Lomo Belair X/6-12 - for your curiosity

[TheFlyingCamera]

I remember being intrigued by the Lomo Belair when it came out - a 6x12 multi-aspect medium format panoramic camera with interchangeable lenses and auto-exposure for $300? I remembered seeing a lot of talk and hype about it but no real images to back it up. So I didn't commit. Some time went by (what was it, two years maybe?) and in the fall of last year I was getting ready to go on my trip to Italy. I wanted something panoramic, and medium format, as I had a bunch of images I had already envisioned in my mind that would only work as panoramas. I had two major constraints - I wanted medium format as my main camera for the trip was my Rolleiflex, and I wanted to keep it cheap as this was already an expensive trip. I couldn't find a Brooks Veriwide for under $1000 (well, not one that didn't need $500 worth of restoration), or practically anything else for that matter. Even the Chinese knockoffs of Horseman cameras were in the $1000+ range with a lens. I saw a pre-owned Belair on Ebay, like new in box, for $200, so I jumped on it.

If you've done your reading about this camera before, you know that it comes with two lenses - a 58mm and a 90mm. There is a third lens available, a Russian-made 110mm glass lens (the other two are fantastic plastic), but it costs as much as the camera. The camera comes with a body cap, the two lenses, the matching finders, a pouch, an instruction manual and some sample photos in the box. The camera has a shutter release lever on the right side of the front standard (the lens panel is mounted on a scissors mechanism that extends/retracts the lens panel into the body) and a film speed dial on the rear of the left side. The shutter is ALWAYS full-auto. There is a small metering cell on the front of the lens panel to the left of the lens - it is important not to cover the cell with your hand while shooting (this is not a big problem, but does bear mentioning). The only way to game the shutter is to adjust the film speed dial up or down to push it to do something different. The shutter is quite limited - a maximum speed of 1/125th of a second. There is a "B" setting that can be set on the film speed dial and allows you to hold the shutter open as long as you want. All lenses for the camera have only two apertures- f8 and f16. You can't set an in-between aperture due to the odd design of the aperture mechanism - while the aperture control ring will let you turn the aperture to something approaching f/11, if you examine the aperture itself you'll see it has a VERY strange shape. It may actually be the equivalent of f/11, but if you have any highlights in your out-of-focus areas, they'll resemble a Rorscharch inkblot instead of a circle.

Before I went on the trip, I decided to test out the 58mm lens, as this was a very interesting option for me - something so super-wide in a panoramic format. The 58, if you are a fan of sharp, relatively undistorted images, will be a giant letdown to you. I'm very glad I tested it before I went away because I would have been extremely frustrated with my results. This in part stems from the finder for the lens - the viewfinder for the 58 exhibits far less distortion than the lens itself! The lens exhibits noticeable barrel distortion:

It is modestly sharp in the center, and extremely soft and mushy at the edges:

Being that the lens is plastic, it is also extremely low-contrast. This could possibly count as an upside - the shadow areas had detail in them much further down than I would have expected, but this also contributes to the apparent softness. I would not recommend this lens for anything other than lo-fi enthusiasts.

The 90mm is a different animal, or at least a first cousin. Still a plastic lens, it has more contrast and much less distortion. I was reasonably satisfied with the results I got from it, within limits. I did make some images I'm pleased with:

In the Tiber River panorama, you can see another of the quirks of the camera - it has a purely manual red-window-based film advance and no pressure plate to speak of so the film usually bows or sags a little when in the gate, producing the curved top margin you see in this frame. Also as you can see, none of these are terribly sharp - better than the 58mm lens, but not exponentially so. You're not going to blow these up to 24x48 inch prints and expect to be able to read signs in the background.

The 90mm also does not have the flattest focal plane in the world either - this shot was taken at f/16 @ 1/125th if memory serves, and focused by guesstimation at the 9 meter mark (that's all you can do- the lens has markings for four distances: infinity, 9 meters, 3 meters, and 1 meter). In theory this should have put the whole tree in sharp focus, but you can see that the upper middle of the tree trunk is sharp but the lower trunk and the canopy are not. In the right light, with the right composition and subject, the 90mm is capable of producing reasonably sharp detail (vis the tree bark).

I would be very interested to see what the 110mm lens' images look like, but I'm not about to drop $300 to test out a theory.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Interesting review! I was always curious about this camera too, and heard mixed thoughts from those I knew who used it.

