Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Polaroid & Fuji Instax

Polaroid & Fuji Instax All things Polaroid and Fuji Instax

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-09-2014   #41
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
ridiculous...there are so many better options at that price point.
Could you name a couple?

I'm pretty set on a GF670 for a 'normal' lens, but for wide, I can't find much. Does not need to be as small as the Lomo, but I want easy handheld, not an SLR or TLR.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2014   #42
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Could you name a couple?

I'm pretty set on a GF670 for a 'normal' lens, but for wide, I can't find much. Does not need to be as small as the Lomo, but I want easy handheld, not an SLR or TLR.
If you want a medium format point-n-shoot, the Fuji GA645 series cameras are what you want. Used ones cost about what the lomo does, but give FAR, FAR better image quality. They're autofocus, autoexposure point-n-shoot cameras, though you can switch them to manual.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2014   #43
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
If you want a medium format point-n-shoot, the Fuji GA645 series cameras are what you want. Used ones cost about what the lomo does, but give FAR, FAR better image quality. They're autofocus, autoexposure point-n-shoot cameras, though you can switch them to manual.
Hi Chris,
Yes, I very much like the look of the zoom one, although, generally, I'd prefer not so much electronics, and I'm not sure I want 6x4.5 either. They do look excellent though.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2014   #44
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,634
just do an ebay completed items search and set the maximum price to $450, let's say.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2014   #45
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
just do an ebay completed items search and set the maximum price to $450, let's say.
I'll buy any number of the SWC they have at $450. Is there any?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #46
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeturnum View Post
For all those throwing stones, show me the medium format camera that's the size of 1.5 x100's stacked on top of each other, does fully automatic exposures, and only costs $430 (new!).

A 40mm f/4 Distagon will run you $430 alone, without buying the meter or the camera body or the film back. I don't want to buy the camera one bit but I'm not going to complain about the package. It's more than the sum of its parts. Cheaper too.
Dare you compare a GF670 to that Lomography crap? In any way, quality wise, size wise, functionality wise, durability, take a pick!
It has a build in light meter, far more accurate than the one LCA 120 has.
It does not need a back.
It has a lens of far better quality (and character)
It is not a zone focus one. Have you ever tried zone focusing in 35mm? How many times have you failed focusing properly? What makes you thing that zone focusing in the shallowness of the medium format would be cool?
Have in mind that missing a frame or two in 35mm is not big deal, but in 120 missing one means a lot.
You're must be kidding, or know nothing of what else one can buy for $430 or even less.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #47
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
1. Failing at zone focussing a 25-20mm lens is really hard to do, even the best AF can be wrong btw. The Hassy Superwide allows you to mount a ground glass back but then you can't shoot. The normal finder is a classic viewfinder sans distance calculating or rangefinder help and it costs several hundred to thousands dollar more.

2.Regarding the build quality sorry guys but if you buy an old Folder severals things can be off not only the lens but also the focussing mechanism, the bellows, the standart, etc...

3.The lens of the LC-A well the examples of pictures I've seen so far range from crappy to good some seem to have heavy vignetting I guess wide open+ flash and some have no vignetting at all. There are also plenty of people who like vignetting.

4. The price well it is expensive, but it is also the only super wide angle camera in this price class all others are either much more expensive or not 6x6 but 6x4.5. If you like square you can get the Fuji/Voigtländer or a Mamiya 6 both are much much much more expensive.

