Holga toy camera

I've just recently been looking into the Holga toy camera. It's 15

bucks mail-order, and looks like it might be a fun introduction to

medium format. I was wondering if anyone has any experiences or

recommendations regarding the Holga or similar cameras, or just words

in general for an absolute beginner to this format.

 

<p>

 

thanks,

j

There's a whole toy camera presence on the web.

 

<p>

 

start with...

 

<p>

 

http://ns1.inet.net/~smahoney/index.html

 

<p>

 

Looks like fun.

tse-sung

Hi Jim,

Another good spot on the web is...

http://www.concom.com/~winters/toy_home.htm

 

<p>

 

I got one from Freestyle, it is cool, very basic but intersting

results.

 

<p>

 

Happy Shooting

Boe ;^]

If you want a good source for them, go to the <a

href="http://www.freestylesalesco.com/">Free Style Sales Co.</a>

They have Holga and Lubitel. <a

href="http://www.calumetphoto.com/">Calumet Photo</a> has the Seagull.

It's also useful for pinhole work. Saw off everything down to the

body, mount your pinhole and go to it. The advantage of this over a

hand made box is the viewfinder. There's no tripod mount but one can

be epoxied on.

JiM:

 

<p>

 

The Holga is a toy camera and the picture quality will not be very good. There are other ways to get into MF on a budget. The Seagull can be had for $149.95 at the calumet site,

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com

 

<p>

 

For a comprehensive run dowm on MF cameras from $200 and up see;

 

<p>

 

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gindex.html

 

<p>

 

Danny Gonzales has prepared a rather exhaustive writeup on MF systems, many of which he has personally used. Good reading!

Correction-The seagull is $139.95 on the Calumet site

I once bought a Diana at a rummage sale for a buck. I put a roll

of film in it but never printed any of the pictures --- when I

developed them I saw they were smeary, ugly, out of focus. I

then went to a photo conference and every third college student

had "haunting, evocative photos" made with the Diana. I sold my

Diana to someone for 5 bucks which probably just about covered

the initial cost, the cost of the film and developer I wasted.<p>

$15.00 for a Holga does not seem like a lot of money, but if you

want smeary, out of focus pictures can't you just put a filter

with some vaseline on it and a vignetting lens hood on the camera

you already own and get the same effect? My problem with the

Diana negs were that there were almost no exposure contols (I

think it had sun, sun behind a cloud and no sun to choose from).

So you really had little or no control over neg density. So I

was limited to printing 4 inch square if at all. The only

control I had was where I pointed it. To judge by the fellow

participants at the photo conference who had pointed their dianas

at each other (clothed and naked), their family and pets (dogs

are a popular subject of diana photography), their homes, their

parent's living room furniture, suburban shopping malls, etc.,

they already had most subjects just about covered.<p>

I'm not claiming that interesting work CAN'T be done with a diana

(or a Holga), but if the most interesting thing about a

photograph is that it was taken with a crappy camera, well, then

it is not really a very interesting photograph. In this way,

most plastic camera photography looks the same to me.<p>

My advice (feel free to ignore it) is to do the Vaseline-filter

thing first. If after three months or so you still love it, then

buy the Holga. My insubstantiated assertion for the day is that

90% of the Holgas sold are used once or twice and then end up

languishing in the closet because the owner gets tired of them.

I thought plastic camera pictures were cool when I saw them

first, but it wore off fast.

stefan wrote:

 

I once bought a Diana at a rummage sale for a buck. I put a roll

of film in it but never printed any of the pictures --- when I

developed them I saw they were smeary, ugly, out of focus. I

then went to a photo conference and every third college student

had "haunting, evocative photos" made with the Diana.

 

Haunting, at least! Their dope-smoking art professors told them to

call the results evocative.

 

I sold my

Diana to someone for 5 bucks which probably just about covered

the initial cost, the cost of the film and developer I wasted.<p>

$15.00 for a Holga does not seem like a lot of money, but if you

want smeary, out of focus pictures can't you just put a filter

with some vaseline on it and a vignetting lens hood on the camera

you already own and get the same effect?

 

No, the "ethereal mystique" would be lost. [:-)

 

...To judge by the fellow

participants at the photo conference who had pointed their dianas

at each other (clothed and naked), their family and pets (dogs

are a popular subject of diana photography),

 

Diana=naked dog, maybe?

 

their homes, their

parent's living room furniture, suburban shopping malls, etc.,

they already had most subjects just about covered.<p>

 

Except for their Dianas, which they shoulda covered with dirt....