What caught my eye was the limited options you have in this camera -- few shutter speeds, for example. That reminds me a lot of my (late, very lamented) Widelux F7. Sometimes less really is more, and not having a plethora of options can really free you up...sounds like maybe that was the case here.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Interesting review! I was always curious about this camera too, and heard mixed thoughts from those I knew who used it.

What caught my eye was the limited options you have in this camera -- few shutter speeds, for example. That reminds me a lot of my (late, very lamented) Widelux F7. Sometimes less really is more, and not having a plethora of options can really free you up...sounds like maybe that was the case here.

Given the limitations of the camera, you have to just accept certain aspects of its performance and go with the flow. You do get happy accidents as well as some disappointments. But it is NOT the camera for someone who obsesses over 1/10th stop exposure accuracy or precise focus placement or depth-of-field control. It's also not terribly tripod friendly- you CAN use it on one, but it really wants to be shot hand-held.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Didn't they make glass lenses available for this model sometime after the release? I never heard anyone one mention it after they announced it, unless I daydreamed that haha. I do remember someone mentioning that a lot of the softness was also due to the film not being able to sit flat inside the camera. Also Plastic lenses have come a long way, just last two weeks ago my classes were shooting holga portraits and as long as they got the focusing down their negatives were easily printing at 11x14 with good detail.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Didn't they make glass lenses available for this model sometime after the release? I never heard anyone one mention it after they announced it, unless I daydreamed that haha. I do remember someone mentioning that a lot of the softness was also due to the film not being able to sit flat inside the camera. Also Plastic lenses have come a long way, just last two weeks ago my classes were shooting holga portraits and as long as they got the focusing down their negatives were easily printing at 11x14 with good detail.

They did make two glass lenses for it - a 90mm and a 114mm. At the moment, both 90 and 114 are out of stock, with no suggestion when they may bring them back. I may get the itch to tinker with the pressure plate (or lack thereof) on the Belair to see if I can get the film to sit flatter in the gate.

As I noted in my writeup, the 90 is a much better lens in terms of overall sharpness and contrast than the 58mm. So yes, plastic lenses are capable of recording decent images - look at the results people get from disposable 35mm cameras if they give a modicum of effort and don't depend on the flash for primary exposure.

 

[xya]

They did make two glass lenses for it - a 90mm and a 114mm. At the moment, both 90 and 114 are out of stock, with no suggestion when they may bring them back. I may get the itch to tinker with the pressure plate (or lack thereof) on the Belair to see if I can get the film to sit flatter in the gate.

As I noted in my writeup, the 90 is a much better lens in terms of overall sharpness and contrast than the 58mm. So yes, plastic lenses are capable of recording decent images - look at the results people get from disposable 35mm cameras if they give a modicum of effort and don't depend on the flash for primary exposure.

they should have made a 58mm glass lens. I can confirm that the 90mm is a better lens, but the 58mm is more fun. concerning the film flatness, there is an easy trick: put some foam into the film compartments. this keeps the film stretched. I wrote a review and put some photos of the camera (including the foam) here: http://www.120folder.com/lomo_belair.htm

 

[PittP]

Interesting read, thank you.
What makes this camera attractive?
Similar or better image quality (on the film! and considering format) should easily be obtained from most 35mm-cameras at a fraction of the film cost. (I agree, the 21 mm wide is a bit rare; you can, however, even have a rectilinear 12 mm if you need it really wide.)
From a reasonably good negative I can make good straight prints, crop panoramas - or get "creative" in the darkroom, add all kinds of blur, distortions etc., just-name-it: A simple magnifying glass as enlarging lens, a tiny light beam blinding this lens from below, warped paper ... - no way any camera can do all this, leave alone in a somewhat controlled manner.
So, I'd be curious what the attraction of this Lomo is.
Thank you and good light.
Pitt

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Interesting read, thank you.
What makes this camera attractive?
Similar or better image quality (on the film! and considering format) should easily be obtained from most 35mm-cameras at a fraction of the film cost. (I agree, the 21 mm wide is a bit rare; you can, however, even have a rectilinear 12 mm if you need it really wide.)
From a reasonably good negative I can make good straight prints, crop panoramas - or get "creative" in the darkroom, add all kinds of blur, distortions etc., just-name-it: A simple magnifying glass as enlarging lens, a tiny light beam blinding this lens from below, warped paper ... - no way any camera can do all this, leave alone in a somewhat controlled manner.
So, I'd be curious what the attraction of this Lomo is.
Thank you and good light.
Pitt

The attraction was, as I mentioned in the original post among other things, that I would not have to be carrying two different film formats with me. Another advantage is the lightness of the camera. While 6x12 is not exactly miniature, the camera is small enough and light enough that I could carry it in my camera bag along with my Rolleiflex and my Tele-Rolleiflex and two pro-packs of film. A 35mm SLR or even worse a Hasselblad Xpan would have been heavier, bulkier, and more expensive. I like to keep my gear and complications minimal when I travel. To accomplish what I did with this camera using something else would have been significantly more complicated and more expensive.

 

[AgX]

Concerning the film flatness, there is an easy trick: put some foam into the film compartments. this keeps the film stretched. I wrote a review and put some photos of the camera (including the foam) here: http://www.120folder.com/lomo_belair.htm

To work as expected those foam pads should be thick enough to add compression/friction to the film untill nearly spooled off. Your pads seem too thin for this. Am I misinterpreting your photo or missing something?

 

[filmamigo]

Your results match up with my experience. I did add both Russian lenses, but was roundly disappointed with them. I thought they would perk the camera up with sharpness and contrast that would permit nice moderately sized prints. Unfortunately I found them to not deliver that much better results. They also made the camera very nose-heavy. I ended up selling the whole kit.

I did record my initial thoughts here:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like bw from it, with dog and river panorama. But I don't think I'll be able to print from it even under my 4x5 enlarger.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I like bw from it, with dog and river panorama. But I don't think I'll be able to print from it even under my 4x5 enlarger.

I haven't tried enlarging anything from it yet - I don't have a 6x12 carrier for my Beseler. I'll have to give my 4x5 glass carrier a try, masking it off with gaffer's tape.

 

[ca1945]

The thing with lomography cameras is that they are expensive. I can understand the aesthetic of the images their cameras take and I do think they have merit. But 300 dollars for this camera new? 200 for it used? IMO the interchangeable lens and autoexposure and whatever else it features it has are negated by the fact that the quality just isn't there. If the desired aesthetic is a lack of technical precision, then why go with medium format or even worry about something like the ability to choose a shutter speed? The only thing you gain with 120 film is increased resolution, but if this is antithetical to the goal then it makes more sense to stick to 35mm with its cheaper cost and more plentiful options. If the primary goal was panoramic medium format and you actually did want some level of technical precision, dollars can be stretched much further by getting a Yashica or any other cheap and competent MF camera, and just cropping the square to the desired effect. Since there would be a real lens and you would be really utilizing the film's advantages, you could afford to sacrifice parts of the negative by cropping. And you'd have the option to use the camera in situations where you wanted a really nice sharp traditional MF image as well. In your case, why not just stick with the Rollei and not even worry about multiple cameras, or try and adapt some cheap, funky wide angle adapter on the Rollei's lens for a less technical and wide look?

I think lomo options are overpriced for the experience provided. I know because I made that mistake.. once. The belair is probably one of the more engineered cameras they've put out. I just couldn't advise anyone to spend more than say 25-30 bucks on it after comparing it to what's available on the used market these days, especially when it occupies a spot smack dab in between cameras that take lomo-like images and cameras that take precision images.

Certainly not when a panoramic disposable 35mm costs under 10 bucks and will give more "lomo" images than the belair.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The thing with lomography cameras is that they are expensive. I can understand the aesthetic of the images their cameras take and I do think they have merit. But 300 dollars for this camera new? 200 for it used? IMO the interchangeable lens and autoexposure and whatever else it features it has are negated by the fact that the quality just isn't there. If the desired aesthetic is a lack of technical precision, then why go with medium format or even worry about something like the ability to choose a shutter speed? The only thing you gain with 120 film is increased resolution, but if this is antithetical to the goal then it makes more sense to stick to 35mm with its cheaper cost and more plentiful options. If the primary goal was panoramic medium format and you actually did want some level of technical precision, dollars can be stretched much further by getting a Yashica or any other cheap and competent MF camera, and just cropping the square to the desired effect. Since there would be a real lens and you would be really utilizing the film's advantages, you could afford to sacrifice parts of the negative by cropping. And you'd have the option to use the camera in situations where you wanted a really nice sharp traditional MF image as well. In your case, why not just stick with the Rollei and not even worry about multiple cameras, or try and adapt some cheap, funky wide angle adapter on the Rollei's lens for a less technical and wide look?

