempting for me.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I owned the first-gen SQ10 hybrid, and it was pretty cool, but in some ways, I liked the all-analog Mini-90 better! Photos from the hybrid models have deep DOF and are relatively sharp, but is that what you want? At first, I found myself mostly using it as a digital camera, and only rarely printing. And then I figured out that I could leave the Instax at home and use it as a printer - and pretty much forgot about it.
Analog Instax cameras - not counting the premium glass-lensed Lomography cameras - produce a fuzzier, glow-y-er look which can be flattering for less than perfect complexions, and it scans surprisingly well.
Analog Instax cameras - not counting the premium glass-lensed Lomography cameras - produce a fuzzier, glow-y-er look which can be flattering for less than perfect complexions, and it scans surprisingly well.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
Thanks for that info! The original Nikon D1 was how many MP, and cost how much? Apples to oranges, I know, but it's interesting to contemplate the onward (if not always forward) march of technology.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Mmustttt cooontrrrooolllll gas
Freakscene
Obscure member
D1 was 2.7 megapixels, and $US5k in 1999 . . . yes, time . . .
cboy
Well-known
If they made an actual retro rangefinder in this form factor factor then yes I would consider it, but it's just a hybrid PS with Polaroid capability.
I'd buy instead an Instax printer and print images taken from a proper camera
Having said all this the Instax line has been hugely popular for novelty factor. So much so it's taken Fujifilm sales to another level! So I wouldn't underestimate its impact and popularity just because it's kitsch
I'd buy instead an Instax printer and print images taken from a proper camera
Having said all this the Instax line has been hugely popular for novelty factor. So much so it's taken Fujifilm sales to another level! So I wouldn't underestimate its impact and popularity just because it's kitsch
I've tried Instax a few times because the cameras are cute. The results just are not for me though, so I always end up selling it all.
Oren Grad
Well-known
I have the predecessor hybrid models LiPlay and SQ10. The LiPlay is mini format, I think the Evo is basically the same with some added bells and whistles.
With all of these hybrids the sensor is tiny. The number of pixels is irrelevant, as the key point about the files is that they are heavily sharpened and noise-reduced. The files can be saved, transferred and printed in other ways - say, on an inkjet printer - but they generally look horrible when you do that. BUT they actually print really nicely using the built-in Instax engine. In some ways the prints even look better than if you try printing a better quality jpg using one of the Instax "printers" - SP series or Link series - or try printing to an SP or a Link directly from a Fuji digital camera. So I'd say that these hybrid cameras are cleverly engineered for their features, price point and intended results.
The SQ10 is more flexible, in that you can choose your “filter” after the shot, and the effects chosen are stored in a sidecar file, whereas in the LiPlay and I guess the Evo as well you need to select in advance and the effect is baked in to the jpg.
One other annoyance with the later (mini) models - the battery is built in and can't be swapped or replaced. That means you have no choice but to cool your heels while it's recharging, and also means that eventually the whole camera will die.
But anyway, they’re fun toys. It's handy to be able to shoot freely without committing to a print every time, and conversely, it's nice to be able to spit out multiple copies of a print on the spot if you want to share them around. Battery life is pretty limited, though, if you're printing a lot.
With all of these hybrids the sensor is tiny. The number of pixels is irrelevant, as the key point about the files is that they are heavily sharpened and noise-reduced. The files can be saved, transferred and printed in other ways - say, on an inkjet printer - but they generally look horrible when you do that. BUT they actually print really nicely using the built-in Instax engine. In some ways the prints even look better than if you try printing a better quality jpg using one of the Instax "printers" - SP series or Link series - or try printing to an SP or a Link directly from a Fuji digital camera. So I'd say that these hybrid cameras are cleverly engineered for their features, price point and intended results.
The SQ10 is more flexible, in that you can choose your “filter” after the shot, and the effects chosen are stored in a sidecar file, whereas in the LiPlay and I guess the Evo as well you need to select in advance and the effect is baked in to the jpg.
One other annoyance with the later (mini) models - the battery is built in and can't be swapped or replaced. That means you have no choice but to cool your heels while it's recharging, and also means that eventually the whole camera will die.
But anyway, they’re fun toys. It's handy to be able to shoot freely without committing to a print every time, and conversely, it's nice to be able to spit out multiple copies of a print on the spot if you want to share them around. Battery life is pretty limited, though, if you're printing a lot.
boojum
Mentor
It is a interesting camera, but, it seems to do neither print nor digital well. So what's the purpose? Gadget? Not much as a camera to me.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
It is very much a gadget, targeting the Lomography/nostalgia/hipster crowd. There are many of the warning signs; any device that gives you the option of simulating a light leak is clearly aimed at folks whose experience of film is limited to old Kodacolor prints from their parents' album. That doesn't mean that the gadget can't be put to more serious (or if you'll pardon the word, artistic) uses. That's where my interest kicks in. Maybe I've spent too much time around Leicas and Hasseblads, but the idea of deliberately using something cheesey, and wrestling it into submission, has a certain appeal. Although I will say that a simulated light leak, for me, is just beyond the pale!
