His results are interesting. I have no doubts about his conclusions. It's just that his conclusions should not be extrapolated to any other Holga than the one the tested.
My results only pertain to my Holga and none other.
A scotch tape and loupe test, using the text on the end of a lit light bulb as a focusing target and a tape measure took me all of five minutes. If someone wants to know the focusing characteristics of their Holga, I'd recommend running one's own test.
I've yet to verify my results with a roll of film so I'd say the jury is still out on my method.
I find it amusing: "let's be different and use Holga's ... but you have to use them the same way we do, otherwise you're being conventional" which goes along with "I like Holga's because you never know what the photos will look like (except that the way we use 'em they'll always look pretty much the same)".
Originally Posted by jstraw
I like odd effects and unconventional gear, I just like to be able to use their attributes (or "qualities") to acheive the image I see in my head.
Cool! I've always wondered how accurate the focusing on my holga was too. Didn't know about the ground glass/scotch tape trick. I'll have to try it out. This will help me figure out the angle of the viewfinder compared to the angle of the captured image better too.
This occured to me while I was doing it. I haven't really looked into that or decided how I'd make the best, practical use of such a comparison.
Originally Posted by sienarot
I haven't done any formal tests, but the viewfinder seems to cover about 60% of what the lens does. If I'm trying to accurately frame something, I compose in the VF, mentally add 40% to each edge, and then move the camera until the lens is where the viewfinder was.