I've been loving my Instax Wide printer. It's so fun to see people's reactions when they get the print, their minds are a bit blown (and charmed). Often they'll hand the photo back to me and say "thanks for showing it to me", but I can say "no, it's for you to keep!" and then they are delighted all over again
Great video man. I find the conversation about Instax analog cameras vs the Instax Evo line really fascinating in that the answer really distills down to the question of what do you value most about the instant camera experience? Some are drawn by the raw and unpredictable nature of instant film, even if that means many of them won’t be keepers. Others simply love the idea of being able to print photos in real time, either to share with others or keep for themselves, and don’t really care as much about whether it’s a “true film experience”. I own a mini and a square and have been considering getting either the Wide Link printer, Wide 400 or both, but I think I’m going to go for the Wide Evo instead. It combines the 2000’s era “digicam” craze with a modern version of instant photography and I think that’s a really cool combo. Plus if you’re a photographer with professional equipment, what a bonus to be able to print some of your favorite shots. Thanks for the great overview!
Thank you for sharing your perspective and the great comment. Interesting observation about the hybridization of the digicam craze. I definitely see that.
This one is pretty cool and came as a surprise. Some qualities remind me of when they made the Impossible i-1 and it's app. I would love to see these updates applied to a new square instax cam.
Given your experience with this camera, would you recommend this camera or getting the instax wide smartphone printer instead? I worry about the weird shutter on this camera as you mentioned in this review
Hi there! I think it's a personal preference based on what you want your experience to be. If all you care about is a print, but prefer using your cell phone, then the printer is the way to go. You will limit some of the options that the camera gives you, but perhaps not much. For me, I rely on the experience only a camera can give you. I want an image that comes from the lens on that camera, versus the one on my smartphone. I already spend enough time on my stupid phone, and I'd rather just leave it in my pocket if possible. I prefer the tactility of a real camera (though I do miss having a viewfinder in the Wide Evo). I also like constraints. I don't need all the silly options that my smart phone gives me. I think more options can sometimes erode creativity because you spend more time tooling with your options than living in and capturing the moment or mood. This is why I also still shoot with old polaroid cameras and my old Instax Wide. Reducing my options almost always improves my experience. In respect to the shutter - yeah, it was and still kind of is annoying, but I got used to it. I think most people will. It's a puzzling design (to me), but I don't think I saw any other reviewers mention it. If you can get to a store to try it, then I think you'll know whether it's for you or not.
@ wow thank you so much for the detailed response I really appreciate it. You mentioned some great points there. I think I’ll go check it out in the store and see how that button is on the camera and make a decision there. Thank you
I did my MFA Senior Thesis show using an Instax Wide, I love working with this format and I can't wait to explore this camera! Thank you for the video!!! Whats the mininum focus distance for the macro mode?
Curious to see how the digital files look being 16mpx. The sq10 and mini evo has awful digital files..fine for the prints but would be nice to have some average digital images to go along with it.
I have no experience with the digital files in the other cameras you spoke about, or what you consider a good or bad file (there a lot of subjective opinions on this). What I can tell you, is that this is primarily a camera designed for printing in the style of most instant cameras. I'm not certain that the engineers were trying to get the user a very good digital photo. I was quite impressed with the digital files, and any photo you see in the video was the digital version (not a photographed print). So it all really depends on what your expectations are, and whether they align with what the brand wants for their users.
There are lots of videos comparing the Instax Wide Link with the Selphy. They mostly put the Canon ahead of the Fuji in terms of print quality, but not by a huge margin. That said I don’t know if the Wide Evo is the same quality as the Wide Link. It could be better or could be worse. Or the same.
I'm also a fan of analog instant cameras for the exact same reasons you listed here but living in the northern part of the world they are almost useless to me about half of the year - it's so dark and the temperature is too low for instant film to develop. So this kind of camera will capture my winter memories from now on. Great video btw, I can't remember if I have ever teared up for a camera review before 🥹
@rasijaa, thank you so much for a great comment! I really appreciate it! I guess it's nice to be able to take the shot, then move into a warm building to print it...
Hi there, I don't know this answer 100%, but I'm willing to say 99% no. That's not really what the purpose of this camera. It's supposed to be fun and simple and not designed for off camera flash etc.
I understand the waste of 10 polaroid shots just to get one right... but still having an 'instant printer' doesn't it kill the purpose of instant photography? I wonder as I really want to get Instax wide but will struggle between 300 and Evo now.
I mean, one can still print the image immediately. Whether the photo pops up after you fire the trigger, or you have to press a couple buttons to do it, seems to me to not really be a significant issue.
Forget Fujifilm's "marketing" talk. They don't seem to like using the camera terms that have been in use for many decades. The "Wide Off" mode switch is a "digital zoom on." According to the camera manual, "wide" shots are 15.9 megapixels, "wide off" shots are 4.9 megapixels. The "Shutter Lever" is a combined focus and shutter release control and it is unlike the control(s) on hundreds of millions of cameras designed in the past 30 years because it has a very poor tactile feel. Your finger is going to say "WHAT?" Fujifilm makes excellent instant film. Why does almost every camera that uses their film have so many mistakes in their camera designs? Fujifilm should bring back their excellent FP-100 films for Polaroid pack film cameras! 📸
The lens and film effects on the new wide evo are not quite the same as on the mini evo. Only some are present in both models. Though the new and quite exciting gradient thing can hopefully compensate me for the loss of my beloved fisheye and mirror effects ;-)
This is true. I suspect there were some design elements that make it either easier to do those effects in the Mini, or if they want to leave some specific features for the Mini. The loss of the fisheye makes sense, since you now have a much wider angle of view with the Wide Evo.
Thanks for showing portraits, just as I thought, this is a no go for me. I love Instax Wide cameras and was dying for one of these to come out but as a professional portrait photographer, the absurdly wide 16mm lens is a deal breaker unfortunatley. I dont know why they did this. The Wide 210, 300 and 400 all have 95mm lenses and my Lomo Instant Wide has a 90mm lens. No idea why this has a near fisheye at 16mm. Maybe it has to do with it being a digital camera, I dunno but I am very disappointed. Ah well.
Thanks for the comment. I would harbour a guess that professional photographers are not the market for this camera, or at least the principal one. I see this type of response often to new products; one where people are puzzled by its design or features. In most cases (but certainly not all), it's often because the product is designed for a specific market that the person commenting is simply a satellite to that. If you travel, or go to events, or just like to have an instant camera around for the fun of it - then the wide and the crop make perfect sense. If you're looking for extreme image fidelity and a portrait camera, then that's not at all what they made this camera for (just my opinion, don't quote me on this).
@@vistek Thanks for the reply and I get what you are saying about this not being a pro grade camera, but why the freakishly wide lens? As I said, all the other Fuji Wide cameras have 90mm lenses and this is 16mm. Makes no sense to me. Oh well.
Not the CAMERA for me BUT never the less interesting though flawed in ways I truly dislike as philosophy of a product. The Print lever seems extremely gimmicky /unnecesary. I must say I HATE MODERN RETRO meaning putting nostalgic form before function just for the sake of it, majority of the time I feel besides being a worse way of doing things it cheapens the experience/product. Size wise it doesn't look small at all so makes me question the sensor size and more so the lens aperture (why not f1.5 or less, not unusual with cellphone lenses/small sensors) though I asume it's designed/meant specifically for the size of prints which I understand but seems a shame for me because at this size Id want something that doesn't make me wish Id brought another camera with me (meaning id like a better file beyond what is needed for printing on the camera). The shutter I hope is the kind of thing that grows on one and requires some time to get used but once you've had some time, say couple of days, one sees the positives and reason they went for this solution versus a tried and true camera shutter.
Hope somebody sees a way of making a photography first camera/product, fixed lens bright aperture small sensor (please NOT WIDE, cellphones have this covered, make it 35mm - 50mm equivalent, if possible a double FOV lens, not zoom if it helps lense design/compactness and not at the expense of a wide aperture f1.4 or even brighter > 1"INCH compact-portable, sub $500usd camera with a twist/novel way of making images directly on camera that encourages creation/exploration as this camera seems to (film simulations directly on camera) (For those who think f1.4 is impossible, many premium cellphone lenses 3 years ago where f1.5 and Panasonic had 9 years ago a 1"Inch premium compact camera with a f1.4 starting aperture on a ZOOM lens (24-27mm f1.4 - f2.8) so it should be in 2025 and beyond posible for a fixed lens camera to achieve this.
Thanks for the great and thorough comment, costagf. I see the nostalgic design the way I see architecture. Most of the world flocks to Europe for its architecture, and recognizes it for its beauty but then makes the choice to not build buildings like that in their own cities due, primarily to cost. Functionality speaking, it's the same (save for the lack of elevators in some). They all have apartments of livable size (debatable), they all have pluming, and electricity. So the design can look radically different, but the function doesn't particularly change. This is how I've seen most nostalgic designs. One could argue that we don't need function dials on the top of the camera - but for every person who hates them, another loves them - to your point that if you use something long enough, you get used to it. I am being genuine in my review, in that the camera operates great and looks great. It blended in with my wardrobe to the point that most people didn't pay much notice and when they did, the comment 100% of the time was "woah, what's that cool camera?"
You are old, but not old enough :) In the history of photography (almost 200 years) the viewfinder is very recent (so you are a « viewfinder newbie » in fact ;). The viewfinder on screen (on ground glass) (and therefore the smartphone) has existed for much longer. So from a purely historical point of view, the smartphone is much closer to photography than camera viewfinders. The smartphone, camera screens and external viewfinder screens are just a return to the sources. And I'm not talking about the much superior comfort of viewfinder and especially image composition when using a screen. The viewfinder is only comfortable for certain very specific applications. The rest is just a matter of habit (I'm old too and I use the best viewfinder in the world every day, that of the Hasselblad H Medium Format, but I use the viewfinder on screen almost all the time in Small Format)
Thanks for the comment, and the history lesson! Though my now more than 100 year old Zeiss IKON has any eye piece/viewfinder ... and I still use that camera ;). I guess I just love the feeling of a camera on my face 😂.
I've been loving my Instax Wide printer. It's so fun to see people's reactions when they get the print, their minds are a bit blown (and charmed). Often they'll hand the photo back to me and say "thanks for showing it to me", but I can say "no, it's for you to keep!" and then they are delighted all over again
Thanks for the great comment Adam! Lovely anecdote. :)
Thanks for the review, I’m also an old bloke who likes a viewfinder
Haha Thank you!
Great video man.
I find the conversation about Instax analog cameras vs the Instax Evo line really fascinating in that the answer really distills down to the question of what do you value most about the instant camera experience?
Some are drawn by the raw and unpredictable nature of instant film, even if that means many of them won’t be keepers.
Others simply love the idea of being able to print photos in real time, either to share with others or keep for themselves, and don’t really care as much about whether it’s a “true film experience”.
I own a mini and a square and have been considering getting either the Wide Link printer, Wide 400 or both, but I think I’m going to go for the Wide Evo instead.
It combines the 2000’s era “digicam” craze with a modern version of instant photography and I think that’s a really cool combo. Plus if you’re a photographer with professional equipment, what a bonus to be able to print some of your favorite shots.
Thanks for the great overview!
Thank you for sharing your perspective and the great comment. Interesting observation about the hybridization of the digicam craze. I definitely see that.
That camera looks way better than I expected
Thanks for the comment, Melvin!
This one is pretty cool and came as a surprise. Some qualities remind me of when they made the Impossible i-1 and it's app. I would love to see these updates applied to a new square instax cam.
Thanks for the comment!
Given your experience with this camera, would you recommend this camera or getting the instax wide smartphone printer instead? I worry about the weird shutter on this camera as you mentioned in this review
Hi there! I think it's a personal preference based on what you want your experience to be. If all you care about is a print, but prefer using your cell phone, then the printer is the way to go. You will limit some of the options that the camera gives you, but perhaps not much. For me, I rely on the experience only a camera can give you. I want an image that comes from the lens on that camera, versus the one on my smartphone. I already spend enough time on my stupid phone, and I'd rather just leave it in my pocket if possible. I prefer the tactility of a real camera (though I do miss having a viewfinder in the Wide Evo). I also like constraints. I don't need all the silly options that my smart phone gives me. I think more options can sometimes erode creativity because you spend more time tooling with your options than living in and capturing the moment or mood. This is why I also still shoot with old polaroid cameras and my old Instax Wide. Reducing my options almost always improves my experience. In respect to the shutter - yeah, it was and still kind of is annoying, but I got used to it. I think most people will. It's a puzzling design (to me), but I don't think I saw any other reviewers mention it. If you can get to a store to try it, then I think you'll know whether it's for you or not.
@ wow thank you so much for the detailed response I really appreciate it. You mentioned some great points there. I think I’ll go check it out in the store and see how that button is on the camera and make a decision there. Thank you
Those black-and-white shots of the model you did. Is that with the crop option?
Hi Dscar1, most of them were in the cropped mode, though I took a couple in wide - although I don't think they made it into the video.
I did my MFA Senior Thesis show using an Instax Wide, I love working with this format and I can't wait to explore this camera! Thank you for the video!!! Whats the mininum focus distance for the macro mode?
Hi there! Fujifilm has told me that it's 10cm, but that might be from the sensor plane. From the lens I was finding it to be around 2".
@@vistek Interesting, that seems really good
Curious to see how the digital files look being 16mpx. The sq10 and mini evo has awful digital files..fine for the prints but would be nice to have some average digital images to go along with it.
I have no experience with the digital files in the other cameras you spoke about, or what you consider a good or bad file (there a lot of subjective opinions on this). What I can tell you, is that this is primarily a camera designed for printing in the style of most instant cameras. I'm not certain that the engineers were trying to get the user a very good digital photo. I was quite impressed with the digital files, and any photo you see in the video was the digital version (not a photographed print). So it all really depends on what your expectations are, and whether they align with what the brand wants for their users.
Can you send a photo from a fuji X or GFX to this instax for printing?
Hi There! Yes, but not directly. You have to send the photo to your phone first and then use the new Wide Evo App to print on the camera.
Wonderful review. Like your approach. How is the quality of the prints verus a Canon Selphy cp1500 printer for example?
Thank you! I don't know the answer to that, unfortunately. I've never used the Selphy. Perhaps another viewer can speak to this.
There are lots of videos comparing the Instax Wide Link with the Selphy.
They mostly put the Canon ahead of the Fuji in terms of print quality, but not by a huge margin.
That said I don’t know if the Wide Evo is the same quality as the Wide Link. It could be better or could be worse. Or the same.
I want to see a close up of the printed quality on both focal lengths. Does the printed images seem pixelated?
Not in the least. Or not that I can see in any example.
Can you apply the effects after you shoot?
It seems you can in the app (to some degree), but I didn't see any way to do that in the camera.
@@vistek Thank you
I'm also a fan of analog instant cameras for the exact same reasons you listed here but living in the northern part of the world they are almost useless to me about half of the year - it's so dark and the temperature is too low for instant film to develop. So this kind of camera will capture my winter memories from now on. Great video btw, I can't remember if I have ever teared up for a camera review before 🥹
@rasijaa, thank you so much for a great comment! I really appreciate it! I guess it's nice to be able to take the shot, then move into a warm building to print it...
Can you sync flash with it?
Hi there, I don't know this answer 100%, but I'm willing to say 99% no. That's not really what the purpose of this camera. It's supposed to be fun and simple and not designed for off camera flash etc.
Loved that outro haha
Thank you James!
Are u happy with the quality of the prints? Nice review
Yes, extremely happy!
I understand the waste of 10 polaroid shots just to get one right... but still having an 'instant printer' doesn't it kill the purpose of instant photography? I wonder as I really want to get Instax wide but will struggle between 300 and Evo now.
I mean, one can still print the image immediately. Whether the photo pops up after you fire the trigger, or you have to press a couple buttons to do it, seems to me to not really be a significant issue.
Forget Fujifilm's "marketing" talk. They don't seem to like using the camera terms that have been in use for many decades.
The "Wide Off" mode switch is a "digital zoom on." According to the camera manual, "wide" shots are 15.9 megapixels, "wide off" shots are 4.9 megapixels.
The "Shutter Lever" is a combined focus and shutter release control and it is unlike the control(s) on hundreds of millions of cameras designed in the past 30 years because it has a very poor tactile feel. Your finger is going to say "WHAT?"
Fujifilm makes excellent instant film. Why does almost every camera that uses their film have so many mistakes in their camera designs?
Fujifilm should bring back their excellent FP-100 films for Polaroid pack film cameras! 📸
A very useful review
Thank you so much!
Very informative review, you’re hilarious bro.
Thanks!
The lens and film effects on the new wide evo are not quite the same as on the mini evo. Only some are present in both models. Though the new and quite exciting gradient thing can hopefully compensate me for the loss of my beloved fisheye and mirror effects ;-)
This is true. I suspect there were some design elements that make it either easier to do those effects in the Mini, or if they want to leave some specific features for the Mini. The loss of the fisheye makes sense, since you now have a much wider angle of view with the Wide Evo.
The emulsion has to change to be controllable . To contrasty , to speedy , yuk ! Old Fuji pack film character , polaroid sharpness , round look .
This camera will kill the Polaroid and Lomo lol.
