Diana versus Holga..

gandolfi · Nov 18, 2007

I would like to hear the "Holga people" telling me why theý prefer the Holga over Diana (if so).

And I'd love to hear if any have an opinion on the differences between these cameras - not in the sense of all the gizmo's that Holgs accepts - but more in the final image.

I just bought a "New Diana+" from Lomo.
it looks like a Diana, but I suspect that it actually is a Holga in disguise.

(A Diana camera with a Holga lens)

I was dissapointed, but maybe not so surprised.
All they talk about in the Lomo site about this camera is the vignetting of the image, and the vignetting is not the Diana characteristic (at least not to me)

I don't have a Holga - and I am not about to buy one. I prefer the Diana any day, but the question is, whether this is something I have "decided", or whether I am just uneducated.....

enlighten me, please.

(An add once said: "HOLGA" - son of "Diana")

Pinholemaster · Nov 18, 2007

Well I have both, and use them differently.

I use my Diana (actually it's a Windsor) for color, and I use the Holga for B&W. The lens on the Diana, for my taste, is better for color. The Diana lens tends to cut the contrast significantly, thus making my B&W too flat. The 'plastic' lens Holga holds the contrast range I like in B&W film, but doesn't give me the dreamy Diana look on color film.

These cameras, just as Leicas and Hasselblads, are simply tools for one's vision. If a camera doesn't work for you, don't use it. That doesn't mean the same camera in someone else's hands won't do wonders.

It's all about seeing, and matching the gear to your vision. Don't buy a camera hoping that its 'look' will be your vision.

nicolai · Nov 18, 2007

Yar, different tools for different jobs. I haven't used LSI's Diana+, but the Holga and the original Diana (and its clones) have very different looks. I use both.

Different strokes and all, but I don't care about anything other than whether either will give me the results I'm after. If it does, I'll use it; if not, I won't. And IMO the only way to really find out what works for you is to try them yourself. IMO the $25 for a Holga is a small risk for potentially huge artistic rewards.

Russ Young · Nov 18, 2007

I have owned both in the past and currently shoot two RAND cameras, very close clones of the DIANA- except I've never had a light leak with ISO 100 film. The HOLGA appears to my eye to produce simply a poor negative with no 'funk' like a DIANA; the earlier SUNPET was quite similiar- not sharp, not wild, just a little soft.

My RANDs are set up to take a Series VI filter and hood as well. Perhaps it is the brand variability but unlike Pinholemaster's comment above, mine do not significantly drop the contrast- which could be compensated for by added development time anyway. Your mileage may vary.

Am enchanted by your images Gandolfi.

Russ

Jim Noel · Nov 18, 2007

I don't know about the "New Dianas", but I do have several original ones as well as some under other names. The big difference is the lens seems to be a little better, and especially, I have never had a light leak with a Diana.

Soeren · Nov 18, 2007

The Holga was available the Diana not
Before I knew what the fuss was about I saw a Diana, Didn't buy it though.
So send me a Diana and Ill tell you which one I prefer
Kind Regards
Søren

Jeremy · Nov 18, 2007

gandolfi said:
I don't have a Holga - and I am not about to buy one. I prefer the Diana any day, but the question is, whether this is something I have "decided", or whether I am just uneducated.....

Gandolfi,

I'm kind of confused by your post since you are asking people to tell you why they like something you don't prefer and won't use. So what's the point of this navel gazing?

If you don't like the character of images made with holgas then I can see only two options:

1. don't buy one, don't use one, don't worry about it, or

2. buy one and see what it's about.

Holgas are cheap enough that you could pick one up or I bet even borrow one from one of your students to try out.

I know Clay is one person who has stated his preference for the Diana over the Holga, but he has also shot both (I believe).

This kinda seems like a toy camera Nikon vs. Canon as most people will laud (for example) their Canons as being better/preferred to the Nikon, but have never actually used a Nikon (or vice versa).

My thinking is that they are cheap enough you may as well pick one up or borrow one if you can and shoot some film... then start a post saying what you think the differences between the 2 cameras are and why you prefer one to other. I for one know I would love to see that post as it would not only be more informative than this one, but also because we'd get to see some more of your work

gandolfi · Nov 18, 2007

Jeremy said:
Gandolfi,

I'm kind of confused by your post since you are asking people to tell you why they like something you don't prefer and won't use. So what's the point of this navel gazing?