 

I'm not claiming that interesting work CAN'T be done with a diana

(or a Holga), but if the most interesting thing about a

photograph is that it was taken with a crappy camera, well, then

it is not really a very interesting photograph. In this way,

most plastic camera photography looks the same to me.<p>

 

Well now, if you insist on maintaining a level-headed view based only

on logic and an innate sense of right and wrong, your radical,

mean-spirited, right-wing assumption may have some microscopically

atomic-level merit, but the American public is surely tired of

hearing about it by now! So let us concentrate our efforts to raise

taxes enough so that not only every American citizen, but every person

in the world, including all starving infants in the world, will be

able to cast their collective vote by clicking their free, collective

Diana-clone shutters in unison as a powerful expression of their

distaste for the almost universal unaffordability of Rolleiflex

cameras and accessories. CLICK!!

 

Hoo-eee. Now let me try to soften your view, if not your optics, with

this. Some 40 or so years ago, one of the two mainstream photo

magazines, Pop or Modern, tested the mystique of exotic cameras versus

raw talent. To each of six consenting top-notch professional

photographers, they mailed an identical plastic box camera and several

rolls of 120 or 620 b&w film. As I remember, there were no rules,

except that all film was to be returned exposed but unprocessed.

Several months later, the published results were to cry for. Each pro

shooter intuitively recognized and worked within the limitations of

his assigned equipment. Each, in his own way, saw opportunities rather

than limitations, and each produced some absolutely stunning shots for

the magazine.

 

Yes, all the prints were both square and slightly fuzzy, and hardly

worthy of 5x5 enlargements. Still, most were shots that you and I wish

we had shot, and they conveyed the personality and talent of the

shooter.

 

Maybe I'm remembering all this with just a bit too much jaundice.

Anyone else remember that magazine article? Better yet, do you have a

copy you could scan and post for the betterment of us all?

 

I thought plastic camera pictures were cool when I saw them

first, but it wore off fast.

 

Yup, I like sharp, too, but a plastic camera in good hands can provide

good lessons in "seeing" for us all, don't you think? Maybe an annual

outing with a 1/50 @ f/11, focus-free camera finished in "professional

black" bakelite would inflict just enough humility to jerk our

collective collars back into reality.

 

Regards,

 

Mel Brown

exposure control = right wing politically<p>

lack of exposure control = left wing politically<p>

Excuse me.<p>

Did I miss something?<p>

"a fun introduction to MF"...Since there is nothing in common between this camera and "real" MF cameras(except for the film), it would not be an introduction at all. Besides, why do you need an introduction? The only difference IS the film. Sure, there are operational differences but still you get to set one aperture and one shutterspeed per exposure!

Benefits of a Holga/Diana:

 

<p>

 

No costly lens sets or accessories to buy. If it is stolen, you

won't care. Cheaper by the dozen. If it is broken, you might not

notice. Good practice for loading 120 film, as a conversation piece,

and as a bookend.

 

<p>

 

And you might actually enjoy the pictures you produce with it.

 

<p>

 

Try it out in a studio setting as a soft lens with its own shutter

and back. From all of the shots I've seen with this camera, nobody

has actually tried to do a pro-quality shoot with it. They meander

around aimlessly, shooting whatever for any reason. Big deal.

Define the lens qualities, define your subject matter, go shoot. The

camera is <b>secondary</b> to subject and lighting.

 

<p>

 

<b>Stefan:</b>

 

<p>

 

This camera has a <i>plastic lens</i>. What were you expecting?

Something to rival a Rollei, a Hasselblad, a Leica? You paid a buck

for it. You don't like the soft effect? Irrelevant. The tool does

what the tool does. Discover the forte of the tool, and use it there.

>>This camera has a plastic lens. What were you expecting? Something to rival a Rollei, a

Hasselblad, a Leica? You paid a buck for it. You don't

like the soft effect? Irrelevant. The tool

does what the tool does. Discover the forte of the tool,

and use it there.<p>

I don't understand this philosophy that states that artistry and

technical standards are worlds apart. Why, by these standards,

is a blurry picture considered artistic and a sharp picture

considered cold, hard, unfeeling or Nazi? Maybe I am just not

hip enough for Holga but I have done all the image degradation

stuff --- solarized prints, photo lithographs, Diana

photography, pinhole photography, etc., etc., etc. In most

cases, after a while I had to recognize these alternative

processes for what they were as I used them---just gimmicks,

really. One of the things I love about photographs is that they

are a way of storing huge amounts of visual info in an easily

shared form. After a while the soft focus, the lack of exposure

controls, etc., of the Holga/Diana just become a gimmick, blurs

and murkiness to hide the fact that all too often the plastic

camera photographer him/herself really has nothing to say. Is

that the plastic camera's fault? No. But if you are a little

bored with your photography and decide to use a plastic camera

to 'spice things up' I think you are in serious trouble. <p>The

original poster asked>> if anyone has any experiences or

recommendations

regarding the Holga or similar cameras, or just words in general

for an absolute beginner to this format.<< By this format he

meant the medium format. I second the above contribution where

someone said that the only thing a Holga had in common with

other medium format cameras is the film size and that a 35mm

camera with aperture and shutter speed controls will be a better

learning instrument. Most people seem to go from 35mm to 6x6

because they want more image quality. This increase in image

quality is apparent when you make your first enlargement. A

Holga will not give you that increase and is thus not a good

introduction to the capabilities of 6x6 for a 35mm user.<p>

yes. right wing is sharp, quantifiable, reductionist, lens tests,

pedigrees, mathematical, scientific, cynical, organized. left

brain=right wing.

 

<p>

 

yes. left wing is vague, mysterious, spiritual, ambiguous,

metaphorical, sentimental, gullible, from-the-hip-don't-even-look

-throught-the-finder intuitive. right brain=leftwing.

 

<p>

 

try a diana in a dark studio on bulb, with professional lighting

(kill the modeling lamps and pop), as if you were going to shoot with

yer ultablad. you will get a QUALITY to this image that is not

possible with vaseline or zeiss optics. this is a good combination of

left/right brain... left brain/right wing lighting with right

brain/leftwing camera. good for all you extremists.

 

<p>

 

now why i shoot medium format, rollie and diana. it's a quality of

image that i'm looking for and by quality i don't mean expensive i

mean a specific characteristic that comes from using more silver in

the neg per square inch of print formed by a specific type of lens,

available in a spontaneous creative context. (how's that for a run on

sentence!) so the diana IS medium format, but it's not rollie. a

square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

 

<p>

 

try the diana (on bulb)in the photojournalist mode with a 283 or a

lumidyne in the other hand, it's an effect oldtimers got with the long

decay light of flashbulbs. the strobe bare bulb light brings an edge,

the long shutter/light decay brings softness and the camera forces you

to edit your vision to a specifically suitable subject matter.

 

<p>

 

i have seen many commercial advertising jobs shot with toy cameras.

there was an article in Photo District News a couple of years back

that was entirely about this "trend"... is it still a gimmick? even

when it's a money making tool? what IS a gimmick in photography?

panoramics? infrared? fisheye? photoshop? is whose hand? in what

context?

 

<p>

 

yes. the diana is a gimmick. if you don't know what to do with it.

but any widely practiced technique can be reduced to a gimmick by an

unimaginative practitioner who merely apes what they have seen of that

technique.

 

<p>

 

what is the difference between a cliche' and a classic? one is well

done and one is not. nudes, peppers, barns, seagulls.

 

<p>

 

and if you're bored with your photography and you decide to buy a 6003

to spice it up, i think you're in bigger trouble.

 

<p>

 

and when are you guys gonna quit beating that dead lens-test horse?

jeez.

1. Cameras are tools.

 

<p>

 

2. Cameras are the means to an end - a photograph.

 

<p>

 

3. Choose the tool for the job you want to do.

 

<p>

 

4. The tool used does not make the photograph good or bad.

 

<p>

 

5. If soft focus is "bad" why does Rodenstock make Imagon lenses?

 

<p>

 

6. I sometimes use a $15.95 110 camera - I have made interesting photographs with it.

 

<p>

 

7. I sometimes use a Nikon - I have made interesting photographs with it.

 

<p>

 

8. I sometimes use a Plaubel Makina - I have made interesting photographs with it.

 

<p>

 

9. I sometimes use a Hasselblad - I have made interesting photographs with it.

 

<p>

 

10. I sometimes use a Cambo 4x5 - I have made interesting photographs with it.

 

<p>

 

GET THE IDEA? You can make good photographs with any kind of tool -- it just takes imagination.

