Originally Posted by raid
How about my Land Camera 250? Is its lens any better than the lens in a Fuji? Just curious. Of course, no new film exists for the Land camera.
Based on some reviews of FUJIFILM's wide Instax film's below average rendering detail, it's not clear the new square film's performance justifies a more expensive lens.
Lomgraphy just released a new camera, the Lomo'Instant Automat Glass Magellan. The Magellan has a coated, glass, f/4.5 lens and costs $189. Unfortunately it uses the original Instax Mini film format. It has a 38mm lens (equivalent 135 format field-of-view = 21 mm) which seems silly for such a small print size. One has to be rather close to the subject(s) to achieve any sort of detail in a 6.5 x 4.6 cm print. I suspect the novelty of peoples noses rendering twice as large as their eyes would wear off rather quickly. On the other hand, at f/4.5 it is the fastest Instax lens to date. It may be great for photos of small groups of people and for low light. I'm also curious to see how well the flash covers that field of view. At f/4.5 the a low-power flash may be fine. Or, perhaps flash photographs with significant light drop-off will become aesthetically desirable.
Despite the fact that it has a selfie-mirror, I may pick up the film-only version of the new square Instax camera. The 6.2 x 6.2 cm (2.4 X 2.4") print size is acceptable - especially if it costs less than the Instax wide film packs. The sample images suggest it has a normal field of view. I can't find the lens' focal length though.