[Land List Home] [Camera List] [Accessory List] [Film List] [FAQ] [Land Links]


The Land List -- Non-Polaroid Instant Cameras



"What about instant cameras and film made by companies other than Polaroid?"


I'll expand sections of this page at some point in the future, but here's a sort of general information page for now.


Introduction:

While Edwin Land was the inventor behind the first truly workable 'single-step' photographic process, the original Polaroid Model 95 wasn't the first camera to appear on the market that billed itself as an "instant" camera.

These pre-Land "instant" cameras were essentially conventional box cameras with a "built-in darkroom." You exposed a sheet of conventional sensitized material in the usual way, then shifted the film to a water-tight chamber in the camera, into which you would pour in conventional devloper, stop bath, and fixer (sometimes combined into a monobath operation)-- and, of course, empty and rinse the camera after each development step. Needless to say, this was messy and inconvenient, and never caught on with the general public. However, some somewhat more elaborate cameras which utilized a larger version of this concept (sometimes called "street cameras,") were evidently fairly popular in large cities where street photographers would take pictures of passers-by for a small fee. [Some may argue that tintypes were an early sort of 'instant' photography, but I don't consider them as such, since they still required extra equipment outside the camera body.]

This all changed with the advent of the Polaroid Model 95, but Polaroid isn't quite the only company that has produced 'single-step' instant cameras and film. Some of these are licensed products made with Polaroid's permission-- some are not. Some are Polaroid "compatible" products-- some are not.

So, let's take a brief look at some of these products which have appeared from time to time. First, I'll break these down into two general categories-- Polaroid "compatible" products and Polaroid "non-compatible" products. After that, entries will be made according to manufacturer. Note that most of the small images accompanying each header is actually a link to a larger image or illustration-- most of these images were taken from other sources and copyrighted by their respective owners.

One note: I'm only including complete cameras (i.e. lens, shutter, body, and film holder all assembled and sold as one unit) designed for general-purpose instant photography here. I'm not going to get into special-purpose cameras (i.e. scientific and passport/ID cameras) or film backs designed to be used with other types of cameras. Not only have there been a lot of manufacturers and models of these sorts of products, but most all of them use Polaroid-sourced film holders and/or other parts anyway.


Polaroid "compatible" products


Fuji

Most people in the USA probably haven't noticed, but Fuji Photo has actually been producing instant photographic products in some form since at least the early 1980's. Among these products today are some Polaroid "compatible" peel-apart pack films. I'm aware of two of these-- one is a 3200-speed B&W film (equivalent in use to Polaroid Type 667 film), and the other is an 80-speed color film (equivalent in use to Polaroid Type 669 film).

The reason most people in the USA are not aware of these films, however, is that-- at least of last I heard-- they are forbidden to export them to the USA (presumably due to infringment on Polaroid patents). ...And, before you ask, yes, I am aware that there are in fact certain camera stores in the USA which do sell/stock this film. However, this film does not seem to appear in any USA-market Fuji catalogs/literature. What such film you do see sold in the USA would therefore be black-market goods (which would explain the significant price premium on the Fuji film over equivalent Polaroid film at stores which choose to carry the Fuji variety) and not strictly legal. Please note that I'm not trying to single out anyone or condemn anyone here; I'm merely pointing this out for informational purposes, since I get asked about this film from time to time. I've never bought any of the Fuji film, so I can't really comment on quality/color rendition/etc. compared with the Polaroid films.


Keystone

Yes, the venerable Keystone Camera Corporation (as Berkley Keystone) did in fact produce some Polaroid-compatible instant cameras for a while in the 1970's.

Most of these were non-folding plastic pack cameras of roughly the same size/shape and features as the Polaroid Colorpack II and the like. On the plus side, most of these cameras came equipped with built-in electronic flashes-- a pretty nifty feature indeed for the early 1970's. [Keystone was one of the first companies to offer built-in electronic flashes in low-priced cameras-- I don't know how many "Everflash" 126 cartridge cameras (from the same era) I've seen, but they must have sold a heck of a lot of those things...] Inexplicably, there was a low-end Keystone pack camera that lacked the built-in electronic flash-- but had a Flashbar socket instead (!). I can't think of any other camera that had a Flashbar socket but didn't use SX-70 film. [The flash arrays used in all those later model Kodak 110 cameras and such were FlipFlashes, not Flashbars.]

The Keystone pack cameras are a bit different from their otherwise similar Polaroid bretheren in that (aside from the built-in flash):

I don't know how much the Keystone pack cameras sold for originally, but I'm pretty sure the electronic-flash models were considerably more expensive than the Polaroid non-folding plastic pack cameras being offered at the same time.

As I mentioned, one of these cameras had a Flashbar socket. Well, later Keystone offered another instant camera that also used Flashbars. ...But this camera used SX-70 film.

Unlike the Keystone pack cameras, the Wizard XF-1000 was apparently not produced under license from Polaroid-- McKeown's Guide makes reference to a "legal confrontation" caused by the production of this camera.

However, that might not have been necessary, since if the one I have is any indication, there really wasn't much to recommend it anyway. :-)

The Wizard is a non-folding plastic camera that looks much like an overly boxy Polaroid Pronto!. Its basic features and specifications are also similar to those of the Pronto!, and was obviously designed to compete with it.

On the plus side, the Wizard has a built-in tripod socket and even has a surprisingly detailed instructional guide printed on the bottom of the camera. ...On the other hand, this camera is not only rather ugly (in my opinion), but it's really not all that well-made-- for instance, the focus ring on my example is rather tight and actually rubs against the camera's front plate as you near infinity (and from the looks of things, this is how it arrived from the factory). It's also a bit noisy in operation. Consumer Reports magazine actually included the Wizard XF-1000 in one of their product ratings once-- they didn't seen very impressed either. ...And the original list price of this camera wasn't even much lower than than the Pronto!... so I'm not sure what the attraction was supposed to be for this product.


Konica

When Polaroid users think of folding pack cameras with professional-grade lenses and shutters, they probably think first of the Polaroid 180/190/195 cameras. ...But well after the 195 was discontiued, there was a new camera which filled this niche for a few years-- the Konica Instant Press.

The Konica Instant Press appears to have been (sort of) based on the existing classic Konica press camera design, but larger in format to accomodate the full Polaroid pack film image area. Unlike the 180/190/195 cameras, the Instant Press had a full bed folding design (which protects the camera when folded and probably helps maintain proper lens/film plane alignment better than the scissors-struts of the Polaroid pack cameras).

I haven't seen very many Konica Instant Press cameras on the used market; I don't know if they didn't sell well when they were new, or if nobody who originally bought one wants to sell theirs. :-)

Image credit: Modern Photography, December 1984


Minolta

I don't really know that much about the Minolta Instant Pro, except that:


GOMZ (USSR)

No matter how maligned old Soviet/Russian cameras are, I suppose you have to give them some credit for the variety of equipment they've continued to produce even after most camera manufacturing has moved to Japan and other Far East nations.

While not exactly known for instant photography, the former Soviet Union did actually produce (and offer for sale, at least in its home market) at least two different cameras compatible with 40-series Polaroid roll film. Of course, Polaroid film wasn't officially available in the USSR, so the Russians offered their own version(s).

The first of these cameras was called the "Moment" (Momexum). It was produced briefly in the 1950's, and was in some respects a 'clone' of the Polaroid Model 95. The lens and shutter are more conventional in design than those of the 95, and the camera is slightly larger when folded than a 95, but the basic body configuration is similar (and even has fake-leather covering and chrome trim similar to the 95). I don't know how many Moments were produced (I believe less than ten thousand), but I have gotten the general impression that it was really more of a 'proof of concept' piece that wasn't seriously intended for wide distribution (and wasn't exactly priced at a point the average Soviet citizen could afford anyway)

...And, yes, they did make their own film for it. However, if the review Modern Photography published of this camera and film is any indication, the Soviets definitely still had some major 'bugs' to iron out of their 'clone' film, to say the least... :-)

As a trivia aside, GOMZ (the factory that produced the Moment) was later renamed to LOMO (Leningrad Optical-Mechanical Union). Lubitel owners may recognize this name as being the manufacturer of that line of cheap TLR cameras.

Image credit: McKeown's Guide to Classic and Antique Cameras


KMZ -- Krasnogorsk Mechanical Factory (USSR)

The Moment wasn't the only instant camera to come from the USSR, however. In the 60's, they came back with the Foton [not to be confused with the short-lived 35mm B&H camera of the same name]. Unlike the Moment, the Foton was an original design and doesn't look much at all like anything that Polaroid ever produced.

The Foton is a very boxy-looking plastic camera that was also compatible with 40-series Polaroid films (or the Soviet 'Moment' films). While it uses the same film, the design of the back is very different from that of Polaroid cameras, and actually appears to be more compact (and possibly even slightly more convenient) than the usual Polaroid rollfilm camera back.

I've never seen a Foton in the USA, but I have received a copy of the instruction manual from a kind Dutch aquaintance. The image accompanying this entry comes from this manual, and perhaps I'll scan other portions of the manual at a later time for perusal here.

As another aside, KMZ was/is also the factory that produces (produced?) those Zenit 35mm SLR's as well as the Horizont panoramic camera.


Polaroid "non-compatible" products


Kodak:

Okay, here's the product line discussed on this page which is probably going to be the most familiar to visitors here.

Yes, I'm referring to the (in)famous Kodak Instant Camera line which Polaroid promptly sued over in a high-profile (at least in the USA) landmark patent infringement case.

First, a few Frequently Asked Questions:

One interesting thing about the Kodak Instant system is that the film was exposed from the rear of the picture assembly rather than through the front (all Polaroid integral films expose through the front). This is why all Polaroid integral film cameras must have a mirror in the optical path. Without the mirror, pictures taken with Polaroid integral (SX-70, 600, Spectra, etc.) film would appear reversed left-to-right. While the Kodak Instant cameras didn't need a mirror, some models (like the original EK6 and EK4) used two mirrors to 'fold' the light path to make the cameras appear more compact. Also, since a mirror wasn't required with the Kodak system, this made the format more attractive than SX-70 to manufacturers of special-purpose cameras and camera backs. Related hobbyist tip: old unwanted/discarded plastic Polaroid cameras using SX-70 or 600 film (i.e. OneStep or Pronto! models) can prove to be a very inexpensive source of front-surface mirrors for optical projects... :-)

Kodak instant film was offered in two different speeds. The original film was designated PR-10 and had an ASA of 150. Later, Kodak made a faster film, HS-144-10, which was ASA 300(?) in speed. Kodak Instant cameras marked with the "Kodamatic" name/logo were designed for the HS film, whereas the earlier models were for the PR film. In later years, I believe both films were available with the "Trimprint" feature, though I recall that the advertising at the time implied that you needed a "Trimprint" camera to use that film. ["Trimprint" film allowed you to peel the front picture surface of the film away from the negative backing and the development pod. This resulted in a print that could be made to fit in a conventional photo album or cut ('trimmed') for various craft-like projects.]

At some point, I'll try to add a comprehensive list of Kodak Instant cameras in much the same format as the Polaroid camera information pages. [Personally, though, I'm not really that crazy about Kodak Instant cameras; I feel that most of them were rather uninspired from a design standpoint compared with what Polaroid Corp. has offered. But, hey, may as well be complete here... :-) ]

Image credit: Better Instant Pictures With Kodak Instant Cameras, Eastman Kodak Corp.



Fuji

Not only does Fuji make Polaroid-compatible pack film (as mentioned earlier), but they also make an integral film as well. ...and a camera to go with it. Neither, however, are Polaroid-compatible.

Actually, there have been two formats of Fuji integral instant film. The first one was announced in the early 80's, and was compatible with Kodak Instant cameras. Fuji also announced at least two cameras of their own design to go with it (one was a simple rigid plastic camera sort of like a Kodak Kodamatic 940, the other was a scale-focusing folding camera styled sort of like a Kodamatic 960. I don't know if these cameras/film ever actually hit the market, though (they certainly were never available in the USA), but Fuji has recently resurrected the process. Sorta.

The new Fuji integral film appears to be based on the old Kodak instant process, but is a different format and has a different cartridge design so that it cannot be used in old Kodak Instant cameras (one person has opined that this may have been a deliberate decision to avoid contention with Polaroid, but I really don't know for sure). The camera currently being sold for this new film is rather basic in performance features, and appears to have been designed to compete with the Polaroid OneStep camera line.

If you'd like to learn more about this new camera (called the Instax 100), check out Fuji's Instax page at http://home.fujifilm.com/products/instax/shocked/index.html (pointed out to me by John Grieve, a Land List visitor)

Neither the old "Kodak-compatible" film/camera nor the new "non-compatible" film/camera was/is available in the USA.

Image credit: Popular Photography, December 1981


Camera Corporation of America

Here's an odd little camera from the 1960's which tried to compete with (of all things) the Polaroid Swinger 20-- and failed.

The Chrislin Insta-Camera wasn't based on any particular Polaroid design. The photographic process was based in part on expired Agfa patents, and the camera was an almost too-uninspired simple plastic box-shaped affair.

The film was available only in B&W and packaged in L-shaped plastic cartridges. The fact that it was cartridge-loading was touted as a major convenience feature (Polaroid pack film had been available for a few years, though), but the development process of the Chrislin film was anything but convenient. The basic process of pulling a tab, waiting for the indicated development time, and peeling away a print wasn't so different from the Swinger, but while the Swinger produced a more-or-less dry print, the Chrislin's prints came from the camera coated with a caustic black goo which required immediate removal with cold water. No water handy? No problem (?!)-- the film came packaged with some pre-moistened towelettes for just this purpose. Either way, though, it was a messy process that left you with some potentially hazardous chemical goo to dispose of-- and perhaps also on your hands as well. By comparison, the process of coating the Swinger's prints was the last word in convenience.

Even if you could see around the Chrislin's inconvenient development process, and even if the film was comparable to Polaroid's B&W film (it wasn't), you'd still probably have had more trouble getting a decent photo out of the Chrislin than the Swinger. At least the Swinger had some sort of exposure metering aid-- the Chrislin merely provided you with a simple sunny/cloudy sort of exposure calculator. ...And evidently the quality of the film itself wasn't exactly up to the level of the Polaroid product either. Consumer Reports rated the Chrislin "Unacceptable" for a combination of all these reasons and more.

Image credit: Consumer Reports, August 1967



[Land List Home] [Camera List] [Accessory List] [Film List] [FAQ] [Land Links]



Last updated 12/19/99

"Polaroid", "Land Camera" and other Polaroid camera names are trademarks of Polaroid Corporation. All other camera names are trademarks of their respective owners. No endorsement or approval by Polaroid Corporation or any other camera manufacturer is implied, nor are these companies responsible for the accuracy of the content of this web site. Illustrations/images used on this page are copyright of their respective publications, All Rights Reserved Worldwide. All information is provided on an 'as-is' basis; the author of this site is not liable for damages of any sort (financial, physical, or otherwise) which might arise from the use (or misuse) of information on this site.

Contents Copyright © 1992-1999 by Martin (Marty) Kuhn / mkuhn@rwhirled.com / mkuhn@inav.net