Review: 21345 Polaroid OneStep Camera
Posted by Huw,LEGO replicas of real-life objects seem to do rather well on the Ideas platform, and 21345 Polaroid OneStep SX-70 Camera is the latest one to make it through to production.
Unlike most of the others, though, this one is virtually life-sized and such an accurate reproduction that from a distance it looks just like the real thing.
Summary
21345 Polaroid OneStep SX-70 Camera, 516 pieces.
£69.99 / $79.99 / €79.99 | 13.6p/15.5c/15.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
An almost life-sized faithful reproduction of a design classic
- Cool working mechanism
- Feels good in the hand
- It's a fingerprint magnet
- Fragile in places
- Opaque lens
- Expensive
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The prototype
The Polaroid Land Camera 1000, which was marketed as OneStep in the USA, was released in 1977 and was one of the best-selling cameras that year. It cost $40, a fraction of previous cameras based on the SX-70 film format, so it helped popularise instant photography and make it available to all.
Image from retrospekt.com
Packaging and stickers
The days of Ideas sets coming in premium flip-top boxes are long-gone, I'm afraid, so this comes in a regular taped one.
Parts are packaged in four paper bags and one plastic one. The paper ones have smaller plastic ones inside them and are printed with a different design to that on the bags we've encountered in Technic and Creator sets.
There is a sticker sheet which, while small, is disappointing to see. Note stickers 3 and 4 which allow you to label the model with the US name OneStep, or the rest-of-the-world one, 1000. A spare tile is provided, allowing you to swap between them with ease.
The completed model
From a distance, both the camera and the film box look exactly like the real thing. It's only when you notice the studs on the sloped sides that it becomes apparent that it's not.
The brick-built rainbow stripe on the front is slightly thicker than it should be, but nevertheless, it looks excellent.
I don't have a real one to compare it with, but in the comments to the reveal article it was mentioned that it's 9.2 × 10.8cm, compared to the model's 9 x 9cm, so virtually life-sized.
Three photos, printed on plasticard, accompany the model. The one on the left replicates a photo of the Ideas designer's sister on holiday in La Rochelle, France, while the one on the right shows Edwin Land, inventor of the instant photography process. The photo it's based on can be seen here. The one in the middle is of course the LEGO House in Billund.
The box, which utilises two printed tiles to replicate the branding, can be used to stow the photos in.
On the real camera, the dial to the left of the lens, decorated with a sticker here, has a light sensor in the middle and twisting it adjusts exposure.
The angled section at the front has a neat stud-reversal technique by the stripes, enabling both of its sides to have studs outwards. It's held on to the body with just two clips, so it has a tendency to move slightly, or fall off when handling it and opening the mechanism underneath (more of which later).
The studs on the sloped black faces are really the only giveaway that it's LEGO!
The appearance of lens is slightly disappointing. It's made using a black dish and 2x2 boat stud when you'd expect transparent ones would look better but, presumably, the designers didn't think that was the case.
The shutter button is a 2x2 tile printed with a red circle, one of three printed pieces in the set.
The viewfinder actually 'works' in that you can peer into it and see through the clear panel at the front. On the real thing, the protruding rectangle on the top allows a flash to be attached.
Operation
It's not all style over substance: there's a complex mechanism inside that ejects a picture when the shutter is pressed.
The front opens, as it would to insert a film cartridge on the real thing, allowing one of the photo cards to be inserted.
Then, when you press the red shutter button it's ejected, sometimes across the room!
The back panels are not easily removed to see the mechanism inside so to save you the trouble, I've prised them off for these photos. Here the photo is fully inserted and primed.
Pressing the shutter button moves the orange Technic beam which in turn triggers the ejection mechanism. It's very clever and works flawlessly.
Verdict
LEGO reproductions of real-life objects do not come any better than this. It's accurate, virtually life-sized and packed with a complex mechanism that makes it actually do something.
It invites you to pick it up and handle it as you would the real thing, and it feels great in the hand. The glossy black surfaces are 'fingerprint magnets' though!
It's unfortunate about the stickers, but they did not detract from my enjoyment of it too much. They have at least facilitated labelling it with either OneStep or 1000, as shown below, which is great for those who remember it as the 1000.
The 516-piece set will cost £69.99/$79.99/€79.99 when it goes on sale at LEGO.com on January 1st which, to say the least, is somewhat on the expensive side. That's just about my only complaint about it.
120 likes
61 comments on this article
Looks good but I'd rather have (and I do have it) the real deal which isn't much more expensive and is functional. Still not as bad as the typewriter which was sold for much more than an actual, used and working typewriter.
