New LOMO MC-A

[Disappointed_Horse]

Wow, have a look at this new 35mm film point-and-shoot Lomography has introduced today:

Lomo MC-A 35 mm Film Camera Black

I'm impressed with the design of this camera as it seems to keep the lo-fi, shoot-from-the-hip spirit and style of the LC-A but add most of the conveniences of a more modern (1990s–2000s) film point-and-shoot. Price seems reasonable, in the same range as the Pentax 17, but it's full-frame 24x36mm rather than half frame. My only quibble is that the film advance is stamped metal lever like on the Olympus 35RC. I didn't like that design on that camera as it always seems to catch putting it into or taking it out of a case; I wish Lomo had stuck with a thumb wheel as on the LC-A or the Olympus Trip.

This new camera being a Lomo, build quality might be a bit of a concern, but at $550 for a brand new camera, this makes much more sense to me than buying a 20+ year old compact with electronics that might give up the ghost at any time.

 

[bensyverson]

I preordered one… They really checked a lot of boxes with this camera, and it should appeal to a lot of photographers. Some things that put it over the top:

• Manual aperture and shutter speed dials, in the same places as an M mount rangefinder. Good for muscle memory.
• Physical AF/MF switch which will survive a power cycle. Incredibly rare for a point and shoot.
• Manual film advance and rewind. Good for battery life, sound, and durability.
• A top LCD! My main digital camera doesn't have one of these, and it's almost a dealbreaker.
• Metal body. Hopefully it feels solid enough to toss in a bag without worry.
• 0.4m close focus. Much closer than many P&S or rangefinder cameras.
• DX override. No need to game the system with the exposure compensation dial.
• Autofocus. We'll see how accurate it is, but it puts this camera in the conversation with other premium compacts like the Hexar AF or Contax T2/T3.

With that said, no camera is perfect, and these things gave me second thoughts for my own use:

• The quote on the top and the goofy logo on the front. Like wow.
• I wish the exposure compensation dial locked.
• Given that the grip extends from the body, it's not necessary for the lens to retract, especially since there's no built-in lens cover. It's another point of failure.
• It's a little thicc. Not a huge deal, but it's not going to slip into a pocket or a small bag as well as a Ricoh GR or even Olympus XA.
• Lomo's track record is all over the map when it comes to quality (though seems higher lately)
• 1/500 top shutter speed limits use of ƒ/2.8 in daylight

I'll be interested to see how it goes. I could see this becoming a compelling "go everywhere" camera.

 

[Archlich]

Shockingly fully loaded. Like everything those who spent enough time fiddling P&S cameras could come up with came true. In a metal case, for the price of a Pentax 17. It's big, but still Nikon L35AF/Canon Sure Shot-big. Fine to me considering how much were packed into the camera.

The retractable lens and zone focus capability seem right in the face of the Mint Rollei 35AF.

I have my reservations. Like (the lack of information about) the AF mechanism. And the viewfinder layout. Which may still have the user to guess focal point and shutter speed selected. But these can somewhat be offset by the manual controls. Also the optical quality - the "Minitar II" leaves me wondering if it will see some improvement other than the minimum distance.

Kudos to Lomography. I'm not surprised that it's them - not some startups or "big names" - that churned this particular camera out. They've been on a roll since the LC-A 120.

Oh, maybe we'd have a MC-W (with the 17/4.5 lens) or even a MC-A 120 in the future?

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Hopefully, it's designed in such a way that if the AF mechanism goes tango uniform, you can still use zone focus.

Now that I think about it, I believe the LC-A has been out of stock and hard to come by for the last couple of years. Perhaps the introduction of the MC-A explains that. I notice that the LC-A no longer appear on Lomo's site. Maybe the MC-A is a replacement and the LC-A is discontinued.

 

[Coldkennels]

Like a lot of Lomography's stuff: good on paper, but I'd want to see it in my hand (and see the failure rate 6 months in) before I actually gave it any praise.

I could definitely see it being adopted by the same folks who liked the Pentax 17, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them absolutely fumble it with cost-cutting and piss-poor QC.

For context, I remember the Belair looking similarly fantastic on paper and a lot of folks on Twitter were really salivating over it until the first batch went out. I don't think they ever ironed out the kinks in that one - it was just one issue after another, if I remember right.