This debate is interesting to me. I agree that we can make good

photographs with any sort of tool. But if the tool overtakes the

process, it probably ceases to be a tool, really.<p>

I don't know how I can explain to you guys that "creativity" and

"imagination" does not mean that you allow your tool to decide how

your photograph will look. My complaint with Diana pictures is that

they all loook like, well, Diana pictures. There has been all sorts

of fancy talk in art criticism and art education circles about using

these toy plastic cameras to "learn how to see," or "liberate

ourselves from the constraints of photography" or whatever. I feel

that philosophy is very misguided. I think most serious lifelong

students of photography go through difficult periods. But so do

painters, writers, musicians, etc. No one suggests that a musician

switch from a real saxophone to one made by Fischer Price. The

problem is that most people percieve the tool in photography as being

SO important that in order to "see different" the photographer must

switch tools.<p>

My definition of creativity? Stop switching tools. Work with the

tool you have; find out everything that you can do with it. In many

photography education programs the students are asked to commit to

one camera for a semester. Do the instuctors do this because they

want to deprive or punish their students? No. The instructors know

that creativity does not depend on tool choice, it depends upon tool

use. If you want to take a picture and you have only one camera to

do it with, you are going to figure out a way. If you are very

familiar with your tool (which you will be if you stop switching

tools and keep photographing), working with the tool will be second

nature and you can spend your energy on making the photograph, not on

choosing or manipulating your tool.<p>

As far as the political implications of being pro or con Diana

photography, well, I read Photography at The Dock by Solomon-Godeau

and Diana and Nikon by Diane Malcolm. I felt that the arguments both

of these writers were making were based on the superficial qualities

of any photographer's personal history and ouvre. Solomon-Godeau in

particular was rather relentless in categorizing some artist

photographers from history as "acceptable and correct" and others as

incorrect. For someone who identified themselves with the left,

Solomon-Godeaus arguments were EXTREMELY regimented and dogmatic.

These arguments sound good on paper but outside the paper castles of

pure theory don't really hold water. NO political philosophy owns or

controls any given photographic mode. Straight photography is not

the photography of the right wing, alternative process photography is

not leftie either. I have done photographic work for publications

that concearn themselves with the rights of workers, women and

minorities. I have donated photographs to not for profit auctions

and not for profit art education groups. THESE acts are my overtly

political acts in the public realm. Soft focus or no soft focus

becomes irrelevant in the discussion. In fact, I would argue that

the continued use of soft focus effects in portrait photography

actually harms women since it perpetuates the misconception that a

womans beauty is directly tied to having smooth skin. Maybe we need

to put away our Softars, Nylon filters and vaseline and start loving

each other with pores, wrinkles, nosehair and all.<p>

The tool does not decide the photograph, the photographer does. The use of any tool is predicated on the idea that it is the best tool for the job (or in this case the photographic effect which enhances the artistic expression).

 

<p>

 

Your allusion to musicians etc. is way off base, as people such as James Gallway, have recorded albums using "toy" musical instruments specifically because of the "effect" intrinsic to the musical instrument (in fact, there is a toy piano album that was just recently released). In much the same way, the use of a "toy" camera should be for the effect intrinsic to the camera which enhances the final artistic expression. The idea is - correct choice of a tool for the idea to be expressed.

 

<p>

 

As far as working with a tool. I understand exactly what you are saying, but, for me personally, you're way behind the power curve on that one. My photo instructors were people like Leslie Stroebel (that's right, the View Camera Technique man), Hollis Todd, Richard Zakia etc.

 

<p>

 

When I bought my first 4x5 (30 years ago) I could only use one lens as that is all I could afford, so I shot with a 180mm for four years. I have use my Makina 670 for 16 years with only one lens as it is not interchangeable. I think I've "worked out" with a single lens, its point of view, framing requirements, characteristics etc. enough that I can make an informed decision to choose the tool I want to use for the idea I want to express. If you haven't - fine, just put more time in. But, be open minded enough to not judge what other people want to do by your current state of photographic advancement.

 

<p>

 

Just recently, I finally bought an auto-focus 35mm camera and a zoom lens only because the tools I had (manual camera with prime lenses) would make the job I had to do (shoot live action at a cutting horse competition) much more difficult and I probably would have lost many shots.

