It's futile to criticise the scant number of shots in a film - it's the nature of the beast, and must be accepted - but of course it's a pain. Battery life is surprisingly good - remember to turn the camera off between shots and you should have no problem getting through a bunch of films.
An indulgence maybe, but it's not without its charms
At £13 per film your happy snaps will cost you over a quid a go, and there's a certain conflict between the spontaneous joy of using the 300 and the challenge of taking a quality shot. Buy it for your kids and you may find yourself grabbing it off them before they can take a whole film of wonky pictures of their own shoe. Likewise, you may find yourself being a killjoy in the pub with your tipsy friends as the camera gets passed around and those precious ten shots tick by in a blur of unidentifiable body parts.
Even so, Polaroid is a brand icon, and the 300 is the kind of gadget that will prompt complete strangers to come up and ask you questions - it's an excellent ice-breaker, and brilliant fun on a night out with mates. It's the polar opposite of your usual digital snapper – which allows you to cock up as many times as you like – and while that's restrictive, it can also be liberating.
There are obstacles to taking a decent shot, but you can can work with them, and while seasoned photographers will obviously get bored quickly with the lack of flexibility, it's missing the point to expect subtlety. Almost anything that comes out framed in that instantly-recognisable white margin looks good, even if it's a bit crap. It's a unique way to take pictures, and the results are often delightful.
The Polaroid 300 is a social animal, happiest in the pub or at a party late at night, and (ahem, presumably) easy to operate inebriated. It's a novelty item, of course, but while you might not be able to produce art, you're guaranteed to have fun with it. Even if you do have to scan everything in to put it on Facebook. ®
More Camera Reviews…
No.... what I am saying is......
that if you have, say £50 to spend on a camera, a 35mm camera will produce better quality pictures than a £50 digi.
I am not talking about TCO [total cost of ownership] or digitals ability to share / email / upload etc. But, when you look at the capability of film, the depth and resolution you get, the ability to capture detail almost limitless zoom, digital is not as good as film.
For a lot of people, digital is /fine/, but that does not negate the fact that film is superior to digital.
What they need to do is combine a digital camera with a built in inkjet printer. That way you can select which photos to print, and have digital photos for adding to facebook, etc. Plus even with the high cost of inkjet inks, it would be vastly cheaper per print.
I've had a polaroid in the past, always seemed expensive compared to 35mm and some of the prints died after 5 years or so, like the memory of the event they fade away into nothing. Then again Mum has prints of me as a child so they can last in some cases (and some I wish would fade from the "stop mum showing old photo's of me" point of view.)
That said this seems like an Retro version of facebook. Take pictures of mates whilst drunk, pass around a week later. No annoying data retention and very little chance for your boss to "accidentially" end up seeing how bad you were.
Still a lot of money per print for what it is though,
As I remember
the only use anyone put a Polaroid to was for taking naughty pictures with your girlfriend. The kind you couldn't send to the developers. The 70's equivalent of sexting.
They could offer that as a special firmware version
Review and delete buttons disabled, no frozen image in the display after you've taken a pic, no "best shot selector" option, 36 pics max (or 12 for the real pro) after which the camera simply goes into standby for a minute or so, and maybe 4 frames/sec max in motordrive mode.