5. It's a new analogue photoproduct rejoice instead of diss

6. I won't buy it but can imagine that plenty of people will.

7. Nikos have tried the camera yet or are you just assuming because the AE of the LCA might just be good or even as good as the GF670, on the build quality you are probably right allthough at the beginning there were plenty of QC issues with the 670 and if anything the LCA should be compared with th GF670W. Also the lens of the LCA is much wider than the GF670W's. So basically you are right they shouldn't be compared the only camera that directly compares to the LCA is the Hasselbald SWC which is no doubt much better but lacks an exposure system and costs several thousand $ more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #48
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Went through sample pictures once more. Slap me if you want but I can't like heavy vignetting for this price. For eur20 I wouldn't blink.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #49
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
1. Failing at zone focussing a 25-20mm lens is really hard to do, even the best AF can be wrong btw. The Hassy Superwide allows you to mount a ground glass back but then you can't shoot. The normal finder is a classic viewfinder sans distance calculating or rangefinder help and it costs several hundred to thousands dollar more.
Have you ever tried a wide lens missfocused in medium format? Do you believe that just because its lens is wider it will work the same way as wide lenses in 35mm?
Well, I have the 35mm f/3.5 Sekor on my Mamiya 645 and it is not hard to focus as you say. When I do focus incorrectly in close ranges it is quite obvious even at f/8.
As for the AF, I do not own a medium format AF camera with such a wide lens, but my Nikon F100 with the ultra wides of mine has never misfocused.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
2.Regarding the build quality sorry guys but if you buy an old Folder severals things can be off not only the lens but also the focussing mechanism, the bellows, the standart, etc...
The point is that there are quite many of a way higher quality than that of the LC-A 120.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
3.The lens of the LC-A well the examples of pictures I've seen so far range from crappy to good some seem to have heavy vignetting I guess wide open+ flash and some have no vignetting at all. There are also plenty of people who like vignetting.
You have to admit though that it is a very expensive vignetting to like it that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
4. The price well it is expensive, but it is also the only super wide angle camera in this price class all others are either much more expensive or not 6x6 but 6x4.5. If you like square you can get the Fuji/Voigtländer or a Mamiya 6 both are much much much more expensive.
I am amazed of how much some are willing to pay for something of low quality just because of being super wide. It could be of course that I am wrong and $500 are too much for this just for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
7. Nikos have tried the camera yet or are you just assuming because the AE of the LCA might just be good or even as good as the GF670, on the build quality you are probably right allthough at the beginning there were plenty of QC issues with the 670 and if anything the LCA should be compared with th GF670W. Also the lens of the LCA is much wider than the GF670W's. So basically you are right they shouldn't be compared the only camera that directly compares to the LCA is the Hasselbald SWC which is no doubt much better but lacks an exposure system and costs several thousand $ more.
Don't expect matrix or spot metering on that camera. It will have the same filthy light meter of the classic LC-A with a new silicon cell. What do you really expect from a meter like that, that cannot be considered at least center weighted.
If all that matters to you is the field of view of your camera, and all you will ever need is that wideness of the LC-A, and you don't care of the quality of your photos, and you always let the camera decide on the exposure, then that camera might be more than enough for you.
But in that case, a 35mm tinny point and shoot is far better than a larger 120 (just 12 exposures per film) point and shoot camera (o.k. have zone focusing as a plus).
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #50
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Have you ever tried a wide lens missfocused in medium format? Do you believe that just because its lens is wider it will work the same way as wide lenses in 35mm?
Well, I have the 35mm f/3.5 Sekor on my Mamiya 645 and it is not hard to focus as you say. When I do focus incorrectly in close ranges it is quite obvious even at f/8.
As for the AF, I do not own a medium format AF camera with such a wide lens, but my Nikon F100 with the ultra wides of mine has never misfocused.


The point is that there are quite many of a way higher quality than that of the LC-A 120.



You have to admit though that it is a very expensive vignetting to like it that much.



I am amazed of how much some are willing to pay for something of low quality just because of being super wide. It could be of course that I am wrong and $500 are too much for this just for me.



Don't expect matrix or spot metering on that camera. It will have the same filthy light meter of the classic LC-A with a new silicon cell. What do you really expect from a meter like that, that cannot be considered at least center weighted.
If all that matters to you is the field of view of your camera, and all you will ever need is that wideness of the LC-A, and you don't care of the quality of your photos, and you always let the camera decide on the exposure, then that camera might be more than enough for you.
But in that case, a 35mm tinny point and shoot is far better than a larger 120 (just 12 exposures per film) point and shoot camera (o.k. have zone focusing as a plus).
No it will act like a 38mm lens that it is, plenty of people are able to zone focus with that focal length or even a bit longer ones. Is it perfect no.
AF does and will mis-focus in some situation again this is not a 21mm lens but a 38mm lens. The Nikon F100 has one of the best AF systems and even this one sometimes fails very rarely though

I agree it is very expensive for what it is, but there is no cheaper alternative in 6x6

There is no older folder except 6x4.5 ones with a real wide angle lens they all have 75mm and upwards lenses. The Mamiya 6 is upward a 1000€ sans lens where I live

Thousands if not millions of photographs were made with primitive meters and were correctly exposed. Most handheld meters are rather primitive too no matrix metering etc....

