Huh? Polaroid's had an instant-printing camera on the market for more than a year -- the PoGo. http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-CZA-05300…

You could always get a Fuji Instax too. Two sizes to choose from!

@1: Yeah, once again Constant veers into the technology arena and displays is stunning ignorance.

The pogo was stupid and the print quality was terrible. I'm sure the technology has advanced quite a bit from its release, but if they're announcing any combo of camera/instant printing, why don't they just bring the instant film back?

@3, as I mentioned, you can get instant film from Fuji. Pack film for your old Polaroid, or the Instax camera and film, which has great image quality (much better than any Polaroid film ever) and, like SX-70/600/Spectra Polaroids, doesn't need peeling apart. Instax is awesome. They have them at Glazer's, in the film and lighting department (across the street from the camera and lens department). Screw Polaroid.

Whatever happened to those guys who were going to independently reopen the Polaroid factory in Holland or wherever?

@4. I think this is them:
http://www.theimpossibleproject.com/

that "G" looks like half of the old Soundgarden logo.

Print immediately? I'm still waiting for a digital camera that will take a picture immediately. Instead of fucking 3 seconds later .

@4 yeah I know about the instax. my problem is that it looks like shit! I want to use my cool old polaroid, or at least something with a nice design to it.
The new impossible project film is a letdown. The company has its heart in the right place, but unfortunately the end product just isn't worth it. They bought all the old polaroid equipment but apparently not the recipe to the film. Not to mention its like $25 for 8 photos. not everything is made better by technology.

@7, you need a better camera. A DSLR, frinstance.

Yeah Fnarf I'll have my manservant tote my six and a half pound DSLR behind me and command him hand it to me whenever I need to take a picture. But then who will carry my rifle and umbrella?

@7,10: I have a Canon G9 and it takes the picture immediately. The quality's as good as a DSLR, too, if you're just doing the point and shoot thing anyway.

The G12 is the newest version of the series, I think.

Yeah, I'm afraid your slow picture taking problem is a generational one with digital cameras. Newer ones produced in the last year or so (and preferably by Canon) are very fast while still being somewhat light sensitive. (ISO 3200 handheld) Nikon doesn't make their own point and shoot cameras and they are all sub-par.

@ 10:

Wtf are you talking about? Body weight of exceptional mid-level DSLRs are roughly 1 pound.

This is one of those "a solution already exists for my problem but I won't accept the solution because I still want to bitch about it..." situations. Also known as the GOP.

Body weight? Body weight? What the hell do you do with a camera body? And even if you wanted to carry around a no-lens doorstop, it's still too big to fit in your pocket. And the funny thing is, if you did bring along a lens, that would be too big to fit in your other pocket. Oh, and when you take a picture with it everyone looks at you like you're on assignment from the newspaper or the government. Or you're just a huuuuuge dork who carries his enormous DSLR everywhere.

Point being that thirty five years ago you could buy a film camera, complete, that takes pictures instantly, with high end optics, and fit in your pocket, AND didn't come any where near a POUND. (Lens extra, sucker!) Today there is nothing, literally nothing, that you can buy that does what cameras once did.

And these tech cheerleaders come around every day telling us how good we have it. It's a crime. I guess there's too many people too young to realize what cameras used to be capable of.

That's right. I also define everything I do by the judgments of strangers who might think I'm a huuuuuge dork. The horror!

Why don't you just use a film camera from 35 years ago then?