Are some Lomography cameras scams?

[stavrosk]

Their cameras are way overpriced for what they are, their quality is really bad. I had the Diana and the Fisheye 1 and they are really cheaply made. The plastic lenses are really bad. In my opinion 120 format film in a Diana is really wasted because of the bad quality lens. The Fisheye had its colour pealing and the Diana Instant back would get stuck every now and then. Speaking about overpricing, the lomography shop sells film at extreme prices as well. Finally Lomography branded film which is cheaper than their prices for Kodak and Fuji is really inferior quality.

 

[michaelbsc]

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.

Mine too. In fact, maybe I can solicite to get some government agency to pay me to stop taking pictures.

 

[rhmimac]

cynisism?

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

The five first camera's go around $115. Then I scrolled to the next following in the list, the name also beginning with a "L" as in Lomo... they cost almost $5000 for a camera body(no lens also worth $1000 included). Are they 52 times, priced compared, better? This comparisson leaks but it shows where the world is divided: the "cheap" china/russian product vs. the german ultra-expensive "toy". Are the german factory workers earning 52 times more money?

I don't need a car it's name starting with an "F" for driving around town. I can leave my plastic toys in a café without any fear in my open bag on the table and walk away for a leak. I would certainly have to change my habits when going for a leak owning the "L" camera. I would have to take it with me upstairs besides my bed before being able to sleep. Oh boy, where does snobism and hipsterism start and where does it end? Nobody knows, it's all up to you and reaching your own point of "peace of mind".

 

[mablo]

Like it or not but the fact is that Lomography is the one and only film photography user genre which sees a steadily growing number of users. Lomography.org sells a staggering number of new film cameras each year and they expect 100% growth this year (read it from some British newspaper). They also sell a HUGE number of film rolls each year and if there's ever an upward tick in film consumption it must be those darn hipsters we should thank for. Every di**tal camera can take a sharp and nicely exposed photo automatically but if you want to get unsharp photos with a lot of flare, blocked highlights and shadows and weird colors you simply need to use film.

They won't show up here on APUG for sure. They are too busy exchanging opinions of their new Abercrombie & Fitch wear and trying to find out ways to send even more money to this lanky Steve character in Cupertino, US.

If you ask do they help us keeping the film alive the answer is a strong yes.

 

[Alastair_I]

They won't show up here on APUG for sure. They are too busy exchanging opinions of their new Abercrombie & Fitch wear and trying to find out ways to send even more money to this lanky Steve character in Cupertino, US.

They won't show up on APUG because I'd guess that 99% of them are using a hybrid workflow and scanning the negatives (or having them scanned for them). But this discussion has been had before.. ..

 

[matthewm]

There are some very disappointing comments on this thread.

I use a Holga sometimes. Bought it used for $25. I had an LC-A+ that my mother bought me a few years ago and hated it. I got a Diana for Christmas one year that my wife paid over $100 for. I liked it. It was white and cute and had a panda on it. I wear $300 Diesel and 7 Brand jeans to play paintball and fly remote control planes in. I'm a graphic designer and use Apple products 100% of the time and absolutely DESPISE anything made by Microsoft. I guess I'm a fool, huh?

Lomo isn't a scam as much as it's an exploitation of people ignorant to the alternatives. No, not ignorant in a bad way. Maybe they just don't know and haven't learned. When I started with photography I knew nothing and I went to the pawn shop and paid $200 for a used, black AE1 Program and 50 f/1.4 lens. I made some great images with it and last April when my house burned down, I salvaged it and my wife used it today. Did I pay too much because I didn't know any better? Yes, but it got me started. It doesn't make them or me, fools or stupid. As long as Holgas and Dianas and Lubis make the shooter happy and keep people in the spirit of photography, who cares what they cost?

Live and let live.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[michaelbsc]

There are some very disappointing comments on this thread.

I use a Holga sometimes. Bought it used for $25.

[...]

Lomo isn't a scam as much as it's an exploitation of people ignorant to the alternatives. No, not ignorant in a bad way. Maybe they just don't know and haven't learned. When I started with photography I knew nothing and I went to the pawn shop and paid $200 for a used, black AE1 Program and 50 f/1.4 lens. I made some great images with it and last April when my house burned down, I salvaged it and my wife used it today. Did I pay too much because I didn't know any better? Yes, but it got me started. It doesn't make them or me, fools or stupid. As long as Holgas and Dianas and Lubis make the shooter happy and keep people in the spirit of photography, who cares what they cost?

Live and let live.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True, it isn't a scam, at least not in the traditional sense. Nobody is in physical danger, and only a fool would spend the rent money on a camera. Even if it is a Rolleiflex WA for dirt cheap you don't spend the rent money.

But I have to admit I was sorely disappointed the day my Holga arrived. I felt ripped off, and I bought it while they were still only $35.

Sure you can make some unpredictable images with a Holga. But luck isn't photographic vision.

I have said for years that the reason I could get good results with a Brownie Hawkeye is because the photographer is not in the camera. Among the Lomo adherents the thinking is that the photographer IS in the camera. That relegates me to being no more than a monkey that trips the shutter.

Or maybe no more than the cat Blansky posted about a few days ago.

Sorry. I have to reject that notion.



Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[rhmimac]

There are some very disappointing comments on this thread.

I use a Holga sometimes. Bought it used for $25. I had an LC-A+ that my mother bought me a few years ago and hated it. I got a Diana for Christmas one year that my wife paid over $100 for. I liked it. It was white and cute and had a panda on it. I wear $300 Diesel and 7 Brand jeans to play paintball and fly remote control planes in. I'm a graphic designer and use Apple products 100% of the time and absolutely DESPISE anything made by Microsoft. I guess I'm a fool, huh?

Lomo isn't a scam as much as it's an exploitation of people ignorant to the alternatives. No, not ignorant in a bad way. Maybe they just don't know and haven't learned. When I started with photography I knew nothing and I went to the pawn shop and paid $200 for a used, black AE1 Program and 50 f/1.4 lens. I made some great images with it and last April when my house burned down, I salvaged it and my wife used it today. Did I pay too much because I didn't know any better? Yes, but it got me started. It doesn't make them or me, fools or stupid. As long as Holgas and Dianas and Lubis make the shooter happy and keep people in the spirit of photography, who cares what they cost?

Live and let live.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm glad to see the world is divided on this topic. And very happy to read that Lomo is helping the film sales keep up just a little bit with d*g*t*l device sales numbers. We know film for the cinéma keeps our products alive but all extra small amounts can help the producents keep there business sound and safe. When I ordered from M in Germany last week they announced on their site the processing will take extra 5 days due to huge success of film sales. That's the news I want to read instead of "we go down,down,down.... Let the Lomo guy's and galls live their life, don't expect them to addapt semi-pro habits as most of apuggers maybe do. Life is full of color, don't wipe or bleach it away.

 

[ruilourosa]

lomo was a factory of some nice instruments, not particulary good, but nice. lomo lca was a cosina cx2 copy with inferior quality, but it was usable. lubitel tlr was a cheap camera intended for amateurs, usable.

LOMO factory is gone, everything is made in china, quality is not good, prices are hiiiiiigghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

special effects will always be just that...

 

[edp]

LOMO factory is gone

It's still there, making scientific instruments, optics, cameras and so on. They've moved on from making low quality 1950s cameras, perhaps.

The best camera they made was the Sputnik; I rarely go on holiday without mine.

 

[siltec]

Manufacturing Costs - Defence of LOMO

There was a TV programme on in the UK on manufacturing, design and marketing. On that they reckoned that only 5% of the cost of an iPad went towards the manufacture. If it is the same with LOMO then it easily explains the price. They market a minority interest product worldwide. Organise batch manufacture in a low cost economy. I do not think they are ripping people off. Making a good profit means they can produce a wide range of interesting items.