If you don't like the character of images made with holgas then I can see only two options:

1. don't buy one, don't use one, don't worry about it, or

2. buy one and see what it's about.

Holgas are cheap enough that you could pick one up or I bet even borrow one from one of your students to try out.

I know Clay is one person who has stated his preference for the Diana over the Holga, but he has also shot both (I believe).

This kinda seems like a toy camera Nikon vs. Canon as most people will laud (for example) their Canons as being better/preferred to the Nikon, but have never actually used a Nikon (or vice versa).

My thinking is that they are cheap enough you may as well pick one up or borrow one if you can and shoot some film... then start a post saying what you think the differences between the 2 cameras are and why you prefer one to other. I for one know I would love to see that post as it would not only be more informative than this one, but also because we'd get to see some more of your work

Jeremy. Maybe I am not just undereducated, but also not clear (my english isn't the best...)..

I didn't state that I never will buy a Holga - just that I am not likely to do so.
I also said, that I might be biased, and that's why I might need the education...

however, I see a third option. I am curious to know why so many buy and use the Holga, when the diana (still) is available...

maybe søren put it right: it is there, and it is unexpensive.(?)

I know what I see as the differences between these cameras (nothing to do with canon v. nikon...), and I'd be more than happy to tell, but for now I'd love some compelling reasons to try the Holga..

Akki14 · Nov 18, 2007

That Diana+ camera only came out about a month or two at most. Otherwise unless you are going to pay "you could buy a real camera with that much money!" prices on ebay for a vintage Diana, there just wasn't the option for people who's budget allows for a holga. So that's why I have a holga and not a diana...

I find diana images too fuzzy to me. I quite like my holga and my (vintage) ilford sporti (which has a lovely glass lens with no fuzziness but does have the vignetting).

pauliej · Nov 18, 2007

I purchased 2 Holgas nearly 6 years back, to try and learn some about 120 film and medium format cameras in general. I had seen a lot of stuff about them online, and didnt have any doubts that $20 cameras would be highly sophisticated picture taking machines. I have learned a lot from them, and from apug and other camera/photo/etc sites, and I believe I my investment in them has at least doubled - maybe more. I have even tried to partially disassemble one of them to try to see how the shutter mechanism really works. I am not very good at visualizing tricky bits, I have to see them in motion, etc to "get it".

If you are thinking you will be getting a cheap version of a 'Blad, or Rollei, or some other multi-kilo-buck hardware, you will be in for a big disappointment. But if you want to have a little fun with your life, and dont take things too seriously, well, they only cost a Jackson. Or, go big time and get one with a Polaroid back and have some fun.

And dont forget to post some pics to share with the rest of us.

Paul

nick mulder · Nov 19, 2007

I have both a Holga and original Diana - I'm interested in the new Diana as it seems to shoot both 4.5x4.5 like the Diana and 6x6 like the Holga as far as understand the marketing hoohah ...

I'm interested in how it can do this - wouldn't that be a lens recentre (if it shot the same centre as the original Diana) ? and either the 6x6 would vignette like crazy or the 4.5x4.5 wouldn't at all ...

clay · Nov 19, 2007

They are just different cameras.

The Holga, IMO is a little too sharp, whereas the original Dianas (and Windsors) are just dreamily soft, and the highlights often have a nice glow that you might see in a nice Verito lens in LF. The Holga lens just seems to flare rather than glow, in my experience.

In other words, I think the Diana is bad in a good way and the Holga is bad in a bad way, if that makes any sense. That said, I have done a fair bit of work with the Holga, but ever since I obtained a clutch of Dianas, the Holgas have been gathering dust.

gandolfi · Nov 19, 2007

nick mulder said:
I have both a Holga and original Diana - I'm interested in the new Diana as it seems to shoot both 4.5x4.5 like the Diana and 6x6 like the Holga as far as understand the marketing hoohah ...

I'm interested in how it can do this - wouldn't that be a lens recentre (if it shot the same centre as the original Diana) ? and either the 6x6 would vignette like crazy or the 4.5x4.5 wouldn't at all ...

you're right.
there's a little frame to put in the camera that cuts the neg size down to 4.5x4.5.
the 6x6 does vignette a lot - which is not the Diana characteristic in my opinion...

If you have a Holga, I think you have the new Di in disguise...:rolleyes:

too bad, really.

gandolfi · Nov 19, 2007

clay said:
They are just different cameras.

