35mm SLR or Lomography Diana mini

[IlfordFan]

Even that basic SLR is worlds more versatile than the Diana.

Think my SureShot is more versatile than the Diana?

 

[ciniframe]

Think my SureShot is more versatile than the Diana?

Well, it has a faster lens and greater range of shutter speeds. That said, personally I never cared for battery dependent, auto everything cameras with no manual control. A lot of lomography stuff is just way overpriced, especially the plastic cameras. Wait a minute, that’s about all they sell. Anyway, most of the folks here are value aware, “what do I get for my money” sort of thing. I think that is why the poll is so heavily weighted towards the SLR.

 

[eddie]

...most of the folks here are value aware, “what do I get for my money” sort of thing. I think that is why the poll is so heavily weighted towards the SLR.

People should really be thinking, “what kind of images do I get for my money”.

 

[Chuckwade87]

People should really be thinking, “what kind of images do I get for my money”.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[MattKing]

Think my SureShot is more versatile than the Diana?

Yes!
My take on what you are seeking is that you want the ability to achieve greater variety in your results. A Diana will give you different results, but only in certain ways.
Something like a basic and inexpensive used SLR can perform like your SureShot, or like a Diana, or like a number of other types of cameras. All you need is some knowledge and, for certain purposes, some accessories designed for those purposes.
There are other cameras that are more versatile than a Diana. But none of them are as versatile as a 35mm SLR, and none of them are as likely to be as inexpensive as a used 35mm SLR unless they are also awkward or difficult to use.

 

[Chan Tran]

Think my SureShot is more versatile than the Diana?

I am a bit different from the other poster that I don't worry about my camera needs battery or not but I can't set the Sureshot to f/8 or f/11 and it stays there like the Diana Mini so I would go for a cheap SLR.

 

[ciniframe]

People should really be thinking, “what kind of images do I get for my money”.

Thing is, since you are dealing with 35mm in either of the cameras you mention in your original post then a SLR can be used with soft focus lenses. I've adapted single element +10 (100mm) close up lenses to my SLR as soft focus portrait lenses. Right now I'm using plus diopter close up lenses on 4X5 so I do understand your motivation or interest in the Diana Mini. I'm curious, have you tried larger format for as you put it "artsy" photographs. The larger Diana that uses 120 roll film is about the same price as the Mini and has such features as a pinhole option since the lens is removable. Now granted, you only get 12 exposures per roll of film and the camera is larger.
As far as art photography with simple plastic lensed cameras have you checked out the work of Michael Kenna or David Burnett ? they have done some fantastic work with the Holga.

Edit; I just checked and B&H has the Diana+ for $43.99 and the Diana Mini for $52.99, go figure.

 

[eddie]

The larger Diana that uses 120 roll film is about the same price as the Mini and has such features as a pinhole option since the lens is removable. Now granted, you only get 12 exposures per roll of film and the camera is larger.

I only own old Dianas, but they get 16 exposures on a roll of 120.

 

[TheRook]

I know that the Diana Mini is a multi format camera but besides that what's the specs? Lens focal length? Aperture? Shutter speed?

That information is listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mini_Camera
But do the specs really matter? Although neither marketed nor priced as a toy, by design it is essentially a toy camera.

 

[ciniframe]

I only own old Dianas, but they get 16 exposures on a roll of 120.

Yes, the old Diana were 4X4cm so 16 exposures on a roll. I have an Agfa Isoly like that. The new ones however, the Diana+, are dual format, 6x6 or you can insert the mask for 4x4. It comes with a 4X4 mask and switchable film window on back.

 

[Chan Tran]

That information is listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Mini_Camera
But do the specs really matter? Although neither marketed nor priced as a toy, by design it is essentially a toy camera.

Yes the specs matter. The lens aperture is selectable f/8 and f/11, the shutter speed 1/60 and B both can be set on a typical SLR. 24mm lens that is a relatively expensive option for the 35mm SLR. To get the square format one has to crop the 35mm frame however for the half frame a 35mm SLR can shoot 72 frames on a 36 exposure roll.
I want to see if a 35mm camera can achieve the same settings as the Diana Mini.

