PetaPixel

Polaroid Z340: A Futuristic Digital Instant Camera That Spits Out ZINK Prints

This week Polaroid launched its new Z340 instant digital camera, perhaps to pave the way for its upcoming uber-futuristic GL30 shooter. The Z340 isn’t as flashy but offers the same fusion of digital and instant: it’s basically a 14-megapixel digital acmera combined with a ZINK printer. It can capture 75 shots and print 25 photos on a single charge, has a 2.7-inch LCD screen, and allows the photographer to decide whether to make a 3×4-inch instant print or to simply store the image on the on-board SD card.

Here’s a demo of the camera:

3×4-inch ZINK paper is available at a price of 30 sheets for $20, so each print costs you about $0.67.

Polaroid ZINK 3×4″ Paper is also available at an MSRP of $19.99 (a pack of 30 sheets).

You can pick one up for $300 from Polaroid, Amazon, and other select retailers.


Video credits: Video by Robert S. Anthony


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://twitter.com/mlabudaphotos Mitch Labuda

    .67$ a print? Compared to how much on line or in store. Sure it’s “instant” but .67$

  • http://twitter.com/pete_boyd Pete Boyd

    Compare your “on line or in store” with the ability to walk along the street and take spontaneous portraits in exchange for a print. Y’see, different things are possible with different paradigms.

  • Anonymous

    I have yet to see any actual prints from one of these.  Does anyone know how the print quality compares to various other printers, consumer to pro level?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t blame them for trying, but now everyone has instant photos. They may not be on a floppy piece of paper, but you can still share them, save them and even duplicate them! I am talking about smart phones of course. Photos from any other digital camera take one more step to share, but at least you can do it over a distance. 

    I actually shoot more film than I do digital, so I am not just mercilessly dismissing old technology. I actually have a FujiFilm Instax 210. 

    The magic of seeing a photo you just took just isn’t there anymore. Therefore, I wouldn’t introduce products such as this as anything more than a hat tip to the past that you hope doesn’t cost you money. 

    They could get innovative. But these and their Gaga glasses just aren’t what they need.

  • meh

    Another piece of crap gimmick that tries its best to mimic film all while totally missing what makes film special. I feel sorry for these stupid kids today who want to be retro but can’t let go of digital. Oh and I’m young enough that my first camera was a DSLR.

  • Anonymous

    cooorny.

  • Anonymous

    I’m a huge fan of Polaroid’s TRUE instant cameras (and of Fuji’s for that matter) so the thing that bothers me about this is the fact that it prints the photos without the iconic Polaroid border. I think I remember reading that it had borders that you can apply, but I just think that there shouldn’t even be an option to print without the borders. I would use this even though the prints are about $0.67 because going to the store and making prints is just a step that I don’t want to have to take and compared to what it costs for REAL film for my old Polaroids, it’s a steal. Sometimes you just want to take a photo and give it to someone (parents, grandparents, and children come to mind) so that they have something physical to look at/show others. I admit 100% that it is pretty gimmicky, but it is novel and people love novelties. 

  • Anonymous

    Does this mean that you would fall into the age group of these “stupid kids” you speak of? Just how old are you? I’m only 22 and my first camera was not a DSLR. Not trying to be snotty (cuz i feel like this comment might come off that way), I’m just curious. Also, I totally agree with you about people forgetting what makes film special.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent Info. Tweeted about it. I?l bookmark this post too.

  • http://twitter.com/THEGREATZEEE THE GREAT ZEEE

    this is an event photographer’s dream

  • http://twitter.com/THEGREATZEEE THE GREAT ZEEE

    i have the polaroid pogo printer and the quality is pretty good.

  • http://twitter.com/THEGREATZEEE THE GREAT ZEEE

    the lcd screen is live view. no viewfinder needed.

  • Anonymous

    I understand that, but because you have to use the lcd screen you have to hold the camera in an awkward way. I own an older Polaroid camera that is shaped very similar to this one and if I had to rely on a screen, I probably wouldn’t use it as much.

  • http://www.minusmanhattan.com Minus Manhattan

    PREACH!

  • Old Geezer who knows better

    stupid piece of gimmicky crap for people young enough not to know better.

  • http://twitter.com/mlabudaphotos Mitch Labuda

    I used the cameras when Polaroid was still in business. The film for the SX70′s and others are available once more in Europe. 

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, I’m in the United States so getting Impossible Project films is more expensive because of the extra shipping costs. Even if shipping was free, each frame would cost 3-4 dollars. I’m planning on getting some Impossible film at some point but I’m waiting for a sale or a slight price cut (which I doubt will come anytime soon).

  • Recordiosity

    smart phones aren’t photos. They are brief images, like still television images.  A photograph remains and can be put in an envelope, on a fridge, in a frame etc. One is a set of data, the other is an object.  It is easy to tell the difference, but people get confused on the interwebs.