Holgas etc. are overpriced. What instead to suggest to potential Holga owner?

<p>Someone I know wants a Holga. I'm not sure of the exact reasons. Surely there are cheaper & better roll-film cameras out there which would satisfy such a person. If so, what are they?</p>

<p>A folding Kodak Brownie, in good shape would cost half the price of a new Holga, and will last longer with proper care. My 2 cents.</p>

<p>It might pay to determine the "exact reasons". People buy Holgas for a variety of reasons, from serious "alternative" photography to fashion accessories. Just what would it take to "satisfy" your acquaintance?</p>

<p>If your friend wants square images, check out the Tenax/Taxona cameras which use regular 135 film. If she/he wants medium format as cheap as possible a vintage quality folder like the Nettar or a decent TLR could be it.</p>

<p>If your friend is looking for a low-tech rollfilm plastic camera with a cult following, check out the Brownie Hawkeye Flash. For wonderful vignetting and soft edges I love my 35mm Argus AF. Both of these are >$10 cameras. The list goes on and on....</p>

Why not just let him buy what he wants?

If however, your friend is looking for a low-fi, plasticky camera which vignettes like a squinting geriatric, take a look at

any of the following:

 

-Elikon 35C (soviet-era)

 

-Konica Pop

 

-Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim (also known as Superheadz)

 

-Olympus XA2

 

But to be honest, the Holga 135BC is as cheap (and effective) a vignette-Lomo alternative as any.

<p>I bought a "Woca" because it looks like a Holga, but at a very affordable price!<br>

http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0103sb_whatswoca/</p>

<p>But be warned, the woca is actually a fully working camera, there are no light leaks and the lens itself produces reasonably sharp prints.</p>

<p>Needless to say, I don't use it anymore. No light leaks?! Sharp photos? Blasphemy!</p>

<p>I've had a Woca and two Holgas. None of them actually had any light leaks whatsoever. I suspect that many light leaks are due more to inadequate handling of roll film, or because the simple camera isn't rolling it up tight as it's being wound. I easily cured that in 30 seconds by jamming a piece of folded cardboard in the take-up spool compartment.</p>

<p>I don't think any of the old box cameras really replace a Holga. For one thing, on most, the shutter speed is too slow. Let your friend get what he wants. These cameras are fun, and even at the inflated prices, they still provide much fun for next to nothing compared to a digital camera. And he won't need an extended warranty either.</p>

<p>Holga! What a piece of crap! Pick up any of the old Kodak box cameras and you're doing way better than a Holga will ever do. You want soft images with a flare prone lens? That's fine. You'll get it with one of the old Kodaks, and the camera is well made enough so that it won't fly apart into pieces if you look at it cross-eyed. The only problem you'll have with the Kodaks is that instead of 120 film, they commonly use 620 film which isn't made any longer. 120 film itself is the same size as 620, only the spools have different dimensions. Not a real problem if you have some 620 spools lying around because the film can be easily respooled in the dark. Just make sure you get your spools back from the processor. They're getting harder to come by these days.</p>

<p>It's the Diana that's noted for light leaks. But the clips that hold the back onto the Holga 120CN are pretty disastrously bad.</p>

<p>Let him buy the Holga. Folks who buy these aren't really interested in photographic excellence.<br>

It's a trendy gizmo that you can add more gizmos to for special effects which may be why he wants it. At least the sales of these things helps keep 120 film in production.</p>

<p>People who make broad sweeping and ill-informed generalizations are not interested in polite, intelligent discussion.</p>

<p>For the lovely OOF and all the rest, find one of the old plastic box cameras (but make sure it is one that can use 120 film).</p>

<p>The problem is that so many of the good candidates take 620 film, and the difficulties of having to respool and so on will defeat the casual "lomographic™" shooter.</p>

<p>Some of the miniature (35mm) film cameras from Argus and Kodak can be too good to introduce the randomness needed in doing this thing the 'lomo' way.</p>

<p>Sorry, what's wrong with spending $29.00 on a Holga?</p>

<p>They are fun. Many people enjoy shooting with them. Let them :)</p>

<p>'Surely there are cheaper & better roll-film cameras out there which would satisfy such a person'</p>

<p>'Better' may be missing the point (as I do!). As for cheaper, the trick is to buy one on ebay from Hong Kong, rather than from the Lomography guys who somehow get away with charging 4x the price with a bit of clever marketing.</p>

<p>Brownie Hawkeye Flash can take 120 film. It does require a 620 takeup spool that you need to get back from the lab after developing.<br>

<br /> I got mine for $1. I had to clean it out but it works great and I get lots of comments and positive remarks when using it out in public.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, what's wrong with spending $29.00 on a Holga?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's nearly the price of two 5-paks of Ektar 100 , Neopan , or Tmax400 rollfilm ( from a REAL photo supply house, not rip-off Lomography Store)! It's also the cost of a tank of hi-test gas = 410 miles in an economy hatchback these days ). <br /> Any of the above Brownie or folder suggestions are excellent for several reasons. Even a $2-5 BHF can take a relatively "good" photo. Any of the "Lomogrpahy" gimmicks can be recreated in several ways like using way outdated color film, cross-processing E-6 chromes, color gels on lens, smear lens with grease, reverse the lens element, run some 35mm in the Brownie for sprocket hole images......</p>

<p> </p>

On the one hand let'em buy it! But I agree with all the others.. there's so much "real" stuff out there that will do all this stuff with out trendy gimmicky fancy schmansky "lomo" like advertising! I met a nice lady at PK at the Lomo stand. Apparently she was just doing "promo" work and was quite taken herself with their products. I told her I'd bring a real TLR and show her the difference ... It was a losing battle I soon realized. If this is what appeals to them, then let them find out. I personally think they'd be better off if when cleaning out Grandmom's attic they find "one" Ar eal "one" Then they should read up on what they need to know to get started ..and then .. if it gives them pleasure or peaks their artistic sense, well there you have it. If you go off intending to use these "faults" to your advantage then maybe ..just maybe .. the fun is gone! Everyone needs to get out there and make their own mistakes ....umm art I mean!

<p>I would recommend an inexpensive folder or TLR. Even if the user wants soft photos with light leaks, those effect can be introduced during printed or on computer if the negatives are scanned. This way, if the photographer decides that a sharp photo is what was wanted after all, then the detail is there. In additon to the folders mentioned above, any of the better used TLR's (Yashicamat and Ricoh are inexpensive) would be a good choice.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses, all. Thanks in particular to Richard Williams - by George, you're right, you can indeed find them at reasonable prices from HK. Should have thought of that myself! ;-)</p>

<p>It seems after all that the film is the most expensive part of this whole exercise. But that isn't unexpected.</p>

<p>You can pick up an old Hassy for a few hundred $ and you've got a classic that will teach you so much about photography. Holgas ar cr*p. And the vendors clutter up the ebay sites with thousands of ads for them. Drives me nuts when I am looking for something of quality to add to my kit.</p>

<p>If your friend is looking for something stylish yet Lomo-esque, I recommend the Ansco Anscoflex. The Hawkeye Brownie flash is a remarkable camera as well, classic look that polishes up very well, and can take reasonably bad photos. Just find one that's never been cleaned, or leave it out in the rain and snow for a few months.</p>

<p>My personal tastes of course would go more towards the folders, or retractable-lens medium format cameras. For pure style, you can't beat a Kodak Medalist. Of course that isn't a cheaper alternative. </p><div></div>

<p>Actually, maybe you can beat the Medalist for style. Here's the (even more expensive) Bantam:</p><div></div>

<p>It probably doesn't matter that much whether it's a Holga or some other simple camera. I'd rather have a box camera myself (and I do), something with a bit of history behind it, but that's just me. The important thing is keeping the demand for film, not the demand for Holgas. Too many people have fun with Holgas for me to feel derisive about it. </p>

<p>But not all Kodak box cameras are 620. The No.2 Brownie Model F takes 120 film, has three apertures (16, 22, 32), a time exposure setting, and a shutter speed of around 1/50. I have great fun with it, and you can get it for the cost of a roll of film.</p>