Oren Grad
Well-known
It absolutely can. My only caveat is that you have to be comfortable with miniatures. I am - the small print size doesn't bother me at all. If that's true for you too, I'd say go for it and enjoy.
boojum
Mentor
Please note my comment, "Not much of a camera to me." I know folks will like it, and maybe many already do. I cannot see buying it though. And possibly all those effects can be made to happen in a good photo editor. But then you would miss the fun of the camera.
We can't all love the same woman.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Did you get the Mini Evo?
I have the mini 90, which is not a hybrid - you takes your photo and that’s what you get. With a hybrid, you can give a copy to your subjects. Even so, I like its controls and it does have a rechargeable and removable lithium battery.
I’ve just bought an SQ6 - nearly the same amount of controls, bigger photo. I think it’s easier to use.
The advantage of these mini Instax cameras is that film is everywhere. With your Evo, you can be selective and not print photos you don’t want and retake them.
I have the mini 90, which is not a hybrid - you takes your photo and that’s what you get. With a hybrid, you can give a copy to your subjects. Even so, I like its controls and it does have a rechargeable and removable lithium battery.
I’ve just bought an SQ6 - nearly the same amount of controls, bigger photo. I think it’s easier to use.
The advantage of these mini Instax cameras is that film is everywhere. With your Evo, you can be selective and not print photos you don’t want and retake them.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
Yup, about two weeks ago. B&H got them in, and they were sold out almost immediately, but I managed to nail one. Some thoughts:
1 A real hipster toy. So many of the options are silly (to me) Instagram-oriented gimmicks.
2 A serious artistic tool. Just as the Holga spawned a new genre of photography decades ago, the Evo could follow in its footsteps. Results are unique, with a quality not found in other (non-instant) photo processes. It demands a different approach and a new way of seeing. And, unlike other instant processes, results are repeatable. An infinite number of identical prints can be made. Pretentious Fine Art photographers (I confess to those tendencies, though I try my best to resist) could make numbered editions, if they so choose. I don't intend to sink to that, however.
3 As a Retro-Grouch, I don't own a smart phone (GASP!!!). Images loaded into my computer from the SD card just look like crappy lo-res digital files from a cheap flip phone, so the only way to get an Instax print, for me, is from the camera memory or the card. This is significant, since the "secret sauce" in the process is the actual Instax film. That crappy lo-res image undergoes a change into something "rich and strange" when it hits the film, that creamy, dreamy, and unique instant film look.
4 The camera's monochrome option, when used with standard color film, isn't really monochrome. It's a sort of very dark warm greenish that looks monochrome until you print the same file on actual monochrome film (which is itself not really monochrome, either, but richer, with deeper blacks, and a cooler tone). Since I'm essentially interested in B&W images, I'll use the monochrome film. But having color film in the camera is like being able to switch backs on a Hasselblad. Sorta, kinda...
5 The live view is an accurate rendition of what your digital file looks like. But there's a learning curve to understand how that translates to a print. Highlights blow out, sharpness is lost, edges seem to bleed into the Instax emulsion. All pretty normal with instant processes, but not for someone locked into the f64 way of seeing. I love it.
6 I've yet to try filters on the camera. A 25A could be interesting, or a mess. The camera also offers blue, red, and yellow tints which, from the screen, seem to have something of a filtration effect. I have yet to try those with monochrome film. In color, they're just hipster gimmicks (to me).
The take-away? Get one!!! I've fallen in love with this thing. It's a real kick in the pants for me, since I mostly do a sort of edgy, medium format documentary thing. The Instax imposes a charming, lyrical quality on everything I shoot with it, so it's a very interesting challenge. It's great when a new piece of equipment pushes you to expand your seeing!
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
So the monochrome mini film offers a cool deep black tone? If so, I’m going to try it out and stock up. That is one thing I’m after. I miss Fuji’s FP3000B.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
It does. And, out shooting this evening, I realized that the Evo's color settings for pale, normal, vivid, and "retro" colors offer a degree of contrast control with monochrome film, with retro being the most contrasty. Of course, one loses the live monochrome view of the effects, but it's possible to extrapolate.
Unfortunately, monochrome Instax is more expensive, probably due to lower demand. And it's not a silver image, of course, just dye based like all other instant film. But it is pretty close!