Holga vs Lomo LC-A 120

[Joseph Bell]

Hello!
I have much love for the Holga 120N. I have never held the Lomo LC-A 120, although I have been obsessively thinking about it for several months. Thus far I cannot begin to think about allowing myself to spend $600 CDN I don't have on this relatively lo-fi camera! Then again, life is short and surreal, and perhaps I should treat myself. I wonder if any of you lo-fi enthusiasts have any hands-on experience with the Lomo LC-A 120? I have read the spec sheet backwards and forwards, but nothing beats empirical experience. To be honest, I'd buy it today if it had a proper Bulb setting and automatic exposure override! How can I spend 600 smackers on a camera that won't allow for timed exposures?! Anyhow, thank you for tolerating and/or enjoying this post! I eagerly await your thoughts and theories!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Personally, I wouldn't bother. Holga's are all I need for lo-fi photography...including their pinhole wide. I'd spend the $600 on film.

 

[skysh4rk]

I own both and like both, but I'm not sure I really consider the LC-A 120 lo-fi like the Holga, as its lens and feature set are a bit more advanced.

Although it doesn't technically have a bulb setting, it will automatically do long exposures where necessary. I would prefer manual exposure settings on the LC-A, but the only thing that wide and that portable in medium format would be a lot more expensive. It has its issues, but good balance of features/strengths for the money. I tend to use the LC-A 120 as my secondary camera when travelling.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

By buying 600USD camera you do nothing for true lomography, but just supporting those who owns the lomography label hi-fi living style. Made in China camera like LC-A 120 maximum cost is 100$ (with 50$ of gross profit).

 

[xya]

I also own both. the lc-a 120 certainly is no lo-fi camera. IMHO it's fantastic and there is no equivalent. I made a page on one of my websites http://www.120folder.com/lomo_lca120.htm and you already have seen some beautiful photos in this thread. so if you can afford it, go for it....

 

[Joseph Bell]

Thank you truly, this is very helpful!

I own both and like both, but I'm not sure I really consider the LC-A 120 lo-fi like the Holga, as its lens and feature set are a bit more advanced.

Although it doesn't technically have a bulb setting, it will automatically do long exposures where necessary. I would prefer manual exposure settings on the LC-A, but the only thing that wide and that portable in medium format would be a lot more expensive. It has its issues, but good balance of features/strengths for the money. I tend to use the LC-A 120 as my secondary camera when travelling.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Thank you! I had no idea it wasn't a lo-fi machine. Apologies to all if I have posted this thread in the wrong forum!

I also own both. the lc-a 120 certainly is no lo-fi camera. IMHO it's fantastic and there is no equivalent. I made a page on one of my websites http://www.120folder.com/lomo_lca120.htm and you already have seen some beautiful photos in this thread. so if you can afford it, go for it....

 

[xya]

Thank you! I had no idea it wasn't a lo-fi machine. Apologies to all if I have posted this thread in the wrong forum!

there you are in the middle of a discussion that could be fierce. in no way it's the wrong forum, so no apologies necessary. the lc-a 120 is a cheap plastic camera with a good lens (IMHO and there are certainly people who disagee) and a reliable automatic shutter that won't let you know its settings. the "professional" cameras that could compete are at least 5 times the price, 4 times the weight and in no way automatic, they are slow. so it depends on what you are looking for. if you love very wide angles, if you want a camera that keeps in a pocket, that is half the weight of a good 6x6 folder and that you can carry around with you with no hassle, you are set. you can frame and shoot within seconds. the results I got from it were fine. I own a mamiya rb67. the 37mm lens is more a fisheye than an ultra wide angle. it's heavy and even with a metered prism it's slow. so I'm the proud owner of the lc-a 120 who would buy it again.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Delightful, thank you! This is one of those funny decisions. I truly believe the camera is overpriced and cannot justify the $600 (CDN) pricetag. If it were $300 or even $400 I would buy it today. Is my attitude ridiculous? I'm sure I'd enjoy the camera thoroughly, and yet my "principles" will not allow me to buy a camera that seems unfairly priced! I was born foolish and perhaps I've stayed that way!

there you are in the middle of a discussion that could be fierce. in no way it's the wrong forum, so no apologies necessary. the lc-a 120 is a cheap plastic camera with a good lens (IMHO and there are certainly people who disagee) and a reliable automatic shutter that won't let you know its settings. the "professional" cameras that could compete are at least 5 times the price, 4 times the weight and in no way automatic, they are slow. so it depends on what you are looking for. if you love very wide angles, if you want a camera that keeps in a pocket, that is half the weight of a good 6x6 folder and that you can carry around with you with no hassle, you are set. you can frame and shoot within seconds. the results I got from it were fine. I own a mamiya rb67. the 37mm lens is more a fisheye than an ultra wide angle. it's heavy and even with a metered prism it's slow. so I'm the proud owner of the lc-a 120 who would buy it again.

 

[Joseph Bell]

By buying 600USD camera you do nothing for true lomography, but just supporting those who owns the lomography label hi-fi living style. Made in China camera like LC-A 120 maximum cost is 100$ (with 50$ of gross profit).