 

[plexi]

Looks really nice, and a good set of features.
Wonder how small the viewfinder is. I'd use my old Minilux Zoom more if it wasn't for that utterly terrible viewfinder, what were they thinking? 😒

 

[agentlossing]

It looks great, as long as we remember it's Lomography. They have a certain build quality. Actually not bad at all, but a bit plasticky. I'd hazard a guess that the viewfinder will be one of the areas they skimp a little. But, hey, it's very close to the price of the Pentax 17 (a camera which also has a skimpy viewfinder), but shoots full-frame, with plenty of options for exposure control.

 

[Godfrey]

I like this camera ... whether I buy one or not is questionable since I already have plenty of excellent, compact 35mm cameras with the same or more capabilities.

I was similarly very taken with the Lomo LC-A 120 but after long thinking about it, I felt it would be far better for me to find a nice Hasselblad SWC again since i have all the backs (A12, A16, CFVII 50c, and NONS InstaxSQ) that make it a far far more flexible camera. Yeah, that Hassy costs four times as much, but I'll likely get at least four times more use out of it. 🤷‍♂️

G

 

[valdas]

It is nice on the paper. But I was fooled by Rollei 35AF already (it fact, I was very happy it was faulty and I returned it without any trouble). I also have several nice P&S ( Hexar AF, Minolta TC1), so I’ll probably wait and see.

 

[agentlossing]

It is nice on the paper. But I was fooled by Rollei 35AF already (it fact, I was very happy it was faulty and I returned it without any trouble). I also have several nice P&S ( Hexar AF, Minolta TC1), so I’ll probably wait and see.

Funny enough, I trust Lomography a lot more than Mint. Lomography has a certain plasticky, slightly flimsy feel, but I have always found their products to fulfill their intended use-case quite well. Mint is a lot less consistent in my view.

 

[JeffS7444]

Looks great, but if I buy one, I ought to have my head examined: Already got too many film cameras, including an original USSR-era LC-A. Both the original, and PRC-made LC-A+ are pretty easy to service at home. Sometimes I really crave it's particular lo-fi aesthetic, but a little lo-fi goes a long way.

 

[aw614]

Saw this review posted up on youtube. Currently watching it

 

[agentlossing]

That's a good review! I have likes and dislikes; most of the camera's features are awesome. The function that it shares with the Pentax 17 (lens focus motor only moves once you full-press the shutter) I don't love, nor the inability to shoot shutter priority even though it logically should, with the separate auto/program options on the shutter and aperture dials.

 

[valdas]

Funny enough, I trust Lomography a lot more than Mint. Lomography has a certain plasticky, slightly flimsy feel, but I have always found their products to fulfill their intended use-case quite well. Mint is a lot less consistent in my view.

The review posted above suggests it might be quite a nice camera, if no quality issues.

 

[agentlossing]

The review posted above suggests it might be quite a nice camera, if no quality issues.

I agree! I rather want it... Seems like it may handily beat the Rollei 35AF at its own game.

 

[valdas]

I agree! I rather want it... Seems like it may handily beat the Rollei 35AF at its own game.

I disliked Rollei 35AF from the moment I touched it. It felt so un-Rollei... I would like to try this Lomo, the only issue I already have way too many nice P&S.

 

[agentlossing]

I disliked Rollei 35AF from the moment I touched it. It felt so un-Rollei... I would like to try this Lomo, the only issue I already have way too many nice P&S.

I was in the market, before I found a great condition Konica C35 Automatic with a working meter for $29.50! It's still rather limited in the ISO range it can handle (only goes to 400, though with a higher voltage battery, I am surmising it might get closer to 800 in reality). So, there's a use case for this (especially pushing B&W film).

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Interesting little camera with many nice features. The quote on the top is cringe-inducing. But can be addressed with a piece of electrical tape.

 

[Michalm]

Now that looks like nice little toy in a good way. I wonder if the lens is the same as old lomo minitar .

 

[bensyverson]

Now that looks like nice little toy in a good way. I wonder if the lens is the same as old lomo minitar .

The lens is marked as a "Minitar II." Based on some of the sample images and the video, the sharpness (both center and corner) does seem to be improved. But maybe I could just never nail focus with the LC-A well enough to judge the lens.