I think lomo options are overpriced for the experience provided. I know because I made that mistake.. once. The belair is probably one of the more engineered cameras they've put out. I just couldn't advise anyone to spend more than say 25-30 bucks on it after comparing it to what's available on the used market these days, especially when it occupies a spot smack dab in between cameras that take lomo-like images and cameras that take precision images.

Certainly not when a panoramic disposable 35mm costs under 10 bucks and will give more "lomo" images than the belair.

As I said in the original post, I didn't want to be carrying around multiple formats of film. So no Xpan, no 35mm disposable, no Nikon/Canon/Contax/Whatever body with a 21mm lens. To do better, quality-wise, than the Belair, I'd be on the hook for $1000, as I previously said. An Xpan with the 45mm lens will set you back a good $1500 these days. Triple that if you want the 30mm lens for it. Even a battered Brooks Veriwide will run you $1k.

Cropping a Rollei negative to 6x3 is a LOT smaller a negative than 6x12, and it is still going to give me a mild telephoto for the lens when cropped to 6x3, instead of moderate (or extreme!) wide on 6x12. I'm also one of those people who sees and composes for the frame of the camera viewfinder - I'd have a very hard time coming up with a panoramic composition from a square viewfinder. Yes, I could have used my Rollei panorama head for my tripod, but carrying the tripod in itself is a burden, and there are lots of places I was visiting (most of the ancient Roman sites, the Vatican, etc) that would have made me check the tripod or just not let me in with it, period. So it was a compromise, and under the circumstances, I think, a reasonable one. If I didn't have to make some of those compromises, I'd love to have a Brooks Veriwide or a Horseman 612 or Linhof Technorama. But for being able to shoot on the fly, from the hip, as it were, with something that weighed in at mere ounces, it has its advantages.

 

[xya]

To work as expected those foam pads should be thick enough to add compression/friction to the film untill nearly spooled off. Your pads seem too thin for this. Am I misinterpreting your photo or missing something?

no, you didn't miss something. I haven't found the exactly matching foam yet, but his one helps already. it's quite stiff. I put it on both sides of the film compartment and there is a third strip on either end of the back, so there are 6 strips altogether. the first foam I tried came loose and was rolled up into the film. the second one was too thick and didn't let me finish the film. with this one the film is well compressed as a roll in the end and there seems to be no slackening any longer. springs would have been a better solution.

 

[AgX]

Yes, one could bend s-shape flat springs from brass, similar to those Agfa made, and glue them into the compartment.

 

[ca1945]

Cropping a Rollei negative to 6x3 is a LOT smaller a negative than 6x12, and it is still going to give me a mild telephoto for the lens when cropped to 6x3, instead of moderate (or extreme!) wide on 6x12. I'm also one of those people who sees and composes for the frame of the camera viewfinder - I'd have a very hard time coming up with a panoramic composition from a square viewfinder.

You're right that the negative is smaller, but that doesn't matter if your lens isn't resolving any extra detail in a larger one. Even the cropped Rollei negative will have more detail than the plastic stuff on the Lomo. I guess that's the point I was making.. It seemed like you were interested in something that would give you quality panoramic pictures as opposed to something that gives you a Lomo look, and the Belair is only appropriate for one of those tasks. The other examples you give of second hand MF panos are really nice, serious cameras and that is why they are very expensive; but they don't compare in any way to the Belair. However you can definitely get very good MF for under the 200 you spent.

I feel you on the composition aspect. I am the same way; I don't crop my pictures because I have trouble visualizing things I can't see in the viewfinder. Either I got it right in the shot or I didn't get it. One thing that helps is that I bought a director's viewfinder. It helps decouple the compositional aspect from the picture taking aspect, and could theoretically help frame a more cinematic composition (try looking at the world through a CinemaScope/anamorphic aspect ratio! Everything suddenly looks more interesting) that could then be translated to 6x6 and cropped afterwards. A used one of those would run under that budget as well, and I couldn't recommend one of those enough for a whole host of situations and possibilities.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You're right that the negative is smaller, but that doesn't matter if your lens isn't resolving any extra detail in a larger one. Even the cropped Rollei negative will have more detail than the plastic stuff on the Lomo. I guess that's the point I was making.. It seemed like you were interested in something that would give you quality panoramic pictures as opposed to something that gives you a Lomo look, and the Belair is only appropriate for one of those tasks. The other examples you give of second hand MF panos are really nice, serious cameras and that is why they are very expensive; but they don't compare in any way to the Belair. However you can definitely get very good MF for under the 200 you spent.

