Slashdot Mirror
1970s Polaroid SX-70 Cameras Make a Comeback
cylonlover writes "When it was released in 1972, the Polaroid SX-70, with its foldable SLR design, was the world's first instant SLR. It was also the first camera to use Polaroid's then-new integral instant film that contained all the chemical layers required to expose, develop, and fix the photo. Photojojo is now offering Limited Edition Polaroid SX-70 cameras that have all been restored to working condition, and integral instant film is also available."
I get why most 35mm cameras have been obsoleted, but this is one camera type that still makes sense. Sometimes you need to take a photo, and have a copy in your hand, NOW. Not just tourism, but other commercial uses. And you can always scan the photo if you must send it digitally as well.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Good ol' Polaroid! Did anyone at the time think that was ever going to be said so soon about such a leading edge company? I still have my Swinger in the original (tattered) box.
Clearly a new usage of the phrase "making a comeback."
I never owned one (I was only a kid) but I recall the advertisements and articles for this camera. It was an enormous step up from the existing instant camera technology with the layers you had to peel off the picture and the chemicals (fixers?) you needed to apply.
The camera body was also a miracle of engineering design because of the way it could fold flat for storage, but pop open in just the right manner for all the optical paths to work (including the SLR aspect).
Much later I owned a Kodak instant camera during their brief foray into instant film, before Polaroid's arsenal of patents (from the SX-70 I guess) did them in.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Wait that pos junk I have in a closet upstairs is worth something? hmm...
Proper link to Impossible Project not included in the article. They're the people who bought the factory and now reproducing the film packs.
The films from The Impossible Project work, but at this point still need to be considered "experimental". The biggest problem they have yet to conquer is the chemical layer that shields the photo from light immediately after ejection from the camera - aka the opacifier layer.
All the current films require that you immediately protect the film from ambient light while it develops, which definitely kills some of the joy of the original SX70 experience.
Still major amounts of mad props to TIP for saving the film manufacturing equipment from being scrapped and being able to create a whole new film that works even as well as it does, on a shoestring budget in a short amount of time.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
This could put a dent in all the nuwdy picks of wives and girlfriends to the interwebs. How much does a girlfriend cost again?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I'm pretty sure there's a non-trivial gap between "company releasing a product" and "making a comeback".
-Styopa
Just a few months ago, Technologizer wrote a great article about this very item and the work behind it: Polaroid's SX-70: The Art and Science of the Nearly Impossible
In 1972, instant photography was no longer a novelty: the world had been introduced to it in 1947 when Polaroid co-founder Edwin H. Land unveiled the Model 95, the company's first camera...
The existence of previous instant cameras only helped emphasize what a great leap forward the SX-70 was. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it was a single-lens reflex (SLR) model with a viewfinder that showed exactly what you'd get. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it folded up into a 1"-thick leather-encased brick that was (just barely) pocketable. Unlike any previous Polaroid, it built the battery into the film pack. Even the flash--in the form of a Polaroid invention called a flashbar that packed ten bulbs into a double-sided array--was custom-designed for the SX-70.
Most important, unlike any other Polaroid, the SX-70 asked the photographer to do nothing more than focus, press the shutter, and pluck the snapshot as it emerged from the camera--and then watch it develop in daylight. It was the first camera to realize what Edwin Land said had been his dream all along: "absolute one-step photography."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Oh, what sad times are these when we have to rely on Hipsters to save our economy. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
ugh. while i love my SX-70s dearly and think they're a great camera everyone should try, photojojo is ripping people off. perfectly working ones can be found for much, much less money at camera shows and thrift stores.
i will happily sell you one of mine (i have two) for half what they are charging. half!
---
"I can't send an email! Is the Internet full?"
"Oh, the leaves are falling, the flowers are wilting, and the rivers are all going Republican."
See a cute person with a puppy or a funny hat or whatever's interesting, take a shot, hand it to them, ask them out.
Am I a hipster? I'm in my 30s making a 6-figure salary. I probably pay more in taxes than you make in salary. I would love to have a camera like this, as it reminds me of the 1970s when I was a young lad. That camera will complement my DSLR with $10K worth of lenses. Again: am I a hipster, or are you just an idiot? Probably the latter.
.. with the passion only a kid on a meager allowance could muster ..
;)
The $100-150 (in early 70's money) price tag was so far beyond my reach it might as well have been on Mars, but I got to experiment with them at the camera shop (while the film was still affordable enough that they were willing to tolerate me taking the occasional demo shot) and got hold of one for a whole day through an elementary school project.
I've been fascinated with them ever since. The whole idea of a folding instant-film SLR captured my imagination the day these things first hit the stores, and while it wasn't quite a "pocket" camera (unless you had big pockets!) like it was advertised, it was pretty compact for its day and amazingly so for what amounted to a sheet film camera. And if you've never watched an SX-70 photo develop, there's something really magical about the way it slowly emerges from the blank background -- always fascinated me more than the peel-off Type 107 and 108 film I used to shoot on in those days.
Still love those old Polaroids. I have a 104 and a (very much abused but mostly intact) first gen SX-70 in the process of being restored at home. (Yes, I finally got one!
One of the overlooked innovations in the film pack was the flat Polapulse battery. It was designed to deliver bursts of high current needed to drive the flash and run the motor that ejected the exposed film. A friend in high school saved the spent film packs from his parent's camera and did an experiment in Electronics to measure the current these could produce using a VTVM (Vacuum Tube Volt Meter) and a known resistance. Even partially drained, ten of these batteries wired in series delivered an impressive amount of current.
Tiny screen? Buy a tablet or a laptop. Those Polaroids will be dead in a decade.
A bigger loss from the patent wars was Kodak's instant TRANSPARENCY film. I still have a sample. This was at the height of corporate multi-projector AV shows, digital projectors were not common nor good enough quality. Having a slide in hand in 5 minutes rather than the 45 it took for E-6 processing would have had a major impact on the industry.
Already sold out!! I have been looking for a SX-70. Hmm, $350 though? Wowsers.
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
The SX-70 is one of the greatest works of industrial/product design, ever. Henry Dreyfuss's masterpiece.
IF we taught design as required unit in art in public schools, the work of Raymond Lowey, BelGeddes, Dreyfus , Noguchi, there would be many competators to Apple Inc.
Dreyfuss never designed a second rate anything. Look it up if you cannot name at least three famous examples of his work, you will be surprised. He said 'I don't do packaging' meaning that he needed to be involved from the very beginning of the design/engineering process. Do not expect an accomplished designer to put a sexed-up veneer on a piece of crap at the eleventh hour.
I have two of these cameras just crying for film stock. A thing that is just a pleasure to hold. Who directed the James Garner commercials for this camera ? Ahead of their time.
I remember my Dad shaking/waving them -- I'm not sure what this did, but it could have been with the Kodak copy.
Shaking the picture did nothing. It was like pushing an elevator button for a second time. Didn't make anything happen faster but it soothed people while they waited.
IIRC, wasn't there an earlier Polaroid film that had a layer you had to peel back after a certain amount of time?
Yes. In fact this was the case for quite a long time. I'm old enough to remember people using this sort of film.
I can't tell which is correct, but you certainly sound like a young self-absorbed prick with an overinflated sense of self.
Now, now. We know that can't be true... if he's old enough to remember wanting a Polaroid in the 70s, he's not that young (probably edging 40 rather than just out of his 20s). :-)
But in all seriousness, if the guy wasn't an obvious douche- and apparently trying to conform to your "idiot with money to waste" image- he might have had a point. I remember thinking how cool Polaroid cameras were in the early 80s, but I never had one myself, so I can understand the appeal.