The Holga, IMO is a little too sharp, whereas the original Dianas (and Windsors) are just dreamily soft, and the highlights often have a nice glow that you might see in a nice Verito lens in LF. The Holga lens just seems to flare rather than glow, in my experience.

In other words, I think the Diana is bad in a good way and the Holga is bad in a bad way, if that makes any sense. That said, I have done a fair bit of work with the Holga, but ever since I obtained a clutch of Dianas, the Holgas have been gathering dust.

right on the money (my money, that is).
in my opinion Holga's make vignetted, but quite "sharp" images.

the distortion of the diana is quite unique - it resembles the quality of the Verito, mentioned before - or even more the Plasticca lens for LF.

I have both, and love to use them.

having made wedding images with my diana, the bride stated: this is excately how I felt....

one of the highest regards I will want to have!

smieglitz · Nov 19, 2007

I'll echo Clay and Emil's observations. In fact, I started writing a response last night comparing the Diana to a Verito and a Holga to something like a Gundlach triple convertible, but then I figured one would have to actually use both combos to know and understand the difference.

IMO, the Holga is too sharp, but it ain't really sharp. And, it is not dreamy. Why take an unsharp picture that lacks atmosphere? I can't imagine the application I would want to use a Holga for.

OTOH, the Diana lens diffuses and halates in a manner foreign to the Holga.

Emil, does the Diana+ have a flash synch? It might be interesting to use that cheapo accessory ringlight with it. Can you post some Diana/Diana+ comparison pictures in this thread?

nicolai · Nov 19, 2007

Sean Rohde has a side-by-side comparison of the Diana+ and a Snappy (Diana clone) here.

The Diana+ does not have a flash sync, but Don Brice has a simple (original) Diana flash sync mod here.

gandolfi · Nov 19, 2007

nicolai said:
Sean Rohde has a side-by-side comparison of the Diana+ and a Snappy (Diana clone) here.

The Diana+ does not have a flash sync, but Don Brice has a simple (original) Diana flash sync mod here.

nice link! however, he (in my mind) hasn't taken in concideration the special Diana characteristics, namely the bookey and the distortions in the corners..
(not vignetting).

I noticed it when I did my wedding images with this camera (Diana).
If you place the main subject some distance from the backgroung (ex trees), the effect is fantastic..

I'll attach a few images.
First the new Diana+. A nice enough image in a wood, but had this been taken with an "old" diana, the figure to the right button wouldnt have been in the image at all (or at least recognizable)..
It is fine here, I think, but that is not the discussion.

a little too sharp (?)

next two "Classic Dianas".
notice the background. how it distorts, almost like a frozen zoom.
and look how beautiful the light dances on the girls shoulders...

this is by far not an objective comparison - to do that I have to do like the other guy did - take pictures of the same subject.
it's an idea...

If I do it - I'll let you know my results.

gandolfi · Nov 19, 2007

smieglitz said:
I'll echo Clay and Emil's observations. In fact, I started writing a response last night comparing the Diana to a Verito and a Holga to something like a Gundlach triple convertible, but then I figured one would have to actually use both combos to know and understand the difference.

?

Damn.. I just bought a Gundlach trible convertible (hasn't arrived yet) and now you're telling me this??

I actually compare the Diana more to the Plasticca, rather than the Verito.
it is SO wild in it's distortions..

smieglitz · Nov 19, 2007

Thanks for the links. I actually like the Diana+ pics better than the Diana clone.

That appears to be a synch for the Diana F (flash) model, not the original Diana. FWIW, here's a pic of a not-so-simple conversion I did long ago to a Diana. Paper-clip flash synch and a pinhole aperture added to this one. If the new Diana+ only had a flash synch. Sigh. But, I suppose I'll have to try one out.

walter23 · Nov 19, 2007

As an aside, having noticed that lomography.com is selling lubitel 166Bs for like $200 (they go $30 on ebay) I'd be hesitant to buy about anything from them.

smieglitz · Nov 19, 2007

Russ Young said:
...the earlier SUNPET was quite similiar- not sharp, not wild, just a little soft...

Hmmm. My Sunpets were wild with barrel distortion, vignetting, doubling of images, and other stuff going on. I would shoot color in the Sunpet and B&W in the Diana.

Here's a Sunpet example:

Diana versus Holga..

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency