i don't know
Originally Posted by kwall
lensbaby sells the equivalent of a imagon lens ... for way-less
sounds like a bargain to me !
I have a Folding Kodak Brownie that I paid $10 for on E-bay and I love it so I guess if you really like the camera it's worth it but at the prices they are charging for Holgas I really don't get it. When I was a kid cameras like that sold for $2 and they were overpriced at that.
As others have said, as long as they are buying film I'm alright with it.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
What about the first 5 here ?.
How do you distinguish between a scam and marketing?
You could say all the same things about the Seagull (Chinese) twin lens cameras.
Bought five of them from Freestyle back in the 90s for my students to play with for $30 each. They made decent pictures with real lenses, and controls but they broke quickly and I'll never forget the yellow Chinese sand in the bottom of one of the boxes when I opened it.
Check them out now for $150 or more.
"Scam" is more than a little harsh, sound like someone running to Dad to complain after buying a ten-dollar camera for a hundred dollars and only researching the purchase afterwards. The 90 dollars is "idiot tax".
For Lomography as a whole, important distinction is between:
- Lomography the brand;
- Lomography the fashion statement; and
- Lomography the photographic philisophy.
The first has become the second and lost sight of the third. Those that want the philosophy can use any camera that comes to hand, those that want the brand and/or to make a fashion statement.. .. well, a fool and his money are easily parted, and there's one born every minute.
Reminds me of a discussion of wabi sabi as applied to photography.. is it the equipment you use, the subject you choose, or just the state of mind when you press the shutter?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes, they are crazy expensive for what they are, but so is an Leica M7 compared to a Bessa R3A. They're functionally the same, but one cost 10 times what the other costs. Sure the Leica is better built, maybe a bit prettier, and that makes it worth maybe twice the price? 3 times? 4 times? 10 times?
The Lomo is the same, they are pricey for what they are, you could get a functional equivalent for 10% of the price. However, I would pay that premium because I like the camera, the results, and I'll admit it, I like the brand and the marketing. I'd buy a Leica too, for the same reasons.
Right on... same goes for why people buy uber luxury cars instead of a well loaded Ford or Buick. They both serve the same purpose and to some extent do so very well.
The value of a camera can't be determined by what it cost. It can only be determined by the images one makes with it.
A $100 lomo camera is a bargain, if you produce great images with it. Likewise, a $5 Leica is overpriced, if the images you make are junk.
Originally Posted by eddie
I guess all my cameras are worthless.
Originally Posted by eddie
I just can't see paying the inflated price for a Holga or a Diana. If I want to be really cool, I can take my Brownie Target Six-20 loaded with respooled 120 film and have at it. I get similar results when I use my Baby Speed or any of my Graflex SLR's. I get great results from all these cameras. None of these 2 1/4 cameras cost me over $100, the Brownie was only $10.
If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.