 

<p>

 

I also happen to own an Imagon for my Hasselblad. Why? Because when doing some architectural work, the architect asked for something "different" that would convey a "mood." I did an interior looking across a large Jacuzzi, and out through a window towards the sunset. The Jacuzzi was surrounded with candles, two wine glasses which caught the sunnset, towels, bathrobes etc. I photographed it with the slightly softened effect of the Imagon accentuating the highlights of the wine glasses and candles lending an overall soft mood to the scene. It was just what he wanted. Again, use of a tool to and its inherent characteristics to produce an intended effect. Of the 30 photographs I took that day, it is the interior shot that he likes to show to prospective clients as the mood created is slightly altered from reality and gives them the opportunity to imagine what moods might be created in their new house.

 

<p>

 

I recently purchase a panoramic camera because for two years I have seen photographs that I could not capture with any of 10 cameras in my equipment locker. I tried taking the pictures with my Makina, the Hasselblad and a 4x5 with a 65mm lens. The formats were wrong and the angles of view were not wide enough. One solution. Correct tool.

 

<p>

 

I sure a painter could paint a picture (or an entire house) with only one brush. Most painters I know have many brushes because they need the effects available from the different brushes. Most of them also use more than one color.

Oh yeah. this is fun. i love disagreeing with intelligent people. i'm

always amazed at the human capacity to simultaneously believe in

contradictory concepts. interestingly enough it's because we have what

is called a bi-cameral mind. suitable to this discourse.

 

<p>

 

stefan, you may recall a conversation we had about Albert Watson, whom

i was fortunate enough to talk with at legnth. He was exhibiting

photographs made with cameras from disposable to 8x10 and yet they all

had a definate stylistic sensibility imposed by an artist of

sufficient maturation to utilize whatever tool he chose!

 

<p>

 

your definition of creativity reminds me of the humourous but accurate

definition of available light: any light that's available.

 

<p>

 

my definition of creativity (in this context) would be to consider any

tool, with the progressive choice of the appropriate tool. and the

only time i crave familiarity with a tool is when i have a deadline!

which, thank god, is not ALWAYS the case.

 

<p>

 

i frequently wish i had attended art school, but then i hear an

argument so enmeshed in an academic perspective that i am relieved to

have escaped that entanglement. i believe many instructors at art

school restrict their students choices in order to simplify the

teaching process, which is necessary when you have a silibus to follow

and 30 hormone infested post-adolescents to control. i would hate to

try to instill the concepts of style and vision to students using a

different camera every day.

 

<p>

 

but once technique has been learned to the degree of second nature,

why should i restrict myself to only square pictures when i can take

round ones, too? i just group these into a new portfolio! and i will

have a book with many chapters.

 

<p>

 

by describing types of photography as left or right brained, i assign

no absolutes of correct or incorrect, these are attributes of a whole

which need each other to be balanced. it's the old yin/yang thing. the

most left wing photographer i know uses only one camera and one lens,

Duane Michaels.

 

<p>

 

like steve, i became so used to the 135mm lens i used on my first two

4x5 field cameras, i could look at a scene for 15-20 minutes before

unpacking my gear and set the tripod up within 12 inches of it's final

taking position, without even looking through the camera.

 

<p>

 

now i enjoy being surprised by the angle of veiw of my sx-70, or a

SL66 focused at 6 inches, hell the rangefinder isn't even close on my

polaroid 180 but it makes pictures of a totally unique quality and i

know just when it's the right one for my idea.

 

<p>

 

you see, when i got excited about photography, it was when i

discovered i could make pictures, that made people think about things

that weren't even IN the picture.so who cares (in some instances) if

the object isn't sharp in focus, as long as the subject is clear!

 

<p>

 

and steve! what's the name of that woman who's recorded the toy piano

music, i heard some on NPR and didn't get her name. She's a

classically trained concert pianist who performs on grand pianos and

toy ones as well. rollies and dianas, why not?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

>>The tool does not decide the photograph, the photographer does.<<

<p>

But when the tool becomes overly assertive, we see the tool marks

rather than the artwork.<p>

You allusion to Gallway is only about half right. Gallway DID

use the penny whistle and this choice by a classical flautist

suprised many. But the songs he was recording were folk songs

traditionally performed by farmers with inexpensive instuments.

The penny whistle was not "another flute" to Galway, it was a

whole new instrument appropriate to the music he was recording.

If your Hasselblad is a flute, then the Diana is a penny whistle,

but it is a penny whistle with only about half the number of

fingering holes it requires to actually play a tune and has a

reed that only works intermitently.<p>

In my recollection of my postings I have not attempted to tell

others that the diana is not a camera or that creativity is

defined by the tool. But the original poster specifically stated

that he was wondering if the $15.00 plastic camera was a good

intro to medium format camera studies. I think the original

poster would be much better off saving that cash towards a low

price TLR or similar camera(as has already been suggested) if he

wants to learn about printing from larger negs. If he wants to

buy the Holga and knock around and take poorly exposed blurry

pictures, fine. But lets not delude ourselves into thinking this

is going to teach him much about the possibilities of imaging

that become availible when one switches from 35mm to MF. Correct

me if I'm wrong --- was that not the original question?<p>

The diana has nothing in common with the Imagon or other soft

focus specialty lenses. I haven't used these lenses but have

seen prints from them. The soft focus lenses seem to allow the

photographer to control the degree of softness and they certainly

allow the photographer to contol where depth of field will fall

and allow the photographer to control exposure. As an Imagon

user feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. The diana

is not a soft focus lens, it is a lens that is so bad that they

make the film plane curved to compensate in some small way for

its inadequacies. Even fully stopped down my diana did not cover

the corners. It has it's charms and its place I guess. But a

good, fun intro to MF photography it is not.<p>

A few years ago I saw a band called Pianosaurus. They had all

toy instruments and played cover tunes. Me and my friends drank

beer and had a good time. I'd never buy a Pianosaurus CD though

-- it is just a novelty act. If you took away the toys and gave

them regualar instruments the novelty would have dissapeared.

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder????

 

<p>

 

Oh, the way the photgraph is produced is, well Man Ray used different

methods, Bailey and Co in the seventies were comissioned to use

Polaroid cameras, Oh, Ornette Coleman played a plastic

saxophone....most of the time........... but there is a formula for

for the aspiring photographer ...every day go out and take six

photographs, when you become bored with your own photos because of the

sameness in composition and lighting, you are beginning to realise the

the strong need to view each subject in a different manner. The

pianist at the parties who plays the same party pieces is on a par

with the boring photographer.......... go out and play with the

Holga/Diana/ camera......and be surprised with the results...... Ohh ,

the lens can be cleaned and get rid of 90% of the smears.....I

attended two colleges, one art and one technical, in the pursuit of a

photographic education and I feel this has given me a greater

confidence in achieving the desired result,but as for restriction on

thought ......tosh...........OHH, if you really want some easy lens

tests without getting into sinusoidal transparency and spatial

frequency............... but I'm definitely not a techno freak and as

for the original question.........you pays your money and takes your

choice............and enjoy the fun with the Holga.......... and save

the prints because after a number of years you will be able to look

back and still enjoy......but can the same be said of the first shots

taken with Blads,etc. as an aside, I was recently in the Tampa area

and I was surprised at the complete lack of Books either by or on Heni

Cartier- Bresson....at some of the larger bookstores.....'Borders' and

'Barnes & Noble', .... maybe someone would like to comment....but the

'Worlds largest bookstore' in Toronto had several...?????

 

<p>

 

Jack Mc Vicker.

<they made the film plane curved>

that's the best diana joke i've ever heard!....

 

<p>

 

like they gave a damn whether it was flat or not! the film gates

aren't square, the lens doesn't cover, the shutter is never the same

and they leak like a sieve!

here's a new topic: is an oatmeal box pinhole camera a good intro to

large format and which kind of brick should i tie it to?

sorry, that was a knee jerk response. but deliberately making the film

plane curved? it would be even funnier if it turned out to be true!

 

<p>

 

and i don't think this conversation is about the original question

anymore....

That's true Tom.

 

<p>

 

This thread has strayed far from the original topic. If anyone has

something helpful to add then please do, otherwise please exercise

some self restraint!

Jim,

 

<p>

 

My first medium format camera was a Yashica 124G. I bought it used

for around $150 several years ago and I highly recommended it as an

intro camera. The Yashica is good and cheap, so in case MF turns out

to be not right for you then what the heck. Its built-in meter is

reasonably accurate for B&W at least. I have never used a Holga but

the above posts have stimulated my curiosity, and I think I am going

to like it. However, Jim, for a beginner I would recommend something

that will help you improve your photography. I still use an 124G and

at f/8 to f/11 its as good as anything out there.

This past Sunday (7/4/99) the <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com">Seattle Times</a> ran a <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/news/travel/html98/chin_19990704.html">travel article</a> about China. Benjamin Benschneider did the photography with a Holga. The paper ran three photos and a small article about artistic intent, although the web article features just one photo.

 

<p>Incidentally, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com">B&H Photo-Video</a> has begun selling Holgas for $19.95.