I feel you on the composition aspect. I am the same way; I don't crop my pictures because I have trouble visualizing things I can't see in the viewfinder. Either I got it right in the shot or I didn't get it. One thing that helps is that I bought a director's viewfinder. It helps decouple the compositional aspect from the picture taking aspect, and could theoretically help frame a more cineramic composition (try looking at the world through a CinemaScope/anamorphic aspect ratio! Everything suddenly looks more interesting) that could then be translated to 6x6 and cropped afterwards. A used one of those would run under that budget as well, and I couldn't recommend one of those enough for a whole host of situations and possibilities.

My point in writing the article was to show examples of what the camera can do - there aren't a lot of examples out there, and I wanted this to be a useful resource for other folks looking to make a decision about whether to buy one or not. Am I disappointed in the quality? Kinda. It's not what I would have gotten from a Brooks or a Horseman or even from my Travelwide (which still hadn't arrived in time for me to take it with me!). But I didn't go in to this with eyes blind - I knew the Lomo reputation as lo-fi/fuzzy/etc. I took it along as a learning experience, and I certainly did that. In a perverse kind of way it was like my Rolleis in that it gave me a certain liberation from a self-obstructing way of thinking. The Rollei did that by freeing me up from the idea that I had to have thirty-dozen focal length lenses to cover every possible photo I might want to take while travelling. I went and took the Rollei, and only the Rollei, with me to Paris two years ago. I came back with some of the best photos of my life because all I was thinking about was the view in the finder.

The Belair helped me see that an image doesn't have to be super-sharp corner-to-corner or have the nth degree of contrast in order to be a successful image. I have several images I shot with it (which is a decent ratio, given that it only made 50-some images out of the near 1000 frames I took in total) that I'm quite happy with and that resonate on an emotional level. Might I have been happier with a different lens on a better camera? Maybe. But in the sense that it freed me up from being hidebound by craftsmanship above all else, it was a worthwhile exercise. I'll probably play with it again soon, and as I mentioned, I'm looking to fabricate a pressure plate for it that will improve film plane flatness.

 

[xya]

it's funny and annoying at the same time, but any thread on any forum about lomo will end up in lomo-bashing. I have tried quite some material for panoramic photos. I started with the lomo, a second hand one, but nearly unused. I got moderate results.

then I got myself a brooks veriwide (first version), 3 times the price of the lomo. nice, but only 6x10 with heavy shading towards the edges. I even invested quite some money in a centerfilter, but you loose several stops. end of hand-held photographing.

next step: a noblex 135, I didn't have the money for a 120. the first results weren't convincing at all, uneven exposure. so I added a panolux which wasn't cheap, again I spent 3 times the price of a lomo. but in the end you have to face it: this camera is only for tripod use, has to be absolutely horizontal and no moving subject should be in view. one more problem: try to get prints made or to get negatives scanned.

so I got one more camera, a cambo wide with a 6x12 back. the camera was fine, but the back was a chinese one, so the results weren't better than the lomo. even more leaks. a final effort: I got myself a sinar vario back. nice idea, but have you ever loaded one? I got used to it, but it isn't easy. count both together and you have 6 times the price of a lomo, at least. the combination is still portable, but quite heavy. and big. and the results? I could have been warned. it's a newer version of the same angulon which was on the veriwide. one stop more, but still heavy fall-off towards the edges. as the center filter from the veriwide doesn't match, I gave up.

the veriwide will be auctioned soon. then I'll sell the noblex and the last sale will be the cambo. so I will be back to my belair and I will try to live with it's problems. and be happy with all the money from the sales.

 

[ca1945]

so I got one more camera, a cambo wide with a 6x12 back. the camera was fine, but the back was a chinese one, so the results weren't better than the lomo. even more leaks. a final effort: I got myself a sinar vario back. nice idea, but have you ever loaded one? I got used to it, but it isn't easy. count both together and you have 6 times the price of a lomo, at least. the combination is still portable, but quite heavy. and big. and the results? I could have been warned. it's a newer version of the same angulon which was on the veriwide. one stop more, but still heavy fall-off towards the edges. as the center filter from the veriwide doesn't match, I gave up.

I think you're articulating the main problem with attempting panoramic photography with medium format (or really any uncropped panoramic image): lens coverage. 10-12cm is roughly large format lens territory (10cm ~ 4"). If you need large format lenses, you might as well have a large format camera. And if you have a LF camera but want the convenience of roll film for panoramic work, you need roll film backs. In the end, you've got a weird large format camera that's heavier than you want with all kinds of add ons and probably has all kinds of quirks all for one thing: getting enough coverage onto a 6cm high film so that you don't have to crop later.

So the belair is an option, but like you say the compromises are many. But weigh those compromises to the compromise of just cropping a 6x6 (or a 6x7 if you can spring a little more for a used Fuji or something), and I just can't see how one could justify the expense of 200 bucks.

But for like 50 bucks I'd say roll the dice.

And I'm not Lomo bashing, at least as far as the aesthetic itself is concerned. Just how much those guys get away with charging for the quality that you get.

And if you've already got large format lenses and can live with the crop, then: https://wanderlustcameras.com/ perhaps? (Never used one and don't plan on it. it's just cheap. cheaper than a used belair..)

 

[xya]

I love panoramic format AND I love wide angles, something in the 21 - 24mm equivalent range. and further, it should be portable a whole day long and not be too complicated to set up. so that's a bunch of requirements.

I tried cropping 6x9. first with an old makina, but the 73mm isn't wide enough and the set-up somewhat quirky. I had good results with a mamiya universal and the 65mm/50mm lenses. their film backs are wonderful. the camera is not small and a bit heavy, but easy to carry because of the grip. maybe I'll chop off the rangefinder and only put a framing finder. that would make it smaller. focusing isn't a problem as it's wide.

the belair still isn't that bad. automatic exposure takes one task off you (yes, it's limited, but nevertheless...). it's folding and it's extremely light. I recently bought 2 spare lenses from a crushed belair. so I may try to adapt better glass to the camera.

...and as I mentioned, I'm looking to fabricate a pressure plate for it that will improve film plane flatness.

please, if ever you find a solution, let me know.

 

[PittP]

exactly matching foam .... I put it on both sides of the film compartment and there is a third strip on either end of the back, so there are 6 strips altogether....

May I suggest to put small pieces of foam (or whatever you intend to use to keep film a bit tight) to the sides or below the film spool, not the film itself: In this way the friction will not change while the film is moved across.

Thank you for outlining why you (plural) use, or no longer, or not use, this Lomo x 6-12 camera. I get your points! I've been eyeing it myself, curiously wondering. Halfhearted, though, since I don't have an enlarger that big...

In deed, this thread served my curiosity very well and answered some questions! Considering the usability (or aesthetics) of the negatives and a few other quirks, though, this would not be my choice of a camera.

And then I've learnt another small lesson: I'll enjoy my small "always-around" Olympus Mju even more, as well as the other more versatile and less pocket-friendly machines. If need be for a poster and bigger or panoramic format print or something distorted and "cloudy": My way will remain a good camera, trying to get a fine negative (or one to taste the mood) - and all options in the dark room are open.
But that's just me.

Good light all times.
Pitt

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

And I'm not Lomo bashing, at least as far as the aesthetic itself is concerned. Just how much those guys get away with charging for the quality that you get.

And if you've already got large format lenses and can live with the crop, then: https://wanderlustcameras.com/ perhaps? (Never used one and don't plan on it. it's just cheap. cheaper than a used belair..)

I did get one in the initial Kickstarter launch. Mine had not arrived in time for me to take on this trip; even if it had, combine the cost of a decent 90mm (or 65mm if you opt for hyperfocal shooting all the time), a roll-film back or hauling around a bunch of sheet film holders, and you're at well over the price of the Belair. It's cheaper if and only if you're using it in pinhole configuration, and then you're into yet another very different kettle of fish.

Also, just as an FYI, if you're thinking of a Wanderlust, they're out of stock of them now, and you'll have to wait for a new batch to be made, which given their experience with the Kickstarter, will probably be a while. If you want one now, you're looking at the secondary market. The upside of the Belair is that it's A: in current production, with warranty support, and B: readily available on the secondary market as well.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
I think lomo options are overpriced for the experience provided...

Would you be able to stay in California by selling cameras for $30 instead of $300?
How much you charge, paid for your job? Pennies?

 

[AgX]

There are two approaches at retail prices: the cost and expected profit and the price a possible buyer has to pay for similar products he knows and would be willing to buy as alternative.