Am I the only one thinking that Lego is going too far with this common object replicas? I mean why? for the same amount of money you can actually buy a real polaroid camera. It works and you can display it as well.
It looks rather nice and while I was at first considering buying it, 31147 is a similar product that costs a quarter of the price and looks just as good. Obviously, they're not the same object, but I suspect most people would rather buy it over this set.
As mentioned by Huw and others, the price is what really brings this set down otherwise.
Hmm, Edwin Land looks suspiciously like Sterling Malory Archer, codename "Duchess" - superspy, assassin, idiot savant, inventor of the tactical turtleneck (or: "tactleneck").
That one thing aside, there's just nothing for me here. More power to the people who want this, it's here for you.
@MisterP said:
"Am I the only one thinking that Lego is going too far with this common object replicas? I mean why? for the same amount of money you can actually buy a real polaroid camera. It works and you can display it as well."
Oh, come on. You could say the same thing for 10323!
And you would be right.
@MisterP said:
"Am I the only one thinking that Lego is going too far with this common object replicas? I mean why? for the same amount of money you can actually buy a real polaroid camera. It works and you can display it as well."
The problem with that argument is that I suspect most people don’t actually want a real Polaroid camera nowadays. They’re a great novelty, but the operating costs and limited use cases make them relatively unappealing when we’re all carrying around superior cameras in our pockets- and we can display the resulting photographs more widely into the bargain.
It might be a little pricy at RRP, but this appeals to me as a LEGO model that’s aesthetically faithful to its source material and mimics the mechanical functionality very well. Sure, a real Polaroid can take photos - but I also need to buy film if I want to keep doing that. There’s certainly an argument to made in favour of the real thing but - while I’m on the fence about buying this - I think there’s more of a case to be made for this set than you might think.
@Mister_Jonny said:
" @MisterP said:
"Am I the only one thinking that Lego is going too far with this common object replicas? I mean why? for the same amount of money you can actually buy a real polaroid camera. It works and you can display it as well."
The problem with that argument is that I suspect most people don’t actually want a real Polaroid camera nowadays. They’re a great novelty, but the operating costs and limited use cases make them relatively unappealing when we’re all carrying around superior cameras in our pockets- and we can display the resulting photographs more widely into the bargain.
It might be a little pricy at RRP, but this appeals to me as a LEGO model that’s aesthetically faithful to its source material and mimics the mechanical functionality very well. Sure, a real Polaroid can take photos - but I also need to buy film if I want to keep doing that. There’s certainly an argument to made in favour of the real thing but - while I’m on the fence about buying this - I think there’s more of a case to be made for this set than you might think.
"
Thank you—this is a point I've been trying to make regarding the other replicas like the Atari and the Pac-Man machine as well. I understand where the "you could buy a real one" camp is coming from, but I get the feeling they overestimate just how much people would actually want that and benefit from it over the Lego set.
I myself don't want a real Atari, or a real Pac-Man machine, because I didn't grow up in those eras and realistically I don't think I'd actually use them much. Similarly, I'm not a photography enthusiast, so I don't see myself wanting a real Polaroid camera either. But here's the thing: I still think all of those objects are cool for their legacy and their novelty alone. And since I like Lego, I'd rather invest in a fun Lego build that celebrates those aspects instead.
@MisterP said:
"Am I the only one thinking that Lego is going too far with this common object replicas? I mean why? for the same amount of money you can actually buy a real polaroid camera. It works and you can display it as well."
To answer your 'why?': sets like this are probably aimed at adult recipient of gifts. This is a good 'gateway drug' for adults who either forgot about lego or never played with it. For people who are not interested in lego like we here on brickset are, sets like this are often mind blowing since they so close to real life objects. Lego is playing a longterm game here. Many adults would not get a city or friends or dreamzzz sets for their adult family or friends. But replicas of real life objects are 'neutral', there's no shame in buying them in this adult mind state.
Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither.
I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these.
One more negative:Those green studs visible from the side. Sure, I am aware that the average adults wouldn't be able to build this if it didn't have at least 50 different colors inside, but why do we still have to see that from the outside?
And with the stickers that would make 6(!) negatives against two positives. And yet somehow I still quite like it. Just have to wait for that inevitable 40% discount....
It's just a shame Lego insists on skimping on quality while asking increasingly ridiculous prices.
@Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego.
@Huw Does it look like the ejection feature could damage the cards after a few goes, or are they pretty sturdy?
@ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better.
Of all forums I would think that everyone here would understand the allure of "everyday objects but in Lego" even if it isn't for you...yet here we are...again. I'm into photography but not Polaroid photography so this isn't for me but I can imagine it being a big hit for those that are. Seems a bit more expensive than I expected but I suppose that could be attributed to the license.
Looks great apart from the lime green plates that are clearly visible on the viewfinder side.
As for the 6x6 printed tile - it looks like it's matte as usual? I wonder as I just read on New Elementary that the 8x16 tile has been updated from matte to glossy, hopefully the 6x6 will be too as all other tiles are indeed glossy.
As someone who is into LEGO and photography, this is right up my alley. If the price had been more fair I'd have certainly bought it day 1 but now I'll wait and see if a discount comes along.
My only major critique is that the silver ring around the lens is missing. Should've been done as a print.
Let me guess: a real Polaroid camera is less expensive than the LEGO version? It was the same thing with the Foosball table and Pac-Man.
@Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
But this set got 10K votes so by your reasoning was clearly wanted.
And are you saying that every Ideas set that reaches 10K votes should be produced?
@AHYL88 said:
"The critique of sets based on real objects, while it is repeated a ton, it is still valid however..."
It's not valid...it's [the royal] you stating a personal opinion. I could say the same for the Friends theme or Harry Potter or whatever else: that there is no value in the theme or a specific set solely because I don't want it. That doesn't make my opinion valid beyond my personal choice not to buy it. That's why the argument is so tiresome.
@CDM said:
"Of all forums I would think that everyone here would understand the allure of "everyday objects but in Lego" even if it isn't for you...yet here we are...again."
This is just my personal experience, but honestly, I do find it interesting that out of all the Lego-centric circles I'm a part of, this site is one of the only ones where the very existence of these types of sets is so frequently brought into question and hotly debated to the point where it overshadows the set's own merits (even though I admit I'm guilty of contributing to this).
On all the other platforms where I see these sets talked about, like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, this topic rarely ever comes up. The reception is mostly either positive, or critical of the set itself or other aspects like the price.
Again, this is just my experience and I could be missing a large swath of people online who are debating this too. But it's so weird to me that here of all places is where the "Lego vs. real" debate comes up the most. I guess it's just an example of the most passionate fans of something being the most critical? I'm genuinely curious.
In keeping with the theme of nostalgia, I request a Lego set of the Brickset comments section back when people used to talk about anything except how offended they are at the mere existence of a set.
@AHYL88 said:
"I've said this before about the 10323 PAC MAN Arcade set but it bears repeating here: using the excuse of "the build experience" for every set people blindly like also becomes a copout reason. And it's especially reckless to not take a step back and properly think about it and debate if it's worth shelling so much on a set in the first place."
Why buy any Lego set then? They should come glued together out the box, by this reasoning.
How silly I feel after reading all of the comments so far.
If LEGO released a "Light Saber" that didn't even "light", I would still buy it
because I love "Light Sabers" & I want one.
I love this, but it will never make it near the top of the wishlist without a serious discount.
@Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
And you are, of course, The Customer and your word is final.
While they aren't flawless, TLG aren't stupid. They wouldn't make a set that people aren't interested in. I'm surprised that you're you're surprised that they would continue making novelty sets. A company who sells things, and is successful, would continue to sell those things. The fact that we've seen so many of the "novelty" sets and they continue to come out...do you think they would do that if all of these sold poorly?
@chrisaw said:
" @Huw Does it look like the ejection feature could damage the cards after a few goes, or are they pretty sturdy?"
Unlikely -- the cards appear to be very robust.
@AHYL88 said:
"For those who love this, that's fair enough, but don't forget that a Lego model of the real object is not the end all be all of things.
The critique of sets based on real objects, while it is repeated a ton, it is still valid however; you have to question if it is really worth it as it's simply going to be just a display model for the most part, which can also be done with the real objects as well anyway, but those can at least do the things they're made to do.
I've said this before about the 10323 PAC MAN Arcade set but it bears repeating here: using the excuse of "the build experience" for every set people blindly like also becomes a copout reason. And it's especially reckless to not take a step back and properly think about it and debate if it's worth shelling so much on a set in the first place."
Is it still valid? Often that critique is made as if you can only have the object on the shelf. I'd argue that almost every single one of the "novelty" sets has the same playability as any other set. How is swooshing a spaceship around or moving minifigs to make battles any different from holding this up to take photos? Or mimicking on the "playable" piano? Let's not act like minifigs are the only things that give playability
I'm not positive what you're saying in the second paragraph, but it seems like you're saying that the build experience should be excluded from (or discounted in) reviews. Build experience IS the set. How the final product looks is important, but you don't get to the final product without experiencing the build. A beautiful-looking set after a boring or excruciating build is much less beautiful. And a less-than-beautiful set after an awesome build will absolutely feel cooler. The idea that we would exclude the building experience when reviewing a building toy is...
I already have 6392343, this and 31147 are on my wanted list... I'll have to resist the temptation to get 43230.
@TheOtherMike said:
"I already have 6392343 , this and 31147 are on my wanted list... I'll have to resist the temptation to get 43230 ."
Man... old style cameras must be REALLY in vogue right now. I won't count the animation camera but that still makes 3 'vintage' cameras in a row, which is still wild!
I suppose it's better than yet another car or something.
BOOOOORING
even as someone who is also kinda tired of "common object but it's lego now", i do want to say it's a little strange to blame it on lego when so many of them are ideas projects. lego wouldn't keep making these if people weren't voting for them and buying them
@TheOtherMike said:
"I already have 6392343, this and 31147 are on my wanted list... I'll have to resist the temptation to get 43230."
Yep. They know how to get us. Damn, those completionist desires! I think a Lego fanatic feels compulsion to completionism more than FOMO.
I splurged on 6471612 : Buildable Cassette Player. Of course, I also have a bunch of the other 'retro' sets. Am I filling my house with Lego renditions of useless junk? Yes, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
@yellowcastle said:
"Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither."
I’ll grant you a lack of instant gratification, but coolness? How did you determine that?
@StyleCounselor: I've mentioned my retro tech shelf with 10306, 71374, and 6392343 before. 6471612 is also built and ready to be moved to that shelf. 21327 is on the shelf above it.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @StyleCounselor: I've mentioned my retro tech shelf with 10306, 71374, and 6392343 before. 6471612 is also built and ready to be moved to that shelf. 21327 is on the shelf above it."
Nice! That undoubtedly looks cool.
Yes, I also have those, and the NES as well. Pac-Man will undoubtedly join the crew at some point. Sigh...
@Blondie_Wan said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither."
I’ll grant you a lack of instant gratification, but coolness? How did you determine that?"
Anyone who had a Polaroid back then was the envy of my neighborhood. Was that not the case elsewhere?
@yellowcastle said:
" @Blondie_Wan said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither."
I’ll grant you a lack of instant gratification, but coolness? How did you determine that?"
Anyone who had a Polaroid back then was the envy of my neighborhood. Was that not the case elsewhere?"
You're missing the point.
I enjoy many of these ‘realistic’ sets. I have the NES and PAC-MAN cabinet and those were amazing to build and display. I plan to get this camera as well. LEGO is one of my main hobbies and I love it because building sets is a lot of fun (Isn’t this why many of us are into this hobby?) and then having something nice to display after that has a lot of value to me. So in that sense getting a LEGO version is always going to be more enticing to me over purchasing the real life equivalent. I am not interested in the actual use of the real world item anymore, but to see them actually be recreated in LEGO form and to build it yourself is incredible. I am happy to support these types of products as I believe many others do as well.
That's really cool that one of the pictures is of his sister! I would probably do something similar with one of my siblings if I had the opportunity. As for the set, it looks like a good Lego model. I have no interest in it, but I appreciate the build and especially the brick-built striping.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @Blondie_Wan said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither."
I’ll grant you a lack of instant gratification, but coolness? How did you determine that?"
Anyone who had a Polaroid back then was the envy of my neighborhood. Was that not the case elsewhere?"
You're missing the point."
I think that rather neatly sums up a lot of posts in this thread.
@Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
Shirley the Customer is not always right. Shirley makes mistakes, just like the rest of us.
@Ridgeheart said:
" @Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
Shirley the Customer is not always right. Shirley makes mistakes, just like the rest of us."
I don't make mistakes. And stop calling me Shirley!
It is a shame they printed the tiles for the film/picture box, but not those for the actual camera. I might buy when it hits 50% off or if the prints are available on PAB but at full RRP the price is terrible.
@CCC said:
"It is a shame they printed the tiles for the film/picture box, but not those for the actual camera."
If only it would have been the other way around, would have made so much more sense...
I bet many people will only display the camera, and that box is gonna disappear somewhere. Not much lost if those had been stickers. The camera is the centerpiece of the set, so that should have been "Only the best".
@WizardOfOss said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
Shirley the Customer is not always right. Shirley makes mistakes, just like the rest of us."
I don't make mistakes. And stop calling me Shirley!"
You beat me to it. Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
@Monty said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Monty said:
"I agree on the everyday objects in Lego, like the ones mentioned, are a waste of time - especially if you are too young to have owned or used the original. And if you are old enough and have the real thing, why would you want a Lego model of one that actually does not do what the original does/did?
