rolleistef
Well-known
That's true but is that the actual question? Lomography is the art and means to sell completely basic cameras for a lot of money. Of course a manual everything is much better if you want to learn photography.
It's when I switched from my Olympus IS200 to my Rolleiflex that actually started doing better photographs.
But do you really think fair that a Kiev might be nearly twice as expensive as a Rolleiflex MX-EVS, because its lens lacks sharpness, doesn't record the right colours and smells of moth-repellant??
Don't make me laugh, the Lomo LC-A's being an "icon" doesn't justify its being more expensive than a Minox GT!
http://cgi.ebay.fr/LC-A-LOMO-compac...993QQihZ005QQcategoryZ626QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
It's when I switched from my Olympus IS200 to my Rolleiflex that actually started doing better photographs.
But do you really think fair that a Kiev might be nearly twice as expensive as a Rolleiflex MX-EVS, because its lens lacks sharpness, doesn't record the right colours and smells of moth-repellant??
Don't make me laugh, the Lomo LC-A's being an "icon" doesn't justify its being more expensive than a Minox GT!
http://cgi.ebay.fr/LC-A-LOMO-compac...993QQihZ005QQcategoryZ626QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
To be fair also the Fed 5 at $100 does not seem too extreme, New old stock on the bay I have seen them for about $50 and with a very hefty p&p ($25 or so), but if you get it from the lomo-shop at least you get a proper warranty with it, so if it is a lemon you can send it back (and we all know that russian quality control at the time was legendary 
) and the delivery is only about $8.
So the total cost for a new old stock FED 5 is:
$50 + $25 p&p = $75 on the bay with no proper warranty
$100 + $8 p&p = $108 at the lomoshop with proper warranty
More expensive but not terribly so.
) and the delivery is only about $8.So the total cost for a new old stock FED 5 is:
$50 + $25 p&p = $75 on the bay with no proper warranty
$100 + $8 p&p = $108 at the lomoshop with proper warranty
More expensive but not terribly so.
rolleistef
Well-known
But a Fed5 and a lubitel is not exactly is same kind camera :
a fed 5 can bear more-than-decent lenses, is made of metal and glass, and 100$ is not that expensive for that kind of camera;
But you need to look well if you want to find metal part on a Lubi except 1 or 2 screw and the shutter release.
And the Fed is not a lomographic camera. It IS a camera.
a fed 5 can bear more-than-decent lenses, is made of metal and glass, and 100$ is not that expensive for that kind of camera;
But you need to look well if you want to find metal part on a Lubi except 1 or 2 screw and the shutter release.
And the Fed is not a lomographic camera. It IS a camera.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
rolleistef said:
You are definitely right, what justifies it being more expensive than a Minox GT is customer demand.
The link you have posted is for the Limited edition XX congress VLKSM which attracts a premium as a collector item, the normal one can be found much cheaper:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Lomo-LC-A-Cla...65QQihZ014QQcategoryZ4701QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Cheers
Last edited:
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
ZorkiKat said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/lomo/
Hmm I had to read that twice before I got your point. I love the candid appeal of a throw-away cam, and it seems like from that BBC link they used to be the photographics equivalent of the YBA. Excellent to give a breath of life to art, awful for the price tag they ended up with.
Maybe I'm jealous cos I want a Zenit spycam.
Last edited:
morgan
Well-known
ZorkiKat said:
I'd like to know how other people overpaying for cameras and taking a different approach is affecting your passion for cameras and photography?
Also, while I support the use of film and these cameras, I don't believe the owners of the site and store have a philosophy or an approach for anything other than making money, applying a marketing sheen to a business plan. In a way, they've democratized film photography and created something of a wider movement while really only acting on a business plan. So while I think the business side is overpriced marketing crap, albeit well done, they've created something of a user base and movement that is positive.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
morgan said:
I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. The Lomo compact was a cheap camera freely available anywhere Soviet cameras were sold. You couldn't be more democratic than that. It was then transformed into an expensive, monopolized niche product for badge-wearing mugs with more money than sense.
One might as well say that Macdonalds have democratized cooking.
All the best, Ian
morgan
Well-known
Jocko said:
Yeah, you're right. I guess what I was trying to get at was they've broadend the market for film photography. My word choice was poor.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
morgan said:
Oh Morgan - I should apologise. I certainly didn't mean to be ill-tempered. But I am angry with Lomographics. This may be a generational thing. Back in the early 80s when I began photography, Soviet cameras were almost universally mocked, at least by photographic magazines. Choosing to use Soviet equipment was in some ways exactly what Lomography pretends to be: it was a very individual, even counter-cultural thing. They were "student" cameras; the tools of a milieu where personal creativity was more more important than cash or fashion.
Seeing that ethos bottled and sold by Lomographics just makes me wild!
No offense intended
All the best, Ian
lubitel
Well-known
rolleistef said:
correction: this trend was not launched by lomo. Lomo is a civilized russian optics company
Most of the cameras on the lomography website are not from lomo. Holga, seagull, Zero pinhole etc. all come from somewhere else. they even sell polaroid now "new! see the picture come out right away! and you can even do exposures up to 8 seconds!" I rather use my SX-70Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
Jocko said:Oh Morgan - I should apologise. I certainly didn't mean to be ill-tempered. But I am angry with Lomographics. This may be a generational thing. Back in the early 80s when I began photography, Soviet cameras were almost universally mocked, at least by photographic magazines. Choosing to use Soviet equipment was in some ways exactly what Lomography pretends to be: it was a very individual, even counter-cultural thing. They were "student" cameras; the tools of a milieu where personal creativity was more more important than cash or fashion.
