Camera #1: + 2 lighten.  Focus accuracy was the furthest off with this camera.  At a measured distance of 3', sharpest focus in the focus test was actually at a distance of nearly 4'.  However, after several focus settings, I actually achieved best focuse at a distance of 2' 6".  See Enlargement
Camera #2: + 2 lighten.  A measured 3' actually focused the sharpest at a distance of about 3' 6".  However, after several focus settings, I actually achieved best focuse at a distance of 2' 8".  See Enlargement
Camera #3: + 1 lighten.  Close focus was dead on with this camera.  See Enlargement
Camera #4: + 1 lighten.  Close focus was on with this camera.  See Enlargement
Camera #5: 1/30 sec-f8-ISO 800.  See Enlargement
Camera #6: 1/30 sec-f8-ISO 800.  The control sample.  Same exposure as used with the Polaroid 110a.  See Enlargement

 

Camera #1: + 1 darken.  Focused at 6'.  See Enlargement
Camera #2: + 1 darken.  Focused at 9'.  See Enlargement
Camera #3: Exposure nominal.  Focused on wall.  See Enlargement
Camera #4: Exposure nominal.  Focused on wall.  See Enlargement
Camera #5: 1/300 sec-f5.6-ISO 800.  See Enlargement
Camera #6: 1/300 sec-f5.6-ISO 800.  The control sample.  Same exposure as used with the Polaroid 110a.  See Enlargement

 

Camera #1: Exposure nominal.  I focused about 20' in front of the garage door.  See Enlargement
Camera #2: Exposure nominal.  I focused about 20' in front of the garage door.  See Enlargement
Camera #3: Exposure nominal.  See Enlargement
Camera #4: Exposure nominal.  See Enlargement
Camera #5: 1/300 sec-f8-ISO 800.  See Enlargement
Camera #6: 1/300 sec-f8-ISO 800.  The control sample.  Same exposure as used with the Polaroid 110a.  See Enlargement

 

Conclusions
I was surprised at the results for several reasons.  I have always been a fan of the SX-70, and still am, but I am now a lot more critical of the system than before.  Here are my opinions after completion of all tests, even those not presented above:

I had hoped that there would be a clear difference in image sharpness between the untouched camera, and the "refurbished" cameras.  There was not.  While conducting these tests, I did the tests with some of my other SX-70 cameras.  I am now convinced that while no SX-70 camera produces sharp images, some SX-70 cameras are much sharper than others.  I could not find that "refurbishing" helped in making the images sharper.  Look at a film pack with the dark slide removed, and the actual film is exposed in the pack.  Like it would be when being exposed in the camera.  Now look at that film from a low angle, so you are seeing accross the film.  It does not look very flat to me!  I think this is another reason the focus seems to be a changing occurance.

As a general statement, it seemed to me that the Polaroid Originals SX-70 Color film had better color rendition than the Polaroid Originals film in 600.  The 600 film seemed to be more likely to be tinted in anything less than ideal lighting conditions.

If your SX-70 is a known correctly functioning camera, always first suspect the film as the cause of issues, before blaming the camera.

Update 06/11/19---  Remember that subsequent batches of Polaroid Originals film continues to get better.  So as time goes on, these specific results will not be valid.  The issues involved however, will remain..................

If you are going to just play with an SX-70 camera, do so with an inexpensive example.  Then if you wish to go further you can.  To me, just putting a couple of packs of film through the camera a year, is playing.

On the other hand if you will be using your SX-70 regularly, get it refurbished!  That is unless you are not bothered that your SX-70 will stop working at any moment.  If smooth operation is not important.  Refurbish an SX-70 camera for these benefits, not because you believe it will produce better images!  As anyone should expect, the un-refurbished camera was not fully reliable.  I have had many unrefurbished SX-70 cameras and have yet to find a single one that I would consider reliable.  Maybe I am just getting to that age, but my time is too valuable to spend in the field with a 40 year old camera that has not been thoroughly cleaned, lubed, & adjusted.

If you want to be able to manually adjust settings, the Mint SLR670s is the choice.  It opens many possibilities.  Those possibilities come with a hefty financial cost.

At this point I am unable to really see a reliability difference between the 2nd Shot and the Mint refurbished cameras.  The 2nd Shot refurbished are great little cameras!  I have had several over 3 or 4 years, and all have functioned well.  I do have to say that the Mint camera was the only refurbish I have every had that really feels like I received a brand new camera!.  Buttery smooth.  No mars or marks what-so-ever.  If you want to feel like you actually have a new camera, this is the one.  Not trying to minimize the 2nd Shot at all.  They are tremendous cameras!  In reality, for most people I think the 2nd Shot is the way to go for a refurbished camera.  One is paying a lot of money for the difference between 2nd Shot and Mint.  But for the person who has to have only the best of the best, Mint is it.  Many have probably noticed that I had no camera from Polaroid Originals in the mix.  That is because I have never had an SX-70 from Polaroid Originals.  Not to discount them however, do have a refurbished Spectra from Polaroid Originals.  It is a very pretty camera, and has functioned perfectly.  So, if it is a good representation of their services, I have no complaints.

I know that there are those out there that have or will receive a lemon from any of these companies.  It happens.  No matter how careful these companies are, lemons are going to slip through.  Remember that they are dealing with a 40 year old piece of equipment.  On cameras that old, something can always break.  All come with a warranty.  I think that you will find these companies are responsive.  They want to stay in business.  But also remember that they are small businesses.  Turn-a-round is not quick.

I can envision a persons conclusions to which is the best course of action changing over time.  All depending upon what's important to them at that moment.

 2 of the 4 cameras had excellent focusing.  The 2nd Shot Sonar model, and the Mint SLR670s.  I believe it is not possible to have an SX-70 that will focus accurately on every shot.  I was not sure of the reason.  Is focusing with the SX-70 system just inaccurate?  Can it be adjusted?  Some of these questions were answered for me based upon responses I had with Matt Widmann, owner of 2nd Shot.  Matt addressed several issues I had observed during the testing.  Here are the highlights of his feelings about these issues:

<  The numeric distance scales applied to some SX-70 lenses are aluminum "stickers" that weren't positioned 100% accurately.

<  Non-Sonar models rarely lineup (Distance Marks) properly with what is seen in the viewfinder, the infinity mark is usually off a few gear teeth.  Because of this, it's best to judge focus by using the split-circle assist seen in the viewfinder.

<  Sonar models did rely on lens distance scale accuracy since they are collimated differently than non-sonar models.  The lens is synced with the sonar encoder gear at exactly 8 feet.  Each lens barrel was marked with a notch at the 8' mark before the distance scale was applied.

<  The inner and outer lens elements on the SX70 are all solvent welded in their housings & collimation is simply done by adjusting for infinity.  I (Matt Widmann) fully collimate all lenses after the shutter is reassembled using the repair manual procedure.  After collimation, finding infinity should be as easy as simply moving the focus wheel to where the lens barrel bottoms out on the inner lens element.

<  Sonar models are collimated by syncing the lens distance in relation to the autofocus encoder wheel position. (BTV: I assume this means that you cannot use the above “moving the focus wheel to where the lens barrel bottoms out on the inner lens element” to manually achieve infinity on such cameras?)

<   There's a lot more to it (focusing accuracy) than simply reflecting the image off a mirror.  It's a complex circuit of reflections, magnification, and filtering.  If any of the components are damaged or misaligned, all sorts of problems can occur with visibility through the viewfinder.  There's so many variables that can cause focus problems including film quality.  However, once that mirror flips up, the optical path is just a simple reflection off of a taking mirror onto the print. The Fresnel screen is opposite the taking mirror so if your subject is in focus in the viewfinder, it should be in focus on the print.

<  All SLR SX-70 cameras manufactured from 1977 on had autofocus. So manual focus (all non-sonar models) was only available for five years, while autofocus was available up until the SLR680 era (About 10+ years).  Kinda says something about ease of use, right?  The Sonar models get looked down on.  Mostly because maybe one in every four don't work properly due to a failed optosensors.  It also gets a lot of criticism because of the bulky "cathedral window" look.  The sonar model workings are 100% identical to an Alpha 1.

<  Most buyers are looking for the classic chrome/tan combo look.  People need to understand there is a HUGE difference between an Alpha 1 and a Model 1.  Those two models are often misidentified.

For me, these explainations from Matt place the problems encountered into a different perspective.  In an article from Popular Photography magazine from the time when the SX-70 first appeared, further light is shed on the design oddities of the SX-70.  That article can be found here.  Factor in that the film hardly lays repeatedly flat at time of exposure, and one wonders how any of the images are sharp at all.

I find that for myself, I primarily use Black & White film in my SX-70's.  To me it just gives a better feel, and eliminates the distraction of flat or tinted colors.

In conclusion.  You must expect and accept that not evey image is going to be sharp.  If money was not a limiting factor, the Mint SLR670s is a wonder.  The ability to manually change settings is awesome.  But if you refuse to spend nearly twice the money, shoot the camera occasionally, or in bursts, the 2nd Shot refurbished cameras will be more than fine, thank you very much.  I personally will not shoot a non-refurbished version of the SX-70.  The film is too expensive to waste on malfunctions.  The film itself provides enough of those, you do not need additional incidents because of a dirty, 40 year of camera.*****

Footnotes--
*****I do not have any affiliation with, received any money from, or received a reduced cost for any of these cameras.  I am a consumer, just like you.  I wanted these questions answered for my own satisfaction and thought I would provide others with the benefit (If any) from my observations.

Epilogue:
Many will conclude that spending several hundred dollars on an SX-70 camera and then having the cost of film is a waste of money.  They may be right.  But then again, who needs a Ferrari?  I personally would rather drive a Ferrari with cheap petrol, than a Yugo with high-octane petrol.  After all, the most sensible answer would be to just take photos with your camera phone....

Copyright: Bruce Varner 1972-2021

Back to SX-70 Camera Comparisons Page 1