Holga Pan 120 6x12 review

[TheFlyingCamera]

I had been wanting to try one for a long time, but they were stubbornly out of stock everywhere in this country for well over a year. Finally they came back in stock a couple weeks ago so I ordered one and got it in hand. Took it out last weekend to test it. Some initial thoughts:

• It is built like a typical Holga - plastic, crude, and primitive.
• The lens exhibits the typical Holga soft and squishy quality that you expect.
• Unlike my other Holgas, this one did manage to put some scratches in the film, although that may be attributable at least in part to the film being used.
• The actual frame size is slightly more than 1:2 in aspect ratio - it's more like 5:11, so it is wider than my Lomo Belair X6/12.
• while the camera does have a bubble level on it, it is placed off to the side of the finder, which makes it nearly useless - you can't level the camera while looking through the finder, which means the level only works if you're using a tripod. Which is kind of at cross purposes to using a Holga in the first place.

Here is a photo taken with it. I was using Fomapan 320 Soft, which is probably far from the ideal film to test the camera with, because it is a fairly low-contrast film, and, seemingly, a very physically soft emulsion as well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I had been wanting to try one for a long time, but they were stubbornly out of stock everywhere in this country for well over a year. Finally they came back in stock a couple weeks ago so I ordered one and got it in hand. Took it out last weekend to test it. Some initial thoughts:

• It is built like a typical Holga - plastic, crude, and primitive.
• The lens exhibits the typical Holga soft and squishy quality that you expect.
• Unlike my other Holgas, this one did manage to put some scratches in the film, although that may be attributable at least in part to the film being used.
• The actual frame size is slightly more than 1:2 in aspect ratio - it's more like 5:11, so it is wider than my Lomo Belair X6/12.
• while the camera does have a bubble level on it, it is placed off to the side of the finder, which makes it nearly useless - you can't level the camera while looking through the finder, which means the level only works if you're using a tripod. Which is kind of at cross purposes to using a Holga in the first place.

Here is a photo taken with it. I was using Fomapan 320 Soft, which is probably far from the ideal film to test the camera with, because it is a fairly low-contrast film, and, seemingly, a very physically soft emulsion as well.

Mine finally arrived after waiting well over a year it to be in stock. Haven't had a chance to take it out for walkies, though. No centre focus issues? Corners look okay to as far as light fall off goes...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mine finally arrived after waiting well over a year it to be in stock. Haven't had a chance to take it out for walkies, though. No centre focus issues? Corners look okay to as far as light fall off goes...

No center focus issues - it does do the typical Holga mushy-in-the-corners thing. Here's another example:

Of course the JPEG conversion completely obliterates the tonal separation in the lower tones - it's not nearly this blocked up an image in a full .PSD version.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The blurbs and reviews for this camera say "180 degree field of view." There are a whole lot of folks who have to be sent back to school to re-take trigonometry.

If it is a 90mm lens with a 120mm film width then the FOV is 67 degrees. About the same as the 65 degree FOV of a 28mm lens on a 35mm (36x24mm negative size).

The only way to get a 180 degree FOV is with a fish-eye lens.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The blurbs and reviews for this camera say "180 degree field of view." There are a whole lot of folks who have to be sent back to school to re-take trigonometry.

If it is a 90mm lens with a 120mm film width then the FOV is 67 degrees. About the same as the 65 degree FOV of a 28mm lens on a 35mm (36x24mm negative size).

The only way to get a 180 degree FOV is with a fish-eye lens.

No worries- I was well aware that it's not even a 90 degree field of view. Heck, even my 6x18 pinhole with the curved film plane isn't 180 degrees (maybe 120?... approximately 65mm focal length equivalent, f/300 equivalent aperture).

The Holga Pan is just another artistic alternative to my Lomo Belair - the Lomo has auto-exposure and tack-sharp Russian glass lenses, whereas this has two closely spaced apertures and two shutter speeds - 1/60th and B. The "upside" to the Holga is the body is solid/rigid, and lighter weight than the Lomo. And the finder is bigger. I have a bubble level I'm going to attach to the front where you can see it through the finder to compensate for the stupid placement of the factory level.

 

[Arthurwg]

Which do you prefer. the Holga Pan or the Belair? Which makes better pictures?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Which do you prefer. the Holga Pan or the Belair? Which makes better pictures?

It's not a question of better. Each is different. I would choose the Holga when I'm looking for something more painterly, and the Belair when I wanted sharpness and clarity.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, if sharpness is what makes better pictures, then the Belair is better. I love my Belair. The Holga Pan is easier to use as you don't have to open it up, or need batteries.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Just for ready comparison, for those who don't have one, or either, of the cameras, and don't want to go digging through my gallery to find other examples, here's a fresh one from the Belair:

Without doubt, the Belair with the glass lens is much sharper, and the exposures are better because they're metered. But that doesn't always translate into a more emotionally resonant image.

See below:

 

[Arthurwg]

Do all the Belair pictures have the wavy frame line at the top? What causes that?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Do all the Belair pictures have the wavy frame line at the top? What causes that?

Depends on your copy of the camera. I have another Belair body that has a different wavy line at the top, that just droops in the middle. The cause is the rubber bellows, and how they attach to the body. Could it be altered/eliminated? Maybe. Is it worth the risk of tearing the bellows? Not really.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do all the Belair pictures have the wavy frame line at the top? What causes that?

Nope. Mine doesn't have that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Of course, that's the bottom of the bellows doing that -- not due to finger pressure while holding the camera?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Of course, that's the bottom of the bellows doing that -- not due to finger pressure while holding the camera?

No... if it were, it would be in different places/have different shapes from frame to frame - but it is absolutely consistent from frame to frame. Besides, to hold the camera even remotely steady you grip it from the sides, and then extend an index finger or middle finger to actuate the shutter. Or hold the body with your left and the front standard with the right, to trip the shutter with the index finger. Hands are never on the bellows.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay. I've never handled a Belair, been a while since I've even seen a picture of one.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

• while the camera does have a bubble level on it, it is placed off to the side of the finder, which makes it nearly useless - you can't level the camera while looking through the finder, which means the level only works if you're using a tripod. Which is kind of at cross purposes to using a Holga in the first place.

Almost the only way I shoot my Holgas is on a tripod, so that I can use filters to control the shutter speed to get the exposure correct.

Jeremy

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Here's another shot from the Holga Pan:

It only gets "Holga-esque" at the left/right edges (when viewed horizontally - top/bottom in vertical orientation). The lens is almost TOO good.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Almost the only way I shoot my Holgas is on a tripod, so that I can use filters to control the shutter speed to get the exposure correct.

Jeremy

If I want to worry about "correct" exposure, then I'll use something like my Rolleiflex or my Kodak Chevron. For "good" exposures on the Holga, I either use FP4+ when I know I'll be shooting in good sunlight or Tri-X when shooting early/late or in dodgy lighting conditions. To me, the whole point of the Holga is to be loose and free, and to only worry about composition, since you can't even really precisely focus it anyway. There's something freeing about having to accept motion blur, lens distortion, vague focus and potentially missed exposure as part of your creative process. I wouldn't recommend it for beginners - the flaws Holgas introduce into your photography will only frustrate people just learning because they won't be able to distinguish between what the camera is doing and what they are doing right/wrong. But after shooting with very precise cameras for nearly 30 years, making these imprecise images with these imprecise cameras helps you think more creatively and do more interpretation rather than just presentation.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

If I want to worry about "correct" exposure, then I'll use something like my Rolleiflex or my Kodak Chevron. For "good" exposures on the Holga, I either use FP4+ when I know I'll be shooting in good sunlight or Tri-X when shooting early/late or in dodgy lighting conditions. To me, the whole point of the Holga is to be loose and free, and to only worry about composition, since you can't even really precisely focus it anyway. There's something freeing about having to accept motion blur, lens distortion, vague focus and potentially missed exposure as part of your creative process. I wouldn't recommend it for beginners - the flaws Holgas introduce into your photography will only frustrate people just learning because they won't be able to distinguish between what the camera is doing and what they are doing right/wrong. But after shooting with very precise cameras for nearly 30 years, making these imprecise images with these imprecise cameras helps you think more creatively and do more interpretation rather than just presentation.

I think we both feel the same way - It's the rendering of the lens and the "look and feel" of the Holga shots that I like. It's the reason why I grab it over my Rolleiflex/Hasselblad/Mamiya/etc. I find myself making different compositions and looking at things differently based on the lens limitations and what's "in focus" (loose term) and what's not.

But I still want to nail exposure.

Jeremy

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi, what is going on? Is it actual?

?

 

[cramej]

?

New user spamming multiple threads with the same post. Has been reported.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks to everyone who reported the multiple one line posts.
When I signed in this morning, my "Reported Content" list was truly impressive!

 

[MTGseattle]

What about the Bel-air with plastic lens vs. the Holga since the "Belairgon" lenses are like hen's teeth now.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, if sharpness is what makes better pictures, then the Belair is better. I love my Belair. The Holga Pan is easier to use as you don't have to open it up, or need batteries.

What about the Bel-air with plastic lens vs. the Holga since the "Belairgon" lenses are like hen's teeth now.

After comparing the Belair and Holga Pan in my recent video on youtube, I was wrong. The Holga Pan delivered sharper images. The exposure system of the Belair is nice, but I prefer the Holga Pan.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

After comparing the Belair and Holga Pan in my recent video on youtube, I was wrong. The Holga Pan delivered sharper images. The exposure system of the Belair is nice, but I prefer the Holga Pan.

The plastic lenses on the Belair are pretty mediocre. IF you can find the glass Belairgon lenses, and want sharpness, then those are the lenses and camera you want. If you're limited to the plastic lenses, then yes, the Holga wins. I was actually slightly disappointed that the Holga lens on the HolgaPan wasn't more Holga-esque - it's actually too sharp, with not enough smudgy/out-of-focus areas at the periphery. I still like it and will use it.