Costly experiment..

MDR · Dec 23, 2014

I was not disappointed in the least I knew right from the start what I would get, it is a bit expensive compared to older used simple cameras though in Austria the Price difference between a Kodak Brownie and a Diana F is nil if any at all the Brownie is more expensive.
Plenty of photographers do create serious work and consider the Diana a serious camera. Personaly I prefer the Holga and the original Diana.

flavio81 · Dec 23, 2014

AgX said:
If you want a lightweight, but better camera, look for the Agfa Isola in its triplet lens version.

LOL, i was going to post exactly the same thing!!

The Agfa Isola with the Agnar 75/6.3 lens. Sharp lens, ultra light camera, easy to carry, and far stronger than the Diana.

resummerfield · Dec 23, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
With so many classic 120 cameras available for free or a couple of bucks the appeal of Lomo products escaped me. If you could get a Kodak Hawkeye 120 why bother with a Diana.

I was thinking the same!

removedacct1 · Dec 23, 2014

Regular Rod said:
For simplicity of operation and for sweeping away all technical consideration, any Kodak Brownie for 120 film is a far superior tool than these exercises in market positioning by price!

RR

That is an excellent example. Fantastic!

By the way (and I know this is veering off into a different discussion altogether) for the price of a NEW Diana F, you can buy a lovely plastic Russian Lubitel (Average price: $35-$45 on eBay) and get some fascinating and charming results AND you get real aperture choices AND shutter speed options:

f5.6 at about 1/15 sec, if I remember correctly. HP5 in Rodinal.

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
if I were going for a simplistic effect,I'd try a pinhole instead.I see no appeal in Lomobut ,it's a good way to ruin a perfectly fine roll of film in a hurry.

Well said!

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2014

Regular Rod said:
For simplicity of operation and for sweeping away all technical consideration, any Kodak Brownie for 120 film is a far superior tool than these exercises in market positioning by price!

RR

I had gotten some surprising good photographs from my Brownie Hawkeye as a child.

MDR · Dec 23, 2014

Why are People constantly comparing Kodak Brownies with Dianas they are not the same Thing, the Meniscus in a Kodak Brownie is a scientific work of art read R. Kingslake and LVM opinion on the Kodak meniscus lenses. For it's simplicity the Kodak lens is very well corrected and here the differences start unless the Kodak meniscus is flipped it produced pretty sharp for such a simple lens results, a Diana, Diana F, Holga lens is not well corrected at all they are made out of plastic (early Brownies out of glass) they are not designed by an optical department of one of the best lens mfg. of its time. The original Diana is something Special an very expensive today, Lomo's Diana F was designed not to be well corrected they are flimsy and lightweight just like the original Diana but not like the Brownie which has a much better construction. The Diana F+ is more versatile than a Brownie you can use different lenses, you can use it as pinhole camera without having to destroy the camera, it can be used with different neg sizes 42x42 or 52x52mm etc...

People who buy toy cameras usually buy them because of the aesthetics and look they create, toy camera users usually do not want fault free results they want defects, they love that each and every (original Diana) toy camera gives them different results. If they wanted super highly corrected and sharp results they would shoot with Mammoth Cameras and not use flimsy toys. The results from a pinhole camera don't even come close to the results you get from a Toycamera like the original Diana, Diana F+ or Holga. The Diana F+ is mix between the Holga and Diana look. The original Diana's usually have the most distinctive look of all toycameras that's the reason they are loved and worshipped by their owner above all other cameras (toy and sometimes other)

Also a Lubitel is not a toy camera but sports a very good triplet that puts several high end tlr with triplets to shame.

Regular Rod · Dec 23, 2014

paulbarden said:
That is an excellent example. Fantastic!

By the way (and I know this is veering off into a different discussion altogether) for the price of a NEW Diana F, you can buy a lovely plastic Russian Lubitel (Average price: $35-$45 on eBay) and get some fascinating and charming results AND you get real aperture choices AND shutter speed options:

f5.6 at about 1/15 sec, if I remember correctly. HP5 in Rodinal.

That is how to do it!!!

A fine portrait by any standard. Of course my Brownie Cresta has some adjustments too you know. There is a built-in close-up lens for subjects 4-7ft away and a choice of apertures!

RR

xya · Dec 23, 2014

lomography is selling fun cameras for people who want to have fun with it. yes I do own an original diana and it cost me the equivalent of 3$ on a flea market quite recently. but their's is different, lots of accessories available. and yes, I bought their belair (second hand, but new), no other camera available in 6x12 and instant (instax) format near their price. just take it or leave it. I'm quite tired of lomo-bashing. they believe in analog film, that's what counts for me. all information is available on the net before you buy. did all the information about the price of producing prevent anyone from buying an i-phone?

removedacct1 · Dec 23, 2014

Just to make it clear, I am not against "Lomo" film photography at all. I own a Holga and plenty of home-made pinhole cameras. My personal sentiments are of the "not sure I'm getting good value for the money" sort when it comes to the Diana. The Holga can be had for half the price and as far as I can tell, the results are comparable. I didn't say it was a worthwhile camera - I just feel its overpriced for what it is.

I don't think the equipment a person chooses is of much importance, as long as the photographer can get the results he wants from it, be it a Hasselblad or a shoe box painted black and a piece of soda can with a hole punched through it for a lens. The results are what matters.

Regular Rod · Dec 23, 2014

paulbarden said:
Just to make it clear, I am not against "Lomo" film photography at all. I own a Holga and plenty of home-made pinhole cameras. My personal sentiments are of the "not sure I'm getting good value for the money" sort when it comes to the Diana. The Holga can be had for half the price and as far as I can tell, the results are comparable. I didn't say it was a worthwhile camera - I just feel its overpriced for what it is.

I don't think the equipment a person chooses is of much importance, as long as the photographer can get the results he wants from it, be it a Hasselblad or a shoe box painted black and a piece of soda can with a hole punched through it for a lens. The results are what matters.

Amen!

RR

TheToadMen · Dec 24, 2014

If you want cheap and (relatively) good, get an Agfa Clack. It makes 6x9 cm negatives on roll film and is easy to rebuild into a pinhole camera as well.
The best part: you can get those for $10 in mint condition easy, with ever-ready case, original booklet and the original box too. (So don't get fooled by some on Ebay).

And if you're lucky, there is also a free film inside, partially exposed about 30 years ago

TheToadMen · Dec 24, 2014

BTW: these images were made with my Agfa Clack I rebuild into a pinhole camera:

(Fuji NPC160 roll film (expired), exposure about 40 seconds)

Xmas · Dec 24, 2014

I bump into a person using a Lubitel, I ask

'Is that a Lomo modern one?'
'Yes I bought it for my birthday.'
'A bit expensive?'
'Cheaper then yours'
'only by 7 GBP'

Canon P GBP 150 - from mate
CV 35mm /2.5 classic 140 GBP - from web shop

blockend · Dec 25, 2014

MDR said:
People who buy toy cameras usually buy them because of the aesthetics and look they create, toy camera users usually do not want fault free results they want defects, they love that each and every (original Diana) toy camera gives them different results.

People who want optical aberrations do not expect construction defects with them. Old cameras offered sound build quality with simple lenses, or toy quality at toy prices. Toy quality at serious camera prices is a bit rich. For anyone interested in experimental optical effects, Flickr's Homemade Lens Pool has some good ideas.

Vaughn · Dec 25, 2014

Love the "Clack" -- I am sure that must be the sound its shutter makes! LOL!

I have a few 120 Brownies, but I have not used them much. Generally they are too good, and the old Diana is sufficiently 'bad' for what I want the images to look like.

It is just a lot of fun to play with toys, especially when normally using view cameras up to 11x14. But even the Rolleiflex, and especially the Rolleicord, seem like toys after using an 8x10.

One of my boys, about 5 or 6 years ago: (Diana, out-dated film...scanned silver gelatin print)

cliveh · Dec 25, 2014

Isn't marketing a wonderful concept. I thought the best one I had heard of was the powder (can't remember the name) to put in your trash can/dustbin to reduce the smell. Isn't that wonderful? A product you buy and trash.

MontanaJay · Dec 25, 2014

I have the Diana I was required to buy for a Photo 101 course in college in 1970. (Ohio University, if you must know.) It cost a dollar, if I remember correctly.
The professor thought it was a great way to put all his students on a level playing field, and I think he was right. It allowed us all to concentrate on composition, film developing and printing, and as a group we produced a lot of crap along with a few top-notch images. It also prepared those of us who pursued higher-level courses for the pre-visualization needed in the varying of exposure and development required in the Zone System. (We also were required to dry mount everything we presented and use beveled mats -- I still use heavy rag watercolor paper instead of mat board.)
I also learned to use black book-binding tape instead of electrical tape to seal up the light leaks because it stayed on when it got cold.

Vaughn · Dec 25, 2014

When I taught young kids photography (two weeks sessions), we started out with pin-hole cameras they made out of 250sht boxes of 8x10 photopaper. We used litho film in the cameras so we could handle it all under red safelights. Sort of like your Diana Camera with everyone starting out the same. We made cyanotypes with the negs. The second week we printed Ilford XP2 negs we took with 35mm cameras at the end of the first week. Using Diana cameras instead of the 35mm cameras (they were all-manual) would have been fun. Another week would have been great -- those kids could burn through paper, though!

I have not done that for awhile. I would need a couple of assistants do take that on now!

gone · Dec 25, 2014

Those are really nice shots eddie.

ValoPeikko · Mar 12, 2015

I love Agfa Clack (and Click for that matter). Haven't shot mine in ages, should really. Best "lomo" bang for the buck there is I do own a Belair though. Nothing else with 6x12 negative size even close to it's price point. I bought mine used (very very lightly). And it does produce pretty good looking negatives for my uses.

One example of 3x 6x12 from Belair:
https://medium.com/@valopeikko/they-grew-and-grew-and-grew-together-53153430f451

Somehow I like how it combines with salt printing, it has poetic quality (or lack of) which I enjoy.

removed account4 · Mar 12, 2015

low tech isn't for everyone, but some people thrive with it.
if you buy a low tech camera thinking it is going to be some sort of "magic box"
where you don't have to put anything into it for the magic to appear afterwards
that isn't the way to use them. they are magical but the magic comes from
not having to be trapped by all of the modern things most cameras tend to have
and to get a photographic image made of photographic essence.
i don'thave a lomographic camera, but i have other things that do similar things that are a little older ( or the same vintage ).
its a nice feeling to just think about composition ...
YMMV

smieglitz · Mar 12, 2015

Vaughn said:
Mine is worth much more than I paid for it...but it is an original Diana and was 75 cents at the thrift store.

The original Diana is about the only piece of photo equipment that I act snobbish over. I found 9 NIB Dianas in an antique shop hidden away in a corner in the original shipping carton. Got a deal, modified a couple, sold a few and still have one or two around. Back in the mid-90s I set up my Dianarama website (which can probably be resurrected using the internet archive database).

The original Diana was magical. Holgas and Lomos and all that followed don't have that magic IMO. They are all just, as they say, crappy cameras. And it appears, overpriced ones at that.

Better to invest in simple box Brownie or one of Reinhold's new meniscus lenses and slap that on a camera of choice.

John Koehrer · Mar 12, 2015

momus said:
They're great cameras w/ very sharp lenses.

View attachment 100039

View attachment 100040

"very sharp"? Sounds like it's defective. Poor quality control at the factory.

TheToadMen · Mar 13, 2015

John Koehrer said:
"very sharp"? Sounds like it's defective. Poor quality control at the factory.

That's why I always use filters and gloves - so I won't cut myself ...

Costly experiment..

MDR

flavio81

resummerfield

removedacct1

Sirius Glass

Sirius Glass

MDR

Regular Rod

xya

removedacct1

Regular Rod

TheToadMen

Attachments

TheToadMen

Xmas

blockend

Vaughn

Attachments

cliveh

MontanaJay

Vaughn

gone

ValoPeikko

removed account4

smieglitz

John Koehrer

TheToadMen

Costly experiment..

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency