35mm SLR or Lomography Diana mini

[IlfordFan]

I want to get more into analog photography, and am looking for a new camera. I am currently trying to decide if I should get a 35mm SLR or the Lomography Diana mini. I want something where I could do cool things bulb exposures. I have a canon digital SLR, and someone told me I would be bored with a film SLR because it would be just like my digital. I really like to shoot artsy photos, and Lomography seems perfect for that. Any advice?

 

[blockend]

Do you want control over the image or none? Point and shoot cameras have a lower hit rate of sharp, well exposed images but some people like that.

 

[MattKing]

I could sell you a Canon film SLR with lens for very little money. Then you could try it out and see for yourself.
The artistry comes from the person behind the camera, not the camera itself.
From what I've seen, the best results from "toy" cameras seem to come from people who are experienced with non-toy cameras.

 

[cramej]

I think the Diana mini will disappoint you - especially for the price. It would be (probably) more fun, easier and you would have more options if you experimented with filters and other things in front of the lens on a SLR.

I've used Holgas in the past and I like them for certain things but if you can only get one camera, get a SLR first.

 

[P.johnson14]

Start with an SLR and learn how to use it as competently as your digital SLR.

Then decide for yourself.

 

[M-88]

You can tell that "someone" that they have NO idea of how film photography works. No offense.

Go ahead and pick up a decent film SLR with manual exposure options. You can always get initiated into lomography sect later.

 

[IlfordFan]

Should I just reload a disposable camera?

 

[johnha]

Buy a 35mm SLR with manual controls and an easy to use Bulb setting, you can be as creative as you want while still having full control of the camera - the best of both worlds. If you want arty 'toy-camera' effects, look at Cokin (or similar) filters or pin-hole body caps for the SLR.

 

[Shoom]

Get a Pentax Spotmatic. Rugged, mechanical, MANUAL.

The M42 mount also has a wonderful collection of lenses from the Russian Lomo ones (Helios-44 is a perfect example) to sharp brilliance (any of the SMC Takumars) and they're all pretty cheap.

That way, you can get lomography and photography on the same camera for not a lot of money overall.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Get a Pentax Spotmatic. Rugged, mechanical, MANUAL.
...

I second this advice for the reasons noted.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

An SLR will be a much more useful and sensible springboard into artsy/creative photography than impressionable plastic cameras. I think those toys should all be relegated to kerbside recycling, never to be heard or seen of again.

Bulb is extremely useful, especially for star trails, layering of a scene which changes subtly over each exposure... many, many possibilities. And as your interest progresses, doubtless you'll want to buy another lens (or five...).

And no, that "somebody" is wrong (stupid, actually): a film SLR is not the same as a digital SLR.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A 35mm slr will be more useful, more enjoyable and you will learn much more about photography using it.

 

[IlfordFan]

How about the Vivitar v3800N? https://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-SLR-Camera-Black-VIV-V3800-50/dp/B001TP8Q3S

 

[film_man]

A Diana (or anything else that Lomography sells) are cool cameras but beware that the "artsy" random and lo-fi look gets tired quickly, especially when you start factoring in the money and time spent on it. The operation is crude. The build quality questionable (the lens on my Diana F+ is now held with tape). So the whole thing can get frustrating and tired and the results most of the time are just average (at best).

But it is fun. So while I would recommend owning one I certainly wouldn't use just that one.

On the other hand, a 35mm SLR would indeed be boring and until you get your workflow worked out (process/scan) or pay someone $15/roll to do it for you the results will probably be disappointing. I would recommend that you either get a Diana or just go to a medium format camera as either of those options will give you something different to your dSLR. If after a while you think it is worth the time and money then start looking at 35mm SLRs.

 

[Chan Tran]

A 35mm SLR for sure. I have bought several perfectly functioning and in great cosmetic condition 35mm SLR with lens for less than the Diana mini cost. I can't see any kind of picture the Diana Mini can take but a typical 35mm SLR can't.

 

[ciniframe]

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?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

SLR is most boring and not created by imperfection and accident film gear photography I ever seen.
If you have normal Canon DSLR or at least EF lenses, get EOS 300 and use exactly same lenses. With all of those old SLRs you will waste more money, but results are going to be exactly the same. Something sharp, something in bokeh. Meh...
Diana Mini is another side extreme. Lens is garbage and camera is even more.
I recommend classic camera which started Lomography. Spend sometime to find what camera is this. BBC made amazing documentary about it. Worth to watch if you would like to find out what creativity is with LOMO.
But if you want it on cheaper side, I recommend any regular P&S with focus fixed lens. They seems to be more robust than plastic lomography cameras are, but results are very close in inperfection. I have fixed focus, one speed, one aperture P&S, purchased for five. It never limited me, it has built in flash and waterproof case. And I used it more in 2017 than Canon and Nikon SLRs. I used it with C-41 and results were funky enough and I used it with bw film and flash, made prints and they are not typical SLRish photography.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Is this a serious survey or trolling??? Hard to tell.

 

[Sirius Glass]

SLR is most boring and not created by imperfection and accident film gear photography I ever seen.
If you have normal Canon DSLR or at least EF lenses, get EOS 300 and use exactly same lenses. With all of those old SLRs you will waste more money, but results are going to be exactly the same. Something sharp, something in bokeh. Meh...
Diana Mini is another side extreme. Lens is garbage and camera is even more.
I recommend classic camera which started Lomography. Spend sometime to find what camera is this. BBC made amazing documentary about it. Worth to watch if you would like to find out what creativity is with LOMO.
But if you want it on cheaper side, I recommend any regular P&S with focus fixed lens. They seems to be more robust than plastic lomography cameras are, but results are very close in inperfection. I have fixed focus, one speed, one aperture P&S, purchased for five. It never limited me, it has built in flash and waterproof case. And I used it more in 2017 than Canon and Nikon SLRs. I used it with C-41 and results were funky enough and I used it with bw film and flash, made prints and they are not typical SLRish photography.

Not true, one can get a lens baby if one wants to play with different lens effects.
https://lensbaby.com/shop/

Galleries ==> https://lensbaby.com/gallery-3/

https://www.google.com/search?q=len...Cn4jbAhWLxVQKHT5HAaAQiR4I8gU&biw=1366&bih=628
​

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not sure how special effect 300-500 USD lens is related to some basic P&S lenses. Which are just not perfect. I'd rather get lomography SLR lens instead. Way less expensive and gives perfect, imperfect results

 

[wahiba]

A really interesting camera from Lomo is the Sardina. I actually found using the extra wide angle lens not to be as difficult as expected. Single shutter speed and aperture is a bit limiting though, but the bulb works well. Great for interiors.
SLRs it is a case of pays your money. Have fun with an old Zenit though!
Rollie 35s, even the basic Triotar models are very good for a compact, although the meter has usually gone so manual light settings needed.
Baasic automatics from the likes of Canon and Olympus generally give surprisingly good results, and can often be picked up for very very little (certain Olympus models excepted though).
But, if you always wanted that Nikon then now is probably the time to go for it.
Hve fun.
David

 

[Chan Tran]

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

 

[IlfordFan]

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?

Yes.

But if you want it on cheaper side, I recommend any regular P&S with focus fixed lens.

I have a Canon Sureshot point and shoot. If I wanted fixed focus, I could just retrofit a disposable.

Is this a serious survey or trolling??? Hard to tell.

It's a serious survey.

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

The Diana mini is the 35mm version of the DianaF. Here are the specs https://shop.lomography.com/en/cameras/diana-mini-family/diana-mini

 

[eddie]

I don’t see why you’re limiting yourself to one or the other. Have you considered a 120 Diana ( or the various renamed versions) or Holga? You can find them for $20, or so. You can also get a 35mm SLR, and come in for under $100 for the pair.
I’d also invest in processing equipment, so you can develop your own negatives. That’s where creative control really comes into play.

 

[ciniframe]

Finally looked at price of Diana Mini. No way. Fifty Nine dollars will buy you a nice versatile all manual 35mm SLR. If you are careful and wait you could pay half that. I bought a fully functioning Sears KS500 (rebadged Ricoh KR5) for $5 with it’s 50 f2 lens. Even that basic SLR is worlds more versatile than the Diana.
If you want funky, you can get Holga’s for half the Diana price.