Holga 135BC vs Lomo LC-A: advice needed

J

Jaans

Well-known
Local time
9:20 AM
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
362
I have been meaning to pick up one of these cheap point and shoot cameras for a while now. I have a Leica Minilux so my top end point and shoot is covered.

I was wondering if anyone could explain the difference between the Holga 135BC and the Lomo LC-A. I am after a toy camera that will produce funky artifacts, ie, stray light, flare and of course vignetting. The stranger the better as I want to loosen up a little as I have never gone down this road with a toy camera.

I want a 35mm format as I have no intention of using 120 film.

I just checked b@h website and they listed the

Holga 135BC @ 135 as $45.99

Lomo LC-A $239.95

Diana Mini $54.95

What camera would you choose to produce 'interesting cosmic' results?

I read that Chris Anderson from Magnum fame used a Holga 120 to produce his popular book, Non-Fiction. I really liked the results that he obtained, but that was in 120 format. Would the Holga 135BC produce similar results?

Or should I go for the more expensive options? What about practicality with focus and loading? The Lomo seems quite expensive, is it worth the extra money?

Thankyou for any input with this.
 
I had an original LC-A that produced very good results, but the shutter became unreliable, and I swapped it for a 120 Diana - much more "interesting" results. I now have a late 1980's one that went through a strict blueprinting in Poland - same wild colours, but almost no vignetting.

I also have an original Holga 120 which is the last of 3 I bought a few years ago. Quality on these is variable, some vignette a lot while others don't - maybe the 135bc is similar?

If I had the same choice to make, I might be tempted by the Diana mini, partly due to cost and partly as they seem to have sorted the vignetting so that it is much more consistent.

I'm sure you will get meny other opinions, but it's your decision at the end of the day....
 
Thanks John for that input. That Lomo looks very expensive for what you get. I am now leaning towards the Holga 135BC as it seems a lot cheaper and may produce more interesting results.
 
Jaans said:
I am after a toy camera that will produce funky artifacts, ie, stray light, flare and of course vignetting. The stranger the better as I want to loosen up a little as I have never gone down this road with a toy camera.

I want a 35mm format as I have no intention of using 120 film.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer: I'm an anti-lomo guy. My primary camera lately has been my '38 zone focus Argus AF. It vignettes, flares, and makes funky images. If I didn't bother to replace the light shield around the neck it would also leak light. I've reversed a lens element so the focus falls off at the edges of the frame. It's also pretty, very light, pocketable and cheap. Bonus: not too many other folks are shooting them.
 
Proteus and Smasher - thanks for the input. The results sound interesting.

I was wondering if any other members have experience with the Holga and Diana? Thankyou.
 
If you prefer interesting results you should look for the type of "Nippon" plastic cameras, that can be found in every el-cheapo-store or fleamarket. They don´t have a B setting, but cost next to nothing!

IMAG0049.JPG

IMAG0006.JPG

IMAG0005.JPG


Some more examples here:
http://classicameras.blogspot.com/search/label/Toycamera
 
I've had two LOMO LC-A's, both Russian ones (1989 and 1999). They're really neat cameras, but there's no way I would pay the kind of money that the LOMO folks are asking for them. I was lucky and found both of mine for under $5 each at a thrift store. I would second petronius' advice and hit Goodwills and thrift stores and buy up a bunch of cheap 35mm's. You could then modify them any way you want.

The Argus A series is a good choice too, but probably would need some modification like previously mentioned.

Here's one from my LC-A:
3739697400_b187da4304_o.jpg


And one from an Argus AF:
3738880967_5b98b5fc44_o.jpg
 
Hello,

I've used the Holga, Diana and LC-A.

I think from the Holga 135BC vs LC-A, it's definitely an LC-A.

The Diana Mini isn't as great as you think as it is (yeah I have one too).
The Holga is much better than the Diana - it's easier to use. It is very difficult to get clear shots with the Diana in shady areas compared to the Holga.

I think out of all the cameras, the LC-A supremely rules.

But thing is, I got off Lomo for a bit because it's getting very commercial now...just get a good 35mm camera!
 
if you don't buy the LC-A in the Lomo shop it becomes a much easier decision. You might find it for much less ($50-100) on the big auction website or random small photography shops. I bought a used one for £50 at a camera shop in London that had several 2nd hand cameras (Photocraft, in Hampstead).

I'd still go with the LC-A, better lens and it's a fine compact.

3568535586_f7022e2f95_b.jpg
 
The other alternative to the LCA is of course the Olympus XA. XA 2's are pretty cheap and easy to find. If you shoot wide open the lens will vignette in a lomo-like fashion. They are much better built cameras too.

A lot of the lomo look can be achieved by cross processing. I used a lomo for a long time before getting a Leica and still use some of the same techniques.
 
Chris 101- thanks for those examples that you posted. I think that I have settled on the 135BC after doing some investigation here and elsewhere.

Petronius - that link your provided is fantastic. I have decided that I may pick up one of those PC 606 or an old Anny Diana 35mm (love the name Anny) cheaply on ebay in addition to my Holga 135BC.

RJ - I really enjoyed that first picture. Your right - that LC-A is sooo expensive on the internet and kind of destroys the whole idea of 'toy camera' photography. I have privately been hankering for a Rollei S for a while now and the LC-A's price is approaching 1/2 of a Rollei.

sara - you really helped me decide between the Diana and Holga. I really appreciate your advice.

umcelinho - that is an awesome photo, toy camera or otherwise. It is very special and seems like a cut from a film set. I will be taking collective advice here and hit some thrift shops when I am back in my home city to find a possible cheap LC-A.

nightfly - thanks for that tip on the Olympus. I just want a camera that has more potential artifacts in the final image.

thankyou everyone again.
 
I know I'm a bit late to the thread, but I feel compelled to contribute. My first film camera was a 1989 LC-A, and I can honestly say (sentiment aside) that it delivers some of the most consistently pleasing results of all my gear. If I could have only one camera to shoot colour film, I would stick with the lomo hands down.

h4zk7dZUpnmgxflv6Rtc85qN


h4zk7dZUpqx0inip1hSwrf2u


tumblr_ks3yepW9hg1qzdtoj


tumblr_ktwuj5X10r1qzdtoj


tumblr_ks5xabQFKm1qzdtoj


tumblr_ks2uu05FxP1qzdtoj


tumblr_kvieagXfM21qzdtoj
 
Back then were days when some good part of world had to use Lomo cameras and dreamed about Japanese SLR.
Now people using quality gear dream about Lomo.

don't feel offended, I'm just thinking loudly :)
 
GoneSavage said:
I know I'm a bit late to the thread, but I feel compelled to contribute. My first film camera was a 1989 LC-A, and I can honestly say (sentiment aside) that it delivers some of the most consistently pleasing results of all my gear. If I could have only one camera to shoot colour film, I would stick with the lomo hands down.

h4zk7dZUpnmgxflv6Rtc85qN


h4zk7dZUpqx0inip1hSwrf2u


tumblr_ks3yepW9hg1qzdtoj


tumblr_ktwuj5X10r1qzdtoj


tumblr_ks5xabQFKm1qzdtoj


tumblr_ks2uu05FxP1qzdtoj


tumblr_kvieagXfM21qzdtoj
Click to expand...

Its never too late to join the party in the rangefinder threads. I really enjoyed pictures number 4 and number 8. I love those stray light streaks ripping through the frames! Thanks for contributing!
 
btgc said:
Back then were days when some good part of world had to use Lomo cameras and dreamed about Japanese SLR.
Now people using quality gear dream about Lomo.

don't feel offended, I'm just thinking loudly :)
Click to expand...

Not offended in the least. I think your thoughts sum up the situation perfectly.
Back in the day I had a cheap little Pentax point and shoot that was a hand me down. I dreamed of Leica. Now I am beginning a potential downward spiral into depravity and debauchery with my new little Holga 135BC^^
 
I don't know the 135 Holga. but I use the regular 120 Holga and a LC-A.

The LC-A does not show a lot of "toy-camera effect" on the pictures, only some vignetting and moderate corner softness. It's almost like a regular compact. ;)
But I like it since the toy camera effect is rather subtle. And it's easier to use than a Holga because it has automatic shutter while the holga has a single fixed shutter time and a single fixed aperture (with the unmodified models).

So if you're after "hard-core" toy camera pictures, you will probably prefer a Holga ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom