New LOMO MC-A

[Mos6502]

Looks quite interesting. I'm still holding onto the idea that Pentax will reveal a full frame version of the 17, given the film path is large enough to accommodate it, which is an odd design choice for a half frame camera.

Tangentially, it's been interesting to see the evolution of the Lomography brand, from a reseller/brander of existing products using advertising gimmickry to make sales to those who didn't know any better, to being practically the last company dedicated to keeping film photography "relevant" and film cameras on the market.

 

[TenEleven]

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.

The original Minitar definetly had some Lomography thing going on. I briefly tried the LTM version. At smaller apertures it was not too egregious but yeah ... I mean their name is Lomography!

(They have made some truly excellent LTM lenses though!)

That all said as you and others have said the Minitar II samples look to be more standard fare. I am going to guess it's going to be a so-so performance wide open (most compacts even the mythical T3 do not that great at full aperture) and then get pretty good at the kind of apertures you'd use for snapshots anyway.

Edit: Just realized that manual advance means that it will not do this dumb thing that almost every Japanese compact does - where it pulls out a ton of film before starting frame #1. Some of these cameras (Minolta TC-1!) are quite small and thus waste a lot of film. That was totally not collusion by the way, no siree!

 

[aw614]

Looks quite interesting. I'm still holding onto the idea that Pentax will reveal a full frame version of the 17, given the film path is large enough to accommodate it, which is an odd design choice for a half frame camera.

Tangentially, it's been interesting to see the evolution of the Lomography brand, from a reseller/brander of existing products using advertising gimmickry to make sales to those who didn't know any better, to being practically the last company dedicated to keeping film photography "relevant" and film cameras on the market.

After seeing some disassembly videos of the Pentax 17, I thought the same thing like the half frame was just a test run, but that the chassis was designed to eventually spawn other models including full frame.

 

[aw614]

The original Minitar definetly had some Lomography thing going on. I briefly tried the LTM version. At smaller apertures it was not too egregious but yeah ... I mean their name is Lomography!

(They have made some truly excellent LTM lenses though!)

That all said as you and others have said the Minitar II samples look to be more standard fare. I am going to guess it's going to be a so-so performance wide open (most compacts even the mythical T3 do not that great at full aperture) and then get pretty good at the kind of apertures you'd use for snapshots anyway.

Edit: Just realized that manual advance means that it will not do this dumb thing that almost every Japanese compact does - where it pulls out a ton of film before starting frame #1. Some of these cameras (Minolta TC-1!) are quite small and thus waste a lot of film. That was totally not collusion by the way, no siree!

Hopefully lomo doesn't do what Minolta did on the himatic af2 model, forcing you to wind the manual lever twice when film is inserted and the door is closed before you can shoot as normal!

 

[TenEleven]

Hopefully lomo doesn't do what Minolta did on the himatic af2 model, forcing you to wind the manual lever twice when film is inserted and the door is closed before you can shoot as normal!

I think this is where their stuff being usually quite bare-bones comes out in our favor.
Also shooting the partially exposed lead-in is Lomography as heck!

 

[valdas]

Edit: Just realized that manual advance means that it will not do this dumb thing that almost every Japanese compact does - where it pulls out a ton of film before starting frame #1. Some of these cameras (Minolta TC-1!) are quite small and thus waste a lot of film. That was totally not collusion by the way, no siree!

Unfortunately this waste of film stuff comes with all (?) auto-wind cameras...

 

[TenEleven]

Unfortunately this waste of film stuff comes with all (?) auto-wind cameras...

No, the Samsung AF Slim does not do it. You get 38/39 frames.
Now Samsung of Korea was not part of Japan National Photo.

I am sure these two pieces of information have no connection to each other...

 

[valdas]

No, the Samsung AF Slim does not do it. You get 38/39 frames.
Now Samsung of Korea was not part of Japan National Photo.

I am sure these two pieces of information have no connection to each other...

It could be. I used to have that Samsung model, but sold it. Anyways - 38-39 is quite uncommon with auto-wind cameras. Another thing is that with todays film there are no 38-39 frames anymore. they just make it shorter. I had some weeks ago several films drying in my bathroom - Ultramax from today was something like 2 or even 3 frames shorter than Fuji Reala from early 2000. I had 41 frame on it (shot with Contax T).

 

[TenEleven]

I got 39 frames with the Samsung just last week on new T-Max 400. This 39th frame has glue smears on it so it's not going to be really (wet) printable without a lot of salvage work, but it's technically 39 frames.

And yes film has been shortened. I have observed similar. I used to get 40 or 41 frames on my Rollei 35. In one case I somehow managed 42 on a store-bought roll.
Nowadays, if I get 40 clean ones from the Rollei, I consider myself lucky.

Edit: Anyway this is getting off topic and is just something that irked me - especially in extreme cases such as the Minolta TC-1 - which is smaller than a Rollei 35 and should - with no trouble - get 40 frames. Even today. But you get 37. As compacts are not my main way of shooting it's more an irritation than a legit issue.