Thanks for showing portraits, just as I thought, this is a no go for me. I love Instax Wide cameras and was dying for one of these to come out but as a professional portrait photographer, the absurdly wide 16mm lens is a deal breaker unfortunatley. I dont know why they did this. The Wide 210, 300 and 400 all have 95mm lenses and my Lomo Instant Wide has a 90mm lens. No idea why this has a near fisheye at 16mm. Maybe it has to do with it being a digital camera, I dunno but I am very disappointed. Ah well.
Thanks for the comment. I would harbour a guess that professional photographers are not the market for this camera, or at least the principal one. I see this type of response often to new products; one where people are puzzled by its design or features. In most cases (but certainly not all), it's often because the product is designed for a specific market that the person commenting is simply a satellite to that. If you travel, or go to events, or just like to have an instant camera around for the fun of it - then the wide and the crop make perfect sense. If you're looking for extreme image fidelity and a portrait camera, then that's not at all what they made this camera for (just my opinion, don't quote me on this).
@@vistek Thanks for the reply and I get what you are saying about this not being a pro grade camera, but why the freakishly wide lens? As I said, all the other Fuji Wide cameras have 90mm lenses and this is 16mm. Makes no sense to me. Oh well.
Not the CAMERA for me BUT never the less interesting though flawed in ways I truly dislike as philosophy of a product. The Print lever seems extremely gimmicky /unnecesary. I must say I HATE MODERN RETRO meaning putting nostalgic form before function just for the sake of it, majority of the time I feel besides being a worse way of doing things it cheapens the experience/product. Size wise it doesn't look small at all so makes me question the sensor size and more so the lens aperture (why not f1.5 or less, not unusual with cellphone lenses/small sensors) though I asume it's designed/meant specifically for the size of prints which I understand but seems a shame for me because at this size Id want something that doesn't make me wish Id brought another camera with me (meaning id like a better file beyond what is needed for printing on the camera).
The shutter I hope is the kind of thing that grows on one and requires some time to get used but once you've had some time, say couple of days, one sees the positives and reason they went for this solution versus a tried and true camera shutter.
Hope somebody sees a way of making a photography first camera/product, fixed lens bright aperture small sensor (please NOT WIDE, cellphones have this covered, make it 35mm - 50mm equivalent, if possible a double FOV lens, not zoom if it helps lense design/compactness and not at the expense of a wide aperture f1.4 or even brighter > 1"INCH compact-portable, sub $500usd camera with a twist/novel way of making images directly on camera that encourages creation/exploration as this camera seems to (film simulations directly on camera)
(For those who think f1.4 is impossible, many premium cellphone lenses 3 years ago where f1.5 and Panasonic had 9 years ago a 1"Inch premium compact camera with a f1.4 starting aperture on a ZOOM lens (24-27mm f1.4 - f2.8) so it should be in 2025 and beyond posible for a fixed lens camera to achieve this.
Thanks for the great and thorough comment, costagf. I see the nostalgic design the way I see architecture. Most of the world flocks to Europe for its architecture, and recognizes it for its beauty but then makes the choice to not build buildings like that in their own cities due, primarily to cost. Functionality speaking, it's the same (save for the lack of elevators in some). They all have apartments of livable size (debatable), they all have pluming, and electricity. So the design can look radically different, but the function doesn't particularly change. This is how I've seen most nostalgic designs. One could argue that we don't need function dials on the top of the camera - but for every person who hates them, another loves them - to your point that if you use something long enough, you get used to it. I am being genuine in my review, in that the camera operates great and looks great. It blended in with my wardrobe to the point that most people didn't pay much notice and when they did, the comment 100% of the time was "woah, what's that cool camera?"
You are old, but not old enough :)
In the history of photography (almost 200 years) the viewfinder is very recent (so you are a « viewfinder newbie » in fact ;). The viewfinder on screen (on ground glass) (and therefore the smartphone) has existed for much longer. So from a purely historical point of view, the smartphone is much closer to photography than camera viewfinders. The smartphone, camera screens and external viewfinder screens are just a return to the sources. And I'm not talking about the much superior comfort of viewfinder and especially image composition when using a screen. The viewfinder is only comfortable for certain very specific applications. The rest is just a matter of habit (I'm old too and I use the best viewfinder in the world every day, that of the Hasselblad H Medium Format, but I use the viewfinder on screen almost all the time in Small Format)
Thanks for the comment, and the history lesson! Though my now more than 100 year old Zeiss IKON has any eye piece/viewfinder ... and I still use that camera ;). I guess I just love the feeling of a camera on my face 😂.
@@vistek So do I :)
But little by little, by dint of using the screen, things change.