(In my case, I'm sure it was the cost of the film- not the camera- that was the reason I'd never have even considered it. I still remember the shots back *then* worked out at around £1 each- or at least that's what I was told- because that was more pocket money than I got in a week! And it's still damn expensive... £2.25 in today's money, or US $3.59!!!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The business edition, with magnification and time stamp!
Haven't used it in quite a while.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Analog is still better.
I recall reading that high-end digital cameras have now caught up to, and maybe even surpassed, the resolution and color accuracy of chemical film. Digital also gets you instant review, perfect copies (and, as a consequence, longer storage life), the ability to store many more photos in a given space, easier transmission/sharing, and the ability to run off draft quality copies quickly while still allowing for high-quality professional prints.
What does chemical film offer? The only thing I can think of is for someone with a significant investment in chemical film, it's costly to switch.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I don't know about a Kodak instant transparency film, but Polaroid had a product exactly like what you're thinking-- namely Polachrome 35mm film. It was fairly successful for the reasons you just mentioned. I was a pretty dense film and was slow, but it was pretty neat to be able to develop a 36-exposure roll of color slides in about 5 minutes! ...and without a darkroom at that. All you needed was the Polaroid 35mm Autoprocessor box (not very expensive for the manual-crank model)-- and the processing cartridge that was provided with the film.
Oh, and there was also a B&W version that was faster and had more normal density (the color film used additive color filter stripes to produce color).
Also, oddly enough, Polachrome wasn't much more expensive than Ektachrome + processing. [It also has turned out to be much more stable-- my Ektachrome slides from the 1980's look pretty bad now, but the Polachrome ones still seem to look like they did the day they were processed.]
"You see this? It's worthless. Ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it and bury it in the sand for a thousand years and it becomes priceless! Like the Ark. Men will kill for it. Men like you and me."
Polaroids are fun, but I've seen many a ruined/faded polaroid show up in old photo albums. Why somebody would choose to use a Polaroid or some shitty hipstamatic app to ruin a perfectly good photo is beyond me. Sure, the effect is cool now, but in 50 years they'll be kicking themselves.
I've seen "hipstamatic-afied" photos, and I challenge your assertion that they were "perfectly good" to begin with.
I am not a crackpot.
My mum bought one of the rival Instatmatic cameras from Kodak ( and I still have hundreds of the developed photos ) but in 1986 Kodak was sued by Polaroid for patent infringement.
As part of the settlement of the case, Kodak recalled my mum's camera and sent her a voucher for the purchase of the equivalent Polaroid model! It was a rather flimsy affair compared to the "Tricorder"-like Kodak.
In the US, the "Instamatic" name was already taken by Kodak's line of inexpensive point-and-shoot cartridge film cameras. But these weren't instant film cameras. I gotta assume that Kodak kicked themselves for that inadvertent lack of foresight.
My folks got a lousy check for sending in the nameplate peeled off their Kodak "Handle" instant camera. I don't think it would have bought any available Polaroid at the time. When I visited last spring, my sister had dug up the old "Handle", sans nameplate, trying to help Mom downsize.
I am not a crackpot.
Am I a hipster? I'm in my 30s making a 6-figure salary. I probably pay more in taxes than you make in salary. I would love to have a camera like this, as it reminds me of the 1970s when I was a young lad. That camera will complement my DSLR with $10K worth of lenses. Again: am I a hipster, or are you just an idiot? Probably the latter.
I see a Corvette and chunky gold chains in your near future . . .
I am not a crackpot.
Tiny screen? Buy a tablet or a laptop. Those Polaroids will be dead in a decade.
Only someone who doesn't mind looking like a total retard is going to wander around taking pictures with a tablet. You'd look like Dom Joly with his ovber-sized mobile phone.
And the fafff of shooting on a digital camera, then copying to your tablet is not worth the effort for most people.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
that offended my sensibilities, 2 (the throwing away, not ur post;-) i also ripped them out & saved 'em...made gr8 handwarmers when shorted;-)