I hear what you're saying. For what it's worth, the price is only $600 CDN, not USD...

 

[xya]

Delightful, thank you! This is one of those funny decisions. I truly believe the camera is overpriced and cannot justify the $600 (CDN) pricetag. If it were $300 or even $400 I would buy it today. Is my attitude ridiculous? I'm sure I'd enjoy the camera thoroughly, and yet my "principles" will not allow me to buy a camera that seems unfairly priced! I was born foolish and perhaps I've stayed that way!

perfectly understandable. if I remember well, I got mine for 300 €. that would meet your price tag. but I had to wait for more than 6 months to get that bargain. just keep looking. it will show up. sellers who haven't sold for months might be open to offers. good luck. you will enjoy it even more if it was a bargain...

 

[skysh4rk]

Delightful, thank you! This is one of those funny decisions. I truly believe the camera is overpriced and cannot justify the $600 (CDN) pricetag. If it were $300 or even $400 I would buy it today. Is my attitude ridiculous? I'm sure I'd enjoy the camera thoroughly, and yet my "principles" will not allow me to buy a camera that seems unfairly priced! I was born foolish and perhaps I've stayed that way!

This camera costs £300 brand new. It is easily worth this price and seems reasonable for a new camera to me. Try finding another camera at this price with that lens. You won’t even find a used camera within hundreds of pounds of the LC-A’s retail price.

 

[xya]

By buying 600USD camera you do nothing for true lomography, but just supporting those who owns the lomography label hi-fi living style. Made in China camera like LC-A 120 maximum cost is 100$ (with 50$ of gross profit).

I do not agree at all. this is a special camera, made from scratch with only a few parts from other lc models. the lens alone is more than $100, let alone $50 as you suggest. it was made in few numbers, so no, it was certainly not supporting the lomography owners that much....

 

[Joseph Bell]

I do not agree at all. this is a special camera, made from scratch with only a few parts from other lc models. the lens alone is more than $100, let alone $50 as you suggest. it was made in few numbers, so no, it was certainly not supporting the lomography owners that much....

You are beginning to persuade me, uh oh...

 

[xya]

This camera costs £300 brand new. It is easily worth this price and seems reasonable for a new camera to me. Try finding another camera at this price with that lens. You won’t even find a used camera within hundreds of pounds of the LC-A’s retail price.

+1

 

[Joseph Bell]

This camera costs £300 brand new. It is easily worth this price and seems reasonable for a new camera to me. Try finding another camera at this price with that lens. You won’t even find a used camera within hundreds of pounds of the LC-A’s retail price.

Perhaps my subconscious encouraged me to start this thread so that I would be persuaded to buy this camera, damn the consequences!

 

[4season]

The Lomo is what I'd call a mid-fi camera, and depending on how you use it, photos can appear semi-soft to somewhat sharp, and IMO that's what makes it interesting. You can manipulate exposure somewhat by using the ISO control as exposure compensation, but I haven't bothered.

 

[Joseph Bell]

+1

+0.5

 

[Arthurwg]

This is a poor man's Hasselblad SWC. If I didn't already have one of those I'd jump at the LC-A. Looks like a great deal of fun. Indeed, thinking about it I might just buy the LC-A anyway. Difficult for me to resist such a cool camera.

 

[Joseph Bell]

I just had the grisly thought that this thread has been infiltrated by Lomography employees!

 

[4season]

This is a poor man's Hasselblad SWC. If I didn't already have one of those I'd jump at the LC-A.

Beware, they can multiply when you're not looking!

 

[Pioneer]

Liked them both.

LCA120 shutter died.

The Holga is still working well. Kind of like an old Kodak Brownie, not a whole lot to go wrong.

I have held onto the LCA 120 in the hopes of using the lens on something else. It is a nice lens.

 

[wyofilm]

I have Holgas, true lo-fi. They are great for their purpose. I don't know about the LCA120, since I've never seen one in person. I do have an Agfa Isolette II for which I paid less than $600 cla'd. From looking online, I don't see how the LCA120 performs better than a properly functioning Agfa Isolette or equivalent. And for less money. And an Agfa Isolette can be repaired. On the plus for the LCA120 it has auto exposure, which I assume functions well.

 

[4season]

I haven't taken apart my LC-A 120, but there's at least one DIY repair guide for the original LC-A out there, and with it, I was able to revive both a Soviet original and Lomography LC-A+

http://www.cameramonkey.net/lomo-lc-a-shutter

My own cameras didn't need such an extensive teardown. I think the Chinese LC-A+ needed to have some wires resoldered better, while the USSR original had filthy switch contacts, like it had been stored in a dusty place.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Yes indeed, and the extremely light weight and very wide lens are delightful attributes. The Isolettes do seem very interesting as well.

I have Holgas, true lo-fi. They are great for their purpose. I don't know about the LCA120, since I've never seen one in person. I do have an Agfa Isolette II for which I paid less than $600 cla'd. From looking online, I don't see how the LCA120 performs better than a properly functioning Agfa Isolette or equivalent. And for less money. And an Agfa Isolette can be repaired. On the plus for the LCA120 it has auto exposure, which I assume functions well.