30 - 40 years these types of products were made in western countries. check out how much they cost then, add inflation and I expect the real price today would not be so far off LOMO prices.

Chocolate bars are a good indicator of inflation. I reckon a basic camera cost around £5 in the 1960s. An inflation factor of 20 gives a current price of £100 and I think I have erred on the low side.

'Stuff' is now cheaper than it has ever been because of low cost manufacturing countries. Real value will only be appreciated again when the whole world has the same standard of living.

 

[halldaniel21]

While people going towards standard cameras, there were some who were keen to go ahead of the photography that time and one of these passion’s creation was lomography camera. The thing with such cameras was that at first only serious photographers would go for it and so it would come cheap. Until some wannabe came and started buying more and more lomography cameras. Since then there has been a rise in prices of lomography cameras.

 

[gr82bart]

I love it when folks who can't afford to buy something diss those that can (and do). This thread reminds me of high school, and since I don't most of you participants, maybe you all are - any way there is always a group of kids critiquing every other kid.

Whatever turns you on.

I personally could care less what another person buys. I think I have a better life to live.

 

[Simonh82]

As a noob to APUG, i'm sorry if this view has been expressed a million times before, but glancing at this thread i didn't see to much of it.

Yes, Lomography cameras are over priced for the individual items, that is almost undeniable. However they are doing several things that I think help justify the cost.

Firstly they are pretty much the only company in the world making new film cameras, with new lenses, bodies, winding mechanisms; from scratch. Just look at the new LC-Wide. This take a considerable amount of R&D which is not cheap.

Secondly, they are genuinely bringing many new people, myself included, into film photography. I started with a Diana and now have several other Lomo cameras, but also shoot lots with an olympus OM-2n and an old Agilux folding range finder. Lomography has helped develop and sustain my interest to the point where I have broadened out from the lomo style and tried to learn a lot more about photography generally.

Finally, you don't need to spend anything to get Lomography's cameras or anything else in their store. They literally give money away (and lots of it) with there piggy points scheme. In the last 6-8 months i've earned/won/was just given, enough piggy points to get £487 worth of cameras and film from their site. All i've done is write a few short articles, enter a few 'everyone wins' competitions and keep an eye on their facebook page.

Their cameras might be expensive, but they're not when they are completely free! If a few of the serious photographers around here started writing articles and sharing their experience around here, they'd never have to pay for film again.

Now i'm off to decide what to do with the last £150 in piggies i've received in two months.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have a Lomo LC-A+, bought brand new from one of the Fashionista Lomo shops. It's incredibly over priced, but I'll admit I really like it as a camera. I'd say they're worth about 25% of the selling price, although they come with a a nice hard back book of photos, a nice wooden crate/box, and some other trinkets, which add to the value somewhat.

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.

Whether it's better to get a second hand camera instead is up to the user, but I find it amazing and great in this day and age that in the past couple of years London has got *2* new Lomography shops, dedicated to film cameras and film photography. Some people would rather there was a Jessops there instead selling Casio Exlims or whatever, I'd rather the Lomo shop.

The Lomo's are way overpriced as compared to the Leica. The Leica is worth its price.

 

[stavrosk]

Lomography cameras are very cheaply made and are not worth the money if one expects quality made cameras.

 

[tomalophicon]

The Lomo's are way overpriced as compared to the Leica. The Leica is worth its price.

The Leica is not worth its price.

 

[wotalegend]

.......Firstly they are pretty much the only company in the world making new film cameras, with new lenses, bodies, winding mechanisms; from scratch........

Well, no they're not but you are forgiven for thinking that because the other companies have practically given up on marketing their film cameras. Nikon and Canon still make their top-of-the-line film SLRs, Cosina is making film bodies sold under various labels - Voigtlander, Zeiss Ikon, Fuji, etc. Mamiya still make film-capable medium format bodies, and I am sure there are a few others I have missed.

 

[wilfbiffherb]

got my lubitel 166b off ebay for £25! it doesnt have as many features as the lomo lubitel 166+ but i dont really need to shoot 35mm as well as 120.

 

[removed account4]

one could easily suggest that everything seems to be a scam ...

10-15 years ago i used to buy brass lenses all the time .. they were a cheap way
to buy a lens and stick it on a speed graphic rather than buy a "modern shuttered lens"
at the time i was buying them they didn't cost more than 10-15$ maybe 35$ tops ..
now these same lenses are being sold for big bucks by comparison ...
because now there there is a demand for them.

lomo cameras are the same thing. there is a demand for them, people think they are chic so they charge a premium for them
it is an example of the perfect business model ... minimal cost then mark it up ... like handbags, or athletic shoes, lomo cameras and everything else ...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I thought Leicas were free. You put down your "deposit" to obtain an M3 and a lens from eBay or your preferred used camera source, put it back on the market a year later, and you get back about what you paid for it.

 

[holmburgers]

As a noob to APUG, i'm sorry if this view has been expressed a million times before, but glancing at this thread i didn't see to much of it.

Yes, Lomography cameras are over priced for the individual items, that is almost undeniable. However they are doing several things that I think help justify the cost.

Firstly they are pretty much the only company in the world making new film cameras, with new lenses, bodies, winding mechanisms; from scratch. Just look at the new LC-Wide. This take a considerable amount of R&D which is not cheap.

Secondly, they are genuinely bringing many new people, myself included, into film photography. I started with a Diana and now have several other Lomo cameras, but also shoot lots with an olympus OM-2n and an old Agilux folding range finder. Lomography has helped develop and sustain my interest to the point where I have broadened out from the lomo style and tried to learn a lot more about photography generally.

Finally, you don't need to spend anything to get Lomography's cameras or anything else in their store. They literally give money away (and lots of it) with there piggy points scheme. In the last 6-8 months i've earned/won/was just given, enough piggy points to get £487 worth of cameras and film from their site. All i've done is write a few short articles, enter a few 'everyone wins' competitions and keep an eye on their facebook page.

Their cameras might be expensive, but they're not when they are completely free! If a few of the serious photographers around here started writing articles and sharing their experience around here, they'd never have to pay for film again.

Now i'm off to decide what to do with the last £150 in piggies i've received in two months.

A well put viewpoint.

Oh.. and welcome to APUG!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yesterday outside the Empire State Building I saw a hipster who looked to be of retirement age sporting a DSLR and a Lomo Spinner. Is a plastic, rubber band driven version of a Globuscope worth $100? Why not? It's not as if there's some "prosumer" or AE-1/Nikkormat 360-degree camera in between the Spinner and the Globuscope. Spinner shots I've seen have a lot of banding and other artifacts,but it's more about having fun than perfection.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A tip of the hat to Lewis Carroll, lomography is unphotography.

 

[Discoman]

I find not only the cameras, but their film really expensive. I got a holga as a gift, before they became the 'thing' to have. For what it does and what it cost me, I couldn't be happier with it. I have stuff that is much higher quality, much better results, and are better in every way. The holga leaks light, is fuzzy, has awful vingetting that I can't really eliminate, etc. But take a holga out and nobody is going to steal it. Your 4x5 might get stolen, cuz and old camera like that may just be a colectible. Digital? Worth quite a bit, depending on model.
But seriously, I made an account with lomography, thinking it would be a way to easily get any other bits I may want for the holga. They send along those piggy points every so often, about $5 worth, and they expire quickly. Except that much can barely even buy a single roll of film from them.
I wish I had thought of lomography, I don't mind overpricing stuff and convincing hipsters to buy it. After all, they always have to nave the newest Mac and the most complicated Starbucks order. It would benefit everyone if I could separate them from more of their money. Joke.