A lot of pro photographers use autoexposure without any thought to manual exposure or any other manual settings (I personally prefer manual )

What is Quality in a photo?

As I've said I won't buy it, but I also won't diss it because it was made for Lomography.

I am sure it will make many people very happy and it does promote the sale of film and that's all I care about.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #51
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
There seem to be two arguments here:

#1 The camera is vastly overpriced and poorly made with a technically mediocre lens.

#2 There are no other options for 6x6 at this focal length, at this size, for this price.

These two statements are both true and don't contradict each other.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #52
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
There seem to be two arguments here:

#1 The camera is vastly overpriced and poorly made with a technically mediocre lens.

#2 There are no other options for 6x6 at this focal length, at this size, for this price.

These two statements are both true and don't contradict each other.
Very well put +1
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #53
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post

What is Quality in a photo?
At that price range sharpness without that much vigneting and perhaps some distinct character that could make that "super" wide lens somehow to stand out and justify the price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
There seem to be two arguments here:

#1 The camera is vastly overpriced and poorly made with a technically mediocre lens.

#2 There are no other options for 6x6 at this focal length, at this size, for this price.

These two statements are both true and don't contradict each other.
Very well put +1
Which means that it may be worth something only if you are desperate for something in 6x6 at this focal length, at this size, for this price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #54
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
just do an ebay completed items search and set the maximum price to $450, let's say.
I don't deny a great camera can be had for $450. I'm saying that a small, 6x6 camera with an ultrawide lens for $450 is a different matter.

I get that people think it's expensive for the build quality, and it is, but expensive for the capability? I don't think so, simple because it does not have any competition. Just to re-iterate, it's competition isn't 'medium format cameras' it's Small, Ultrawide, 6x6 cameras. Unless you're happy not having one of those things, it seems you'll pay more than $450.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #55
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
At that price range sharpness without that much vigneting and perhaps some distinct character that could make that "super" wide lens somehow to stand out and justify the price.



Which means that it may be worth something only if you are desperate for something in 6x6 at this focal length, at this size, for this price.
Vignetting is a distinct character or do you mean OOF character, it does exhibit some coma. The lens might be many thing but characterless isn't one of them

All color image examples I've seen are either cross processed or they used bad film to give them more of the Lomo Hipster like look. One can use a center filter like in the LF world to counter the vignetting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #56
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
 
Ezzie's Avatar
 
Ezzie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,709
Excuse me if someone has already commented on this, but it looks like a dog's breakfast. The LC-A's not a bad looking camera, the original CX2 even better, but taking the same formula and just stretching it height wise does the 120 no favours.

I do happen to like my cameras to look the part, as well as doing their part. Shallow person that I am.
__________________
Eirik

RF: Leica M4-2 | Royal 35-M | Polaroid 110A/600SE hybrid
VF: DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x17 | Voigtländer Vito CL | Foth Derby | Welta Weltix | Smena Symbol | Lomo'Instax
SLR: Canon EF | Pentacon SIX | Pentax SP1000 | Pentax SV
TLR: Rolleiflex 2.8E3 | DUO TLR
CSC: Fuji X-E1
Pinhole: 6x17 Vermeer | ONDU 6x6 | DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x24

My Flickr
Silver Halides - Pictures in B&W
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #57
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,703
There's a valid place for this new camera. The problem I've always had with classic plastic toy film cameras is limited exposure control, typically with two aperture settings and one fixed shutter speed, plus bulb.

As far as I know, the LC-A series are the only Lomo cameras with automatic exposure control, and even though it's automatic, it is far better than one shutter speed and two apertures on the others.

Given the cost of lab processing and printing color 120 film, this camera's cost could be justified merely by the shots you wouldn't ruin due to poor exposure.

As for the glass lens, I've been using the Holga GFN-120 for a while now. In the center of the image it's adequately sharp, while the vignetting is appealing to a certain style of documentary shooting that I employ. Definitely better than a plastic lens.

