Hands on with the Polaroid Instant Digital Camera

Fri Jan 9, 2009 6:36PM EST

See Comments (73)

Desperate to try to replace the instant-developing film that made it famous with something for the digital age, Polaroid has finally launched a camera that snaps digital pics and gives you a printout within about a minute.

The Polaroid Instant Digital Camera is as big as its name (weighing 10 oz.), a clear first-generation product that will appeal to relatively few buyers, due to the generally poor quality of the prints.

The camera itself is a five megapixel model with a fixed focus lens (digital zoom only), and quality is about what you'd expect from something with such low-end specs. The focus here, of course, is fun, on-the-fly pictures, with a feature that lets you add goofy borders to your shots before you print them out.

Once they slide out of the printer slot (paper runs $4.99 for a 10-pack), picture quality is decidedly grim. The sample shot taken of me (at right) makes me look like Casper the Ghost (hey, even I'm not that pasty), and the color reproduction is dismal. It's probably fine if you're shooting pics as souvenirs for your four-year-old's birthday party, but anyone thinking they'll replace their standard digicam with this is going to be sorely disappointed.

The good news: The camera itself is only $199.

Here's hoping for a 2nd generation product that improves the quality!

Comments on Hands on with the Polaroid Instant Digital Camera

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by irwingood on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:25PM EDT Report Abuse

    Only$199! For such poor results, that price is exorbidant!

  • 7 Posted by mmmorganlady on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:24PM EDT Report Abuse

    Maybe the setting could be changed, just looked up the owners manual and it looks like a whole lot of changes could be made, such as manual white exposure, vivid, natural, and on and on. could probably be a good camera with a little extra research into the manual settings.

  • 8 Posted by whleigh8@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:45PM EDT Report Abuse

    for 199.00 you should get a very good picture the old cameras did a very good job i dont see any reasone to change if they had to go digital they should hvave made sure it was as good as the old camera

  • 9 Posted by jedimaster_gary on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:31PM EDT Report Abuse

    the idea seems kinda useless to me. I take a picture on my 100 dollar camera and without a computer my 75 dollar printer can spit it out. I use the pc as well and i can do sccrapbook pages, any size print I want, plus i can use computer memory to enable more detail. My cheap printer can only do 200 dpi but that blows that little peice of junk away. I love digital photography but if you want prints why not wait til you get home. If your friend wants it too thats what email is for.

  • 10 Posted by trackhub2006 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    Edwin Land is probably spinning in his grave. When you think about what this once fine company could have accomplished with digital photography,,,

  • 11 Posted by kennethguyscott on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    I agree with you trackhub2006. I know they can do better than that - what a lousy business decision to bring this interim thingy out only to lose even more $$. Ever since they ousted Land they have ruined the company. Let's hope someone comes along to save it's once proud distinction.

  • 12 Posted by cdbd3rd on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:20PM EDT Report Abuse

    Polaroid's film prints were pretty sad, so I would have expected nothing different because of a digital front-end on their product. Review doesn't surprise me in the least. $199 fr a party favor maker? I'll pass.

  • 13 Posted by maethlin on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    Ugh. Okay, first off - dumb move Polaroid. If the quality is poorer than your old instant film, you've gained nothing. Nobody cares if data went through a digital phase in between - if the end result is crap, nobody wants it... digital or analog. Now to the guy who wrote the article, double-ugh. Tired of people speaking about megapixels as if they are the greatest measure of picture quality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some very, very fine pictures could be made from a TWO megapixel camera - especially given such small output size. Past the 2-4 MP range, megapixels have almost nothing to do with image quality on such small prints.

  • 14 Posted by roamerw1972 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:44PM EDT Report Abuse

    This is cool. The original Polaroid was a huge success. This could be one too if they do the marketing right. Many people want instant gratification. If the company can produce high quality printouts, this could be a huge success.

  • 15 Posted by adman602001 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    Polaroid's attraction has always been nothing more than instant gratification. This camera is a natural, but you have to wonder that the company is so desperate that they had to release the product before it was perfected. There's no point, if no one will buy it. I won't.

  • 16 Posted by adman602001 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    Speaking of mega pixel numbers...it only seems to matter if you are going to print poster size copies. How many of us do that?

  • 17 Posted by bcweir on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    Sharon_0730 - the thrift-store demographic is a pretty tiny piece of the market. Come on, the people at Polaroid have to eat too. At the tiny prices even a basic digital camera sells for, almost nobody wants an old-tech film camera anymore.

  • 18 Posted by drerinpc on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:48PM EDT Report Abuse

    There is something to be said for the kitsch appeal of the old Polaroid instant camera. Yes, the photo quality would be considered poor compared to today's digital images. But nothing compares to that weird white border and the glossy finish on Polaroids. For some reason these images seem to better capture a sense of spontaneity. I am sorely disappointed that Polaroid has decided to stop producing film for the old instant cameras; there is no way a digital instant camera will ever be able to replace them.

  • 19 Posted by christinedeckard on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:24PM EDT Report Abuse

    I would like one but will wait till they tweek it out and the cost goes way down. It would be nice to have if you could not get a printer and would like to share the pic right then.

  • 20 Posted by danpirromobile on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    This review is terrible. Maybe the author should learn how to use the camera before they tra----- . It is a really cool little camera, and the prints are WAY better that the one the author posted. See it for yourself. It is a neat little camera in my opinion. All the fun of the old ones. The author of this article should be fired for such a poor job.

  • 21 Posted by danpirromobile on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    lol in my previous post it should read tra----- , nit tra-----

  • 22 Posted by kinkyplastic on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:51PM EDT Report Abuse

    they need to bring back the old polaroid film!!!!!!

  • 23 Posted by harpervalley300 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:16PM EDT Report Abuse

    Hope Polaroid has patented the idea of a printer that's part of the camera. There are already other companies with much more experience in digital cameras and in making printers too. I can see Canon eating Polaroid's lunch with their own version of this very easily.

  • 24 Posted by survivor24y on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    Polaroid should have just forgotten this aspect of a "digital polaroid instant" camera. Investment $ could have went to other better use. With existing digitals resolution is better, likewise prints are better. Today a person can take their digital camera or its memory into a store and get instant or 1 hour prints. Its printer probably cannot get anywhere near 600dpi and its # of colors is undoubtably limited whether inkjet or thermal. $199 is overpriced for something that cannot put out quality. And if it cannot put out quality good resolution prints people simply will not buy it. $5 for ten prints, not worth it. That paper would be under patent by them thus a profit only to polaroid. I would suggest to Polaroid that they pull the product and consider it a loss. We already have "near instant" prints available at stores, plus ability to print upon home printers.

  • 25 Posted by trisha_012001 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:21PM EDT Report Abuse

    Hmmmmm - i don't think so. We have three digital cameras - high end to the first Kodak. I really don't think Polaroid is going to storm the market

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.