Are some Lomography cameras scams?

[removed account4]

this is like one of those threads asking
why leicas are so expensive, but it is the opposite
end of the spectrum ...
they are what they are ...

i was given a lubitel about 15 years ago
it took wonderful images, almost as good
as the yashica i had years before that ..
i made the most unfortunate mistake of removing the
shutter instead of just the plastic lens, for a pinhole project
and unfortunately the camera ended up in the MIA pile ...

id rather get a sputnik stereo camera or a "sept" if i had the money for a lubitel or lomo

 

[Moose]

I like my Lubi, it gets regular use and I have no intention of selling it. I also have a Diana, a Kodak Brownie and a Cosmic somewhere. If I ever find them I might put a film in and see what all the fuss is about Actually I'll never used the cosmic so that will be interesting...

I can understand why Leicas are expensive (although may be a bit more expensive than they need to be) but Dianas? As others have said, it's the market setting the price - works for lomo, Leica and most other things with an 'image'.

 

[blockend]

I shot on Lubitels for as long as I can remember, which is mid-1970s. They are fun, the shutter lasts a year or so then you throw them in the landfill and buy a new one for £12. When I saw the price being asked now I assumed it was a joke. As for Diana's, my friend shot on them more than 30 years ago. He'd buy six at a time to get a good one, from the kind of places that sold water pistols, fart powder and rubber spiders. He was really cheesed off when they hit £1.99.

You can buy a nice German folder for £20 and experiment with Vaseline and filters to your heart's content if pictorialism is your thing. For the price of a plastic Lubitel you could buy a used 5 x 4 in good condition. There's something very wrong with that.

 

[claytopia]

YES. Lomography is an exploitation of analogue photography. Do not support them! Support EBAY!!!!

 

[John R.]

I bought a original Diana F for $10 back in the early 80's and later on a Holga 120S as a "upgrade". They are fun to use. To me the Diana is the true Lomo camera. I have seen modern versions and other spin offs but there is something missing about them not being the original Diana that started it all. The modern fad evolution reminds me of the of Lens Baby craze and development, all stemming from what any old view camera could provide with far better results. Go figure?

 

[wotalegend]

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.

 

[tomalophicon]

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.

 

[kwall]

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).

 

[wotalegend]

I object to Vanbar for the same reason.

Can't disagree with that.

Not just Vanbar: all retailers in Oz.

 

[rhmimac]

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

cons:
-it's overpriced
-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".

 

[CGW]

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

cons:
-it's overpriced
-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".

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Greif-t.html?_r=1

 

[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.

 

[CGW]

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.

 

[colourgeek]

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.

 

[jscott]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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).

i don't know

lensbaby sells the equivalent of a imagon lens ... for way-less
sounds like a bargain to me !

 

[bblhed]

Some?

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.

 

[gupa]

What about the first 5 here ?.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c1801-Film-Cameras-and-Lenses-35mm-Camera-Bodies

 

[nyoung]

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.

 

[Alastair_I]

"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?

 

[vpwphoto]

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.

 

[eddie]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

BINGO !

thanks eddie

john

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

I guess all my cameras are worthless.

 

[mhcfires]

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.