Yes they may be a clever novelty, but I can't believe Lego think people (Lego AFOLs as no child is going to buy this) would rather have these than numerous much better Ideas entrys that keep missing out. E.g. I would much prefer to have and would buy Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others Ideas entrys that don't get picked time and time again. It's a bit disappointing really. Enough of these."
Fair enough. I'm sure you know better than Lego."
Surely the Customer is always right, and surely that's who they're making it for - all the other sets were clearly wanted by the people/potential customers who voted for them. I'm just surprised they think the "novelty" sets of everyday objects are more likely to sell better."
"The customer is always right" means that you know what *you* want better than the wage slave on the sales floor, not that you know what *everyone* wants better than the entire company.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @Blondie_Wan said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"Ironic that a product built to provide immediate gratification and coolness turns into a set that provides neither."
I’ll grant you a lack of instant gratification, but coolness? How did you determine that?"
Anyone who had a Polaroid back then was the envy of my neighborhood. Was that not the case elsewhere?"
You're missing the point." It would appear so.
Wonderful review!
From the back, it really looks a lot like 75336...
If you don't mind me asking, is there a new 5x5 cylinder/round brick used there as objective/lenses? No one seems to ask about it and I don't recognise the part.
As I remember the original, the lens really did look black and shiny rather than transparent with black behind it. Also, using a transparent Lego piece with black behind it wouldn't look much like the thick piece of curved glass in the real thing--anti-studs and molding marks would be glaringly obvious IMO. I'm very pleased with the apparance of the Lego model, and thrilled with all the internal details that are included--not to mention the ejecting photograph, which was the exciting part of using this camera!
I'm not so pleased about the price, but I don't intend to quibble. Maybe this isn't a first day purchase for me, but certainly I'll bite sometime in the next few months!
@ @yellowcastle: @Blondie_Wan 's point was that both the original camera and the Lego version are cool.
I was yesterday in a licensed LEGO store, and in a half an hour two people by phone and three ones in person asked for the Polaroid Camera to buy it as Xmas gift
I think that it will be a best seller as soon as it would be on the shelves
@TheOtherMike said:
"@ @yellowcastle: @Blondie_Wan 's point was that both the original camera and the Lego version are cool." Gotcha. Clearly missed the florist for the trees. ;o)
To the idea of “why try to rebuild everyday objects in LEGO?” I can only say this…
…why the heck not? :)
Dangit! I got this real polaroid camera that I'm tired of displaying now but can't rebuild it into a cool spaceship or some other fun thing. Wish it was made out of Lego bricks...
For the green plates visible on the side in the gap - the sloped studs panel is on a clip so if you pivot it downwards it hides the green 100% :)
I wonder if it'll have a sticker on the box saying,
'As featured on the Christmas Day Dr. Who'!
Another pointless set.
What happened to the days of ideas sets actually making something good instead of versions of everyday mundane household objects?
That said, I'm sure some folks go crazy for this sort of thing and for me it's money saved to spend on other collections :)
Its nice but expensive. I'll be buying the 3 in 1 camera instead. Odd that they bring out 2 cameras as the same time when they'd been none before. Its almost as if they actually want a sales battle on the 2 items. Yes, I realise one is functional etc... but still, the timings odd.
I’m always surprised by the distain shown on here towards the everyday objects. One of the best parts of a build for me is understand how they have approached something. The point is that to create a realistic looking every day object in Lego - especially one with some kind of representative functionality - is an amazing mix of creativity and engineering. Building and witnessing that creativity and engineering, then seeing something so realistic at the end is brilliant.
It could also be argued that most sets, bar any of the sci fi or whimsical ones, are based around every day objects. Cars, houses, boats, castles, diggers… the Titanic. All real.
A theory is that it depends on whether you prefer fiction/fantasy books or non-fiction books. My sister loves the first and would be into Harry Potter etc. I personally adore the Ideas sets, and don’t like fantasy or fiction. I would 1000% buy this over anything Marvel or Star Wars for example, but I appreciate that many people love those sets even if I know they don’t appeal to me. The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang does look quite cool to be honest - but I imagine there are some heavy licensing issues with that.
Different kinds of people are AFOLS and just because it’s not you doesn’t mean you need to sh*t on other people’s passions : ) takes all different sorts to make the world go round! I wouldn’t comment my opinion on the Star Wars sets because I don’t need to. If you don’t like it, move on to one of the other thousands of sets! But I assure you there is a strong AFOL market for these sets and your dislike doesn’t make that passion any less valid.
The price on the other hand… that is all of Lego, it makes it inaccessible to many hence I only ever buy second hand. So looking forward to when this appears on the second hand market a few years down the line.
Based on the Members poll only 16% said they would by this.