The quality of the Polaroid inkless printers/cameras from these models is currently not very good. There is an odd looking and an inconstant digital pixel structure on the images. There are many times that the print has printing errors with missing lines. I've had better results from an old battery powered portable inkjet printer with consistent quality, quicker printing (when already set up), and larger images. While you can queue up the photos to print at the end, I think the worst thing I think is that you have to wait for the photos to finish printing and eject before you can capture photos comfortably with the camera. I find that a system similar to Fujifilm's portable Pivi printing system that uses instant film would be better imo. But Fujifilm does not make a camera that can print.

The photo quality can be great and razor sharp. It's not the film, but the cheap plastic lenses on many common cameras.

I'm not a photog pro. but I carry around a instant camera to supplement a digital camera where ever I go. I feel that instant photography is different enough compared to traditional film and digital camera that warrant the return of the most popular instant film format the Polaroid 600 series.

I'm currently using a Fuji Instax series as well as an old Polaroid 100 series that uses peel apart film. I enjoy using instant cameras more because a majority of the portrait photos I take can be given away to the happy subjects. I also find that people seem to be more open to photos being taken if they also get an instant photo. Creating a print in as little as 15 seconds (Fuji FP-3000b) to give away is very rewarding. That is compared to wasting time screwing with computers and portable printers on site.

Digital is here to stay, no doubt. A majority of traditional analog film, I see some use, most dont. It's advantages are getting smaller as digital products are getting better as it's still advancing and improving. I feel instant film should not be lumped into traditional analog film and can be used in different ways that the majority of digital and traditional photography still cannot accomplish in a similar fashion.

I still have an old packard bell tube radio!:D

This car is beginning to sound like Toyota's 2000GT from the late 1960's.

me me me

As for arguments of printing large.... A lot of times you dont need high MP even when your printing large 10 meter images. You also have to factor in viewing distance. In large billing boards advertisements, you can print at under 50 dpi and it looks great from a few meters away, but look like crap from close up.

lost?

more hd more fun!!

sling sling sling!