If I were in the market for a compact 120 street camera, this would be at the top of my list.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #58
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,284
The more I want to hate it, the more I catch myself thinking of what I can unload to buy it...

Maybe I'll catch the end of the first release and get myself an early Christmas gift Lomo says they won't ship until around the holiday season, perfect way to hide it from the girlfriend! I wonder if there is a gift reciept option?, I can imagine the hell Ide get if she saw the price! Shhh our little secret!

In all seriousness, I doubt there will be much to loose at the price.
Heck, even those old CCCP LC-A's are still fetching 100$, the newer LC-A+ Is going for nearly new prices used. I think there is some scrap of reason, that these will retain a fair amount of resale value.

Also, Lomo, we need a filter adapter, a Polaroid back, and a Krab housing before we admit your right!

Just my 2 cents!
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #59
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,634
come to think of it, the best alternative is an ipro with the wide angle lens, $50 + $85 respectively. and instagram is free.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #60
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
come to think of it, the best alternative is an ipro with the wide angle lens, $50 + $85 respectively. and instagram is free.
If you can show me how to load the Ipro with 120 Film I can see the Ipro as an alternative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #61
Andy Kibber
Registered User
 
Andy Kibber's Avatar
 
Andy Kibber is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 712
It's not really fair to expect a new camera to compete with used cameras on price.

I haven't used my LC-A in at least a year. Took it off the shelf and of course the shutter is stuck.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #62
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,634
i imagine you can get prints that look pretty much the same with your cameraphone. no film necessary, and so much better for social networking.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #63
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,015
Let's not make this thread into a film vs. digital war.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #64
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
Thank you jsrockit

The lens design is supposedly a 5 Elements in 4 group design like a Hologon if this is the case it would explain the vignetting as good as the Hologon design is it usually vignettes heavily to counter that one usually uses a center filter. Also Hologon are usually slower lenses f8 thereabouts. So stopping or shooting in bright light should improve the quality and let's not forget to use a center filter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-10-2014   #65
aeturnum
Registered User
 
aeturnum is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikos72 View Post
Dare you compare a GF670 to that Lomography crap? In any way, quality wise, size wise, functionality wise, durability, take a pick!
It has a build in light meter, far more accurate than the one LCA 120 has.
It does not need a back.
It has a lens of far better quality (and character)
It is not a zone focus one. Have you ever tried zone focusing in 35mm? How many times have you failed focusing properly? What makes you thing that zone focusing in the shallowness of the medium format would be cool?
Have in mind that missing a frame or two in 35mm is not big deal, but in 120 missing one means a lot.
You're must be kidding, or know nothing of what else one can buy for $430 or even less.
I did not mention the GF670. I also agree with all your points. The GF670 is also just over 4x the price of the LC-A new, which makes sense, since the GF670 is a better camera.

You can get a GF670 for ~$1000 on ebay, but I expect you'll be able to get LC-A for ~$250 on ebay in a few months, so the comparison stands.

Personally, I think the GF670W is a better comparison (as it's closer to the 38mm focal length), but it's more expensive and less compact, so I suppose it's even further.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-11-2014   #66
jjtelecaster
Registered User
 
jjtelecaster is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 16
The Lomo LC-A is a sweet camera and able to make great pictures. It would be a piece of junk were it not made of plastic, but it's still a great tool.

Now, I haven't tried this one; I have the LC-A+ (and three russian LC-A) and it's well built -Lomo standards, that is-. Now I'm curious.

Juan
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2014   #67
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,015
The more I look at this, the more I think it could be fun to have a simple 6x6 camera with a 21mm equiv lens...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2014   #68
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
The more I look at this, the more I think it could be fun to have a simple 6x6 camera with a 21mm equiv lens...
heck yeah. i can't wait to take one for a spin
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2014   #69
csxcnj
Registered User
 
csxcnj's Avatar
 
csxcnj is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 63
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Kibber View Post
It's not really fair to expect a new camera to compete with used cameras on price.

I haven't used my LC-A in at least a year. Took it off the shelf and of course the shutter is stuck.
I have a CCCP LC-A whose shutter sticks when not used for a while. I GENTLY work the blades open with a fine flat head screwdriver several times and the shutter will work again as long as the camera is fired a few times a day. After its put up again for a while same thing.

I expect the shutter to just die at some point though. I do like the look of the photos the LC-A takes so I live with this. Every one of these I've owned and that a friend of mine has owned has eventually died.
__________________
Bob Smith...Someone should have warned me old cameras would be so addictive...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/high_green_and_clear/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2014   #70
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,015
Any info on a release date for this? I think I have a project it would be perfect for.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-15-2014   #71
rlouzan
Registered User
 
rlouzan's Avatar
 
rlouzan is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,504
Same here
Quote:
Originally Posted by csxcnj View Post
I have a CCCP LC-A whose shutter sticks when not used for a while. I GENTLY work the blades open with a fine flat head screwdriver several times and the shutter will work again as long as the camera is fired a few times a day. After its put up again for a while same thing.

I expect the shutter to just die at some point though. I do like the look of the photos the LC-A takes so I live with this. Every one of these I've owned and that a friend of mine has owned has eventually died.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2015   #72
jojonas
Registered User
 
jojonas's Avatar
 
jojonas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9
anyone preordered and got theirs? I heard they were gonna start shipping out last week
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2015   #73
dwojr
Registered User
 
dwojr is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 197
They are in stock at B&H right now. I'm very tempted to get one but have resisted so far...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2015   #74
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojonas View Post
anyone preordered and got theirs? I heard they were gonna start shipping out last week
A friend of mine got one some weeks ago (direct order from the Lomography online shop).
He was very disappointed. Bad build quality, horrible viewfinder.
He said the camera is absolutely overpriced.
He sent it back.
And he said that for a price of about 100€ it would be a fair deal, but not at the current price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-05-2015   #75
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,864
Reviving this thread seeing some of us have now used this camera.

Anyone apart from Colton and me having actual experience with it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #76
Nick De Marco
Registered User
 
Nick De Marco is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Reviving this thread seeing some of us have now used this camera.

Anyone apart from Colton and me having actual experience with it?
Yes. And I am learning to love it. Here is my first review: http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspo...st-review.html

and a few pics: -

3 by Nick De Marco, on Flickr

6 by Nick De Marco, on Flickr

8 by Nick De Marco, on Flickr

13 by Nick De Marco, on Flickr

Since taking these photos, and making the review on my blog, I have picked up and started scanning negatives form my recent trip to Amsterdam. Very happy with some of the negatives - in fact blown away by the quality of some. Had some problems with film advance that's making scanning (due to uneven space between the negatives) far more annoying than usual - but I still love the camera. Will take it to Italy for new year....
__________________
Check out my new book:
http://www.blurb.co.uk/b/6811623-lomodam

And my blog, Rangefinder Chronciles:
http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #77
jojoman2
Registered User
 
jojoman2 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 289
I think it's hilarious that anyone would pay 400 dollars for a plastic camera. Buy a used one for 30 bucks and have the left over money to buy 100 rolls of film. Can anyone speak to the build quality of the old vs new? Is there any benefit to buying a new one?
__________________
kingofkodak.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #78
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojoman2 View Post
I think it's hilarious that anyone would pay 400 dollars for a plastic camera.
Well, it is a 21MM 6x6 camera... not many around.

Quote:
Buy a used one for 30 bucks and have the left over money to buy 100 rolls of film.
Where can you buy this camera for $30?

Quote:
Can anyone speak to the build quality of the old vs new? Is there any benefit to buying a new one?
What old one?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #79
jojoman2
Registered User
 
jojoman2 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 289
I'm talking about lc-a with a normal-wide lens, 35mm. Buy a holga if you want to shoot 6x6 with a plastic camera. You can get a rolleiflex automat for less than the price of a lomo 6x6 camera.

I will concede that a 6x6 21mm camera is pretty damn cool and right down my alley when it comes to gear I want. Still, the durability of lomo cameras is something I'm wary of.
__________________
kingofkodak.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2015   #80
jojoman2
Registered User
 
jojoman2 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 289
I looked into this camera a little more and I've reconsidered my opinion. I didn't realize that the fl was 38mm for 6x6, so in 35mm terms that's a pretty sweet 21mm. I definitely wouldn't mind having this camera if one came along at a decent price
__________________
kingofkodak.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:06.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.