 

[film_man]

People should really be thinking, “what kind of images do I get for my money”.

If that was the case then consider this: a current generation phone is a much better return of time, money and convenience investment vs any film (or digital) camera ever made.

 

[film_man]

Think my SureShot is more versatile than the Diana?

I'd take the Diana over any of those old cheap film P&S cameras. I think the main issue you're having in this thread is that the majority of people in these forums are pretty old school. Anything from Lomography is generally frowned upon, just like buying new Leicas is considered bling etc etc. Dude, get that Diana and have some fun. It is after all $60. You could probably sell it for $20-30 so you're down $40 max. You get a fun new camera that works out of the box. For that kind of money you'd only be betting a crap old manual SLR with some fungus ridden lens.

 

[film_man]

Yes the specs matter. The lens aperture is selectable f/8 and f/11, the shutter speed 1/60 and B both can be set on a typical SLR. 24mm lens that is a relatively expensive option for the 35mm SLR. To get the square format one has to crop the 35mm frame however for the half frame a 35mm SLR can shoot 72 frames on a 36 exposure roll.
I want to see if a 35mm camera can achieve the same settings as the Diana Mini.

Looking at the specs of anything Lomography makes and comparing them to a proper camera is like reading the ingredients on a bag of Haribo or a can of Dr Pepper. You know it is just E numbers and sugar but you have one anyway because it is fun.

 

[eddie]

If that was the case then consider this: a current generation phone is a much better return of time, money and convenience investment vs any film (or digital) camera ever made.

Time, money and convenience have little to do with creativity.

 

[removed account4]

Time, money and convenience have little to do with creativity.

+1

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sureshot will do for sure. No reason to buy SLR for getting same results.
From what I have seen from Diana mini, it is way too "creative".
Holga 120 will do it.

Where are two "creative" modes with film.
Funky colors and defects applied by plastic lens and light leaking plastic cameras.
And printing under enlarger on bw paper. With this method you could get even more stricking defects, more natural heavy countrast, defocus, tilt and shift. You could print in lyth, on self-aplied emulsion and so on.
You don't even need film camera or enlarger. Print digital negatives on regular paper and do contact prints.

 

[abruzzi]

I'd take the SLR 1000 times over something like the Diana, but thats me. It seems to me that a lot of the "lomo" aesthetic is built around serendipity and happy accidents. When you take a shot you don't know exactly what you're going to get because your film is intentionally inconsistent, your camera allows only the barest of controls, and you might even get light leaks to randomly alter your images (not saying the Diana leaks, just that that is part of the Lomo aesthetic.)

I and I suspect most people that frequent a forum like Photrio are control freaks in that I want measured control over every aspect of the image. A 35mm SLR will give you that. If you want some of the Lomo aesthetic out of a 35mm SLR, you will have to know how to do it.

 

[GarageBoy]

Why not both and see for yourself? Jesus, I've given away maxxum cameras and lenses, they cost next to nothing.

 

[AgX]

Everyone seems to be forgetting an important question for the OP. That is, do you know how to check out a used camera to make sure it’s working properly?

Well, that is the major issue for a beginner.
On the other side, I came across more samples that at least at basic testing, without testing equipment, turned out still fine, than I came across lemons.

 

[ciniframe]

Well, that is the major issue for a beginner.
On the other side, I came across more samples that at least at basic testing, without testing equipment, turned out still fine, than I came across lemons.

That response was colored by my personal preferences. I like all mechanical cameras, and now Olympus OM-1, Minolta SRT series, Nikkormats, Canon FT series and Pentax Spotmatics and KX, KM, and MX are all getting a bit long in the tooth. The most common problem I find are dead meters followed by mirrors that go up half way, tapering or outright capping roller blind shutters etc. I would say that at least I/2 of these older models have some problems. Some are just plane jammed and won't work at all but that is easy to spot. I'm not calling light sealing foam a problem, that is usually a fairly easy DIY job.