Seeing that ethos bottled and sold by Lomographics just makes me wild!
No offense intended
All the best, Ian
I think we should all be careful not to cause a huge flaming debate with bad wording here.
Russian camera usage is still counter-cultural. In the photography class at college people were using AE SLR's and they hadn't even heard of a 'russian camera'. I think Lomo-esque camera's (plastic point and shoot) are considered novelties to a lot of people - not serious cameras.
I was using a Seagull SLR last year, and a friend (who was on an urban landscape shoot with me) laughed heartily at how crude it was, without split-field focus yadda yadda yadda. I darent show off my trusty Zenit-E.
Also at the London meet last month there was a bit of a mixed response to the Zorki I carried. It was respected, but at the same time I stood out from the Bessa's and Leica's. Nothing wrong with that
morgan
Well-known
Jocko said:Oh Morgan - I should apologise. I certainly didn't mean to be ill-tempered. But I am angry with Lomographics. This may be a generational thing. Back in the early 80s when I began photography, Soviet cameras were almost universally mocked, at least by photographic magazines. Choosing to use Soviet equipment was in some ways exactly what Lomography pretends to be: it was a very individual, even counter-cultural thing. They were "student" cameras; the tools of a milieu where personal creativity was more more important than cash or fashion.
Seeing that ethos bottled and sold by Lomographics just makes me wild!
No offense intended
All the best, Ian
No worries at all! I completely understand where you're coming from. It seems the order of the day is to find out what's artistically or culturally "under the radar" and market it as fast as possible to the masses, enabled by the web. Music, art, design - it's hacked up for mass consumption. It's like when your favorite band gets discovered, or the style you've been doing gets sold out around you. But I guess that's the nature of cultural trends and marketing, sadly.
There's a great analog to this discussion in the guitar world. Crappy guitars from the 60's and 70's that you couldn't give away 10 years ago have tripled and quadrupled in value because a few musicians opted to use what was available or affordable. Now new guitarists and trend whores are overpaying for these 'vintage' instruments because they're perceived as cool. They still play like crap.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
What makes me angry is that it is an european company, but prices are more expensive in Europe than across the pond, what costs $100 for the american customers, is charged €100 (about $120) to the european customers!
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
lubitel said:I rather use my SX-70
Not for long since Time Zero film has been discontinued
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
One thing that really, really annoys me about the Lomographic Society (or whatever) is that on their website they often use cross-processed images as samples from various cameras. Then they carry on about how the LC-A or Fisheye or whatever produces images with "eye-popping colour!" Most people who wander onto the Lomography site probably know very little about photography and assume that it's the camera (not the processing) that's making the crazy colours. I can imagine that people are pretty disappointed when they get back their first pictures from an LC-A that they spent $250 on.
Macpod
Established
Yeh. Thats a big caveat with lomos, however i think normal processed shots still have more saturation than normal. Using expired film also help. But the same can be achieved in any camera. I was one of those people who were thinking of buying a lomo for 125 USD(the average ebay price after the initial surge), but then i saw olympus XAs for about half the price. AE and manual focusing on a plastic camera is neat. more so than a lomo in my opinion.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
About six months ago I was about to buy a wooden pinhole camera from the Lomography shop for €140/$140, plus shipping.
A member in here (sorry I can't recall their name) gave me a link to the manufacturer, Zero Image, in Hong Kong. The price direct was $93 plus $20 shipping, and the camera arrived within a week of placing the order. Plus it was nice dealing with the designer, Zernike Au, directly.
I may go to Lomographic one day for a Yasuhara.
A member in here (sorry I can't recall their name) gave me a link to the manufacturer, Zero Image, in Hong Kong. The price direct was $93 plus $20 shipping, and the camera arrived within a week of placing the order. Plus it was nice dealing with the designer, Zernike Au, directly.
I may go to Lomographic one day for a Yasuhara.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Macpod said:
I had an LC-A once, bought off the bay to see myself what it's all about, it's a neat little camera, and feels sturdy and well build (even if I know they are considered unreliable), and I liked the lens, however in the end I sold it because I can't stand an auto everything only camera, the aperture settings are to be used only with flash.
So now my "Lomo" camera (aside from the Holga) is a minolta TC-1, which is not really a "Lomo" camera after all.
comp_wiz101
Compulsive Tinkerer
I had an auto-everything camera for a while too... I just gave it to my brother, who wanted a decent camera but doesn't have the time to use a meter.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I have an LC-A and I use it a lot in the summer with Agfa Ultra 100 or Fuji Reala. I like the results and I enjoy using small, zone-focus, AE cameras in situations where you don't want to be Mr. Photo Guy. Most of the colour photos in my gallery were taken with my LC-A.
If it breaks I'll probably try to find another at a reasonable price or, failing that, a Minox. My beef isn't with the LC-A, it's with the marketing of the Lomography folks.
If it breaks I'll probably try to find another at a reasonable price or, failing that, a Minox. My beef isn't with the LC-A, it's with the marketing of the Lomography folks.