The only thing which I find objectionable about Lomo in its current form (not the original FSU manufacturer) is that they are exploiting the ignorance of some newbies to the film photography scene who don't realise that many of the products sold by Lomo are not unique to Lomo and can usually be purchased elsewhere at a much lower price, e.g. Holga, Horizon. However I do applaud the fact that they are helping to promote the use and longevity of film.
I object to Vanbar for the same reason.
Originally Posted by wotalegend
Someone mentioned Lens Baby's. Ugh. Head explodes. Paying ridiculous amounts for Holgas and Dianas and Lubitels and [insert name of gawdawful plastic-lensed and -bodied cameras here] is comparable to the fashionista lemmings who pay $150US for jeans that are ripped up and shredded. Fools. Money. Parted. Boggles my mind (but that might not be hard to do).
Can't disagree with that.
Originally Posted by tomalophicon
Not just Vanbar: all retailers in Oz.
I just bought a Lubitel+ from Lomo and didn't receive and use it yet. That will be next week.
BUT it'll be my "cheap" backdoor entrance into MF, besides my "MF toys" Agfa IsolaI and IsolaII.
I investigated KEH/FFordes for 2nd hand "high Q" TLR's, they reach the same price levels (some300€/$) shipping incl to europe and they are old , (mis?)used machines even if Ex++++ applies to them acc. to their sellers, I just don't trust them.
Lomo plays the same unique roll as the Imp Project, keeping analog alive in a snobbist,hipster seeking way, but hey they DO it while some other firms Kodak&Fuji included just run away from analog like cats in the rain. So I support them just like I support Ilford buying 80% of my film supplies from them.
How can we keep the analog film business alive when we don't want to invest in it? It's all about profit in the end. Either with hipster talk or with tech talk like Nikon and Canon shoot away in the adverts.
So in favor:
-The Lubitel+ is 3 cameras: 6*6/6*4,5/135
-Not comparable in versitality to the old USSR stock; my daughter has one Lubitel2 so I could "test" it and conclusion was: i want the Lubi+ ...
-the cheapest NEW MF camera, with waranty
-will be more prone to defects maybe...
-slow and difficult focussing although improved they claim with the Lubi+ 100%viewfinder
I'll keep you posted on my experiences in the next weeks. Keep up the film use rate in the mean time, wether using a 1000$ or a 10$ camera in "style".
Give me some more E6 film…
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Always seemed more about fashion statements than photography. Ironically, most 20-something film photographers I know are truly broke(with hard-won good old gear)compared to affluent Lomography store clients.
Originally Posted by rhmimac
I don't see anything wrong in product placement for a certain crowd who want to spent the money on an simple analog machine which takes them into the analog world, -again- , or as a newbe.
Compared to other even more idiotic self-destroying d/g/t/l product placement with the "pro-style here,professional-style there" slogans nowadays, I prefer more to be assimilated with the analog Lomo crowd than with the "look at this guys my newest PC/video/it-can-do-it-all machine" crowd. No real pun intended here.
Fashion is likely the most misunderstood word in the world as for me it only describes the direction in which the big crowd is "pushed" by let's call them hipsters, but you're free to go along or not. Happy me.
"Herd of independent minds" sums it up for me.
Originally Posted by rhmimac
I bought one of the original Russian Zenit Lomo 35mm cameras in the 1980s and it went wrong and had to be returned for a replacement. I bought one of the last communist era Lomos in the 1990s but have never had more than the occasional correctly exposed neg out of the thing. I'm currently operating it off external batteries, patched into its battery compartment, which does seem to make the aperture-cum-shutter work better than off internal button batteries. I paid about 30 UK pounds for my 3 Lomos, which is exactly what they're worth. In the end, what you get is an exceedingly tiny full frame 35mm camera and a unique "bad" lens - a crude meniscus, only made out of decent optical glass. Funky?? Don't think so... Reliability? Not a consideration of the Leningrad factory.
I (perhaps stupidly) bought an old Zeiss folder (for $32) that had been promoted as a "Lomography" camera by the eBay seller. Here's his description:
"ZEISS IKON with NOVAR ANASTIGMAT 1:6.3 F=105CM lens vario shutter. This camera is in nice condition. It is probally 80 years old. Shutter fires at all speeds, and lens focus, and apperature work fine. This takes pictures that look 80 years old. Not very sharp pictures, and maybe better for Lomography."
Well, the reason for the "not very sharp pictures" is quite a few problems with shutter speeds and focus that actually could be repaired. But the seller chose to promote the value for Lomography rather than fix or admit problems.
If Lomography is about results using badly adjusted cameras, I don't want any part of it.