kingpinnz
Newbie
hey everyone...im new to this great site so please be gentle...lol
u used to be a pro photographer a few years ago and kinda went cold turkey when i started doing graphic design instead....but ive got the bug again to shoot some film (sold my wiz bang slrs) and am thinking about a holga
just wondering what your thoughts are on the differences between the holga and the diana...i actually have a plastic agfa something...
please tell me your thoughts
regards
Brett
u used to be a pro photographer a few years ago and kinda went cold turkey when i started doing graphic design instead....but ive got the bug again to shoot some film (sold my wiz bang slrs) and am thinking about a holga
just wondering what your thoughts are on the differences between the holga and the diana...i actually have a plastic agfa something...
please tell me your thoughts
regards
Brett
Finder
Veteran
Except for the spelling, I didn't think there was a difference.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Diana was one of the original "toy" cameras, often a giveaway at fairs and such. they are pretty much the same operationally speaking but each individual camera gives different results. you could have three holgas with a light leak in three different corners 
Todd
Todd
smiling gecko
pure dumb luck, my friend
...you neeeeeed a diana or a holga or a....
...you neeeeeed a diana or a holga or a....
the diana i have yields a 4x4 image on 120 film and my holga (from holgamods.com) yields a 6x6 image on 120 fim.
in my experience the diana images are really, really sharp at the center of the negative on a 10 x 10 print...and then make a smooth transition of being less and less sharp focus out to the edge of the negative.
i don't use either enough to give you a more comprehensive explanation of the good, the bad, and ugly of either one.
i generally get more printable (to me atleast) images from either ilford xp2 or kodak cn400. it seems both films have really, reallly w - i - d - e exposure latitude which is a good match for the sometimes slow/sometimes not-so-slow shutters of both cameras.
i bought an agfa ????? (looks & feels & sounds liker a diana) and have yet to run any film through it. i've been tempted by the agfa "clack" a simple 6 x9 .....tempting, but when would i use it ? if you would like i'll see what model it is when i get back in town. it may give the same results as the diana at a more reasonable price than the diana since it doesn't seem to have the same "cult" status or appeal.
there seem to be several variants of "th real diana" and lots of copies of it as , well...they seem to go for outrageous prices on ebay. you can find them at flea markets, antique shops, and thrift/resale shops also.
doi your self a favor and buy a diana first - mine had no light leaks and my holga leaks like a....you gotta tape most holgas up at the edges of the back and the film window. still, fun cameras to use and can give some surprisingly good images. " your actual mileage may very, blah, blah, blah...."
breathe, relax and enjoy!!
kenneth lockerman
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.org
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
...you neeeeeed a diana or a holga or a....
the diana i have yields a 4x4 image on 120 film and my holga (from holgamods.com) yields a 6x6 image on 120 fim.
in my experience the diana images are really, really sharp at the center of the negative on a 10 x 10 print...and then make a smooth transition of being less and less sharp focus out to the edge of the negative.
i don't use either enough to give you a more comprehensive explanation of the good, the bad, and ugly of either one.
i generally get more printable (to me atleast) images from either ilford xp2 or kodak cn400. it seems both films have really, reallly w - i - d - e exposure latitude which is a good match for the sometimes slow/sometimes not-so-slow shutters of both cameras.
i bought an agfa ????? (looks & feels & sounds liker a diana) and have yet to run any film through it. i've been tempted by the agfa "clack" a simple 6 x9 .....tempting, but when would i use it ? if you would like i'll see what model it is when i get back in town. it may give the same results as the diana at a more reasonable price than the diana since it doesn't seem to have the same "cult" status or appeal.
there seem to be several variants of "th real diana" and lots of copies of it as , well...they seem to go for outrageous prices on ebay. you can find them at flea markets, antique shops, and thrift/resale shops also.
doi your self a favor and buy a diana first - mine had no light leaks and my holga leaks like a....you gotta tape most holgas up at the edges of the back and the film window. still, fun cameras to use and can give some surprisingly good images. " your actual mileage may very, blah, blah, blah...."
breathe, relax and enjoy!!
kenneth lockerman
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.org
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
Last edited:
Ororaro
Well-known
A Holga is usually a fat woman with a big, round head. Generally from Poland.
A Diana is usually a more classy woman coming from a western country.
That's the difference between a Holga and a Diana.
A Diana is usually a more classy woman coming from a western country.
That's the difference between a Holga and a Diana.
wde60
Warren
Holgas can still be bought new and they run a little cheaper than the used Dianas. Given that both have plastic lenses and cheap shutter mechanisms, I think there is variability between every camera of both types. So given their reasonably low price it may be worth buying a couple units of both types and giving them a try. www.holgamods.com also has Holga models with "bulb" shutter speed, added apertures and a few other extras.
mtbbrian
RF's ROCK!andFilm RULES!!
These are all great comments on these two cameras, but you'll find even more information on the forums at www.toycamera.com there are a lot of people over there that have used both cameras.
I am long time Holga photographer myself, so I really only Holgas.
Brian
I am long time Holga photographer myself, so I really only Holgas.
Brian
Epimetheus
Well-known
In my opinion Diana is more soft and dreamy in picture quality at least compared to new Holgas. Both are great but a bit different.
Thardy
Veteran
Holgas supposedly have a sharper lens than the Diana. A little too sharp for some people's taste.
mtbbrian
RF's ROCK!andFilm RULES!!
Apprently there is a new Diana that is going to be to be produced.
The Diana +.
Check out his link.
Diana +
Speaking of shrapness between the two, don't get a WOCA or Holga G model, they have a glass lens element, they are even sharper still. Not that sharpness is bad, it's just not a good thing with toy cameras.
Brian
The Diana +.
Check out his link.
Diana +
Speaking of shrapness between the two, don't get a WOCA or Holga G model, they have a glass lens element, they are even sharper still. Not that sharpness is bad, it's just not a good thing with toy cameras.
Brian
Last edited:
jrong
Too many cameras
The Holga or Diana are nothing at all like the Agfa Clack. One of the main points about using a toy camera, aside from the fuzzy lenses (which are fuzzy in varying degrees, depending on whether a lens is plastic or glass), is about the distortions and vignetting. Both the Holga and Diana give a lot of these - a pleasing, if dreamy effect. I believe Holgas and Dianas have slightly varying distortions. The Clack's lens does not distort, it just renders a panoramic 6x9 image, albeit in a somewhat fuzzy sort of way, but there is nothing very interesting about it, nor do you get any vignetting.
You can eliminate almost all light leaks with the Holga with judicious taping. Most of the leaks seem to come from the red window at the back.
Jin
You can eliminate almost all light leaks with the Holga with judicious taping. Most of the leaks seem to come from the red window at the back.
Jin
sweathog
Well-known
Or you could try something like the Akira TC-002, which offers a whopping 4 apertures (f5.6 through f16) and takes 35mm. Some shots here http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomswanboroughnilson/sets/72157600950645318/