joseph_long

<p>"I suppose the if a person has more money than brains then they are these hucksters legal prey. Yes sir, step right up folks, still plenty of room at the front."<br />Hasn't the traditional film camera market always traditionally been led by companies that sell overpriced items? Couldn't we always have done better than buying a new Leica, Hasselblad, Voigtlander or Nikon in terms of value in the used market?<br />A camera is a box with a hole in it. How do you sell a box with a hole in it to someone who's already got a box with a hole in it?<br />Mystique, romance, excitement, fun and adventure. Sure, there are those who believe in technological advances--faster lenses, quicker shutters, better glass. But that's still mystery and romance.<br />Lomography is doing the same thing and selling a lot of cameras. No one is in the market for super expensive film cameras anymore--at least not enough to make film a growth market that will support the construction of brick and mortar stores that offer classes, film processing and photo finishing services.<br />But Lomography is doing just that by selling new film cameras to young people at a profit that keeps us all going at high retail prices that, honestly, are not so out of line. Leica isn't doing that. Hasselblad isn't doing that. No one else that I can think of is doing that except maybe Fuji, which has a huge following in Japan. But not as many people are going to buy a new GF670 and even a GF670 can be faulted along the same lines. It's an old fancy 1950s folder with a TTL meter. It's great! I love mine. It's still overpriced and I could do almost the same with used.<br />So, by all means, recommend your used stuff. If you like cameras, you'll get there. Trust me. I know.<br />Just don't dismiss Lomography without trying them out first. Beyond making decent cameras, and some really neat and innovative ones, they contribute a lot by growing themselves. Anyone can see that they give back to the film community in many wonderful ways.</p>

<p>As someone who actually put a Lomography camera up for auction, I did it because the camera just didn't work for me. But I have no faults with the camera itself or the company. In fact, I openly admire Lomography.<br>

I had a Fish Eye 2 that I got for cheap from a close out department store. I used it once and found it to be very limiting only because a fisheye lens isn't something you generally always want on your camera. A detacheable fisheye lens for my SLR? Sure? Why not?<br>

I put it on ebay as nearly NIB for nearly the retail price ($60) having noted that many had sold for that price recently, but mine did not sell. I dropped the price down to $20 and it still did not sell. I could try again, but selling on ebay is a frustrating enough experience unless you have a system, I suppose.<br>

So, the camera sits, a cute object that my wife, by the way LOVES the look of. She was so happy to show it off because it's pink and silver--looks like a Barbie camera. But even my practical wife, once she saw the photos that came back from the photo finisher told me (if "sell that stupid thing" amounts to being told) to sell it. Of course, she does put up with a rather large camera collection, so getting me to get rid of one might have unfairly filtered into her animosity towards it once the photos weren't what she was expecting. Not that they were bad. I just think she'd understand a normal lens.<br>

But, I do have to say that the camera, while looking like a toy, feels to me to be very robustly built. I feel strongly that it could take a beating and suffer more than its share of drops. It's simple and not likely to break, dent or crack. The plastic used in the construction throughout is tough, thick, but also pliable and not brittle. I think it could be most properly described by someone who is not a chemical engineer as hard black rubber. Metal is used sparingly where it would be most beneficial and the pink paint applied to the hard rubber is adhered so solidly that it would appear at first glance to be molded in pink, but it is not. The paint does not chip, scratch or peel under normal use and, while I haven't abused the camera, it seems to me that it can take abuse without marring, chipping or flaking.<br>

The operation of the simple camera is totally predictable and it operates as it should with a satisfying feel. The single AA battery operated flash has a very quick recharge cycle and it never failed even one time. <br>

My Rolleicord rolled off the freshly waxed hood of a car I was photographing once onto concrete--only a couple of feet and, well, besides my wife being happy that I had just given her a reason to thin my collection by one unit, I was shocked at the level of damage that that "robust" camera sustained. I mean, I knew it would be bad, because no matter how well made you just don't drop cameras, but considering the damage, I might as well have put it under the wheels of the car.<br>

The Fisheye went to the amusement park and the beach all that day along with my eight year old niece and got banged around and didn't even get a scratch on it. I thought that at least the paint would chip, but not at all. It still looked new at the end of the day.<br>

I get the hesitation. They look cheap. They are sold for high retail prices. The Lomography ethos is one that many people find somehow ludicrous. But I have begrudgingly in some cases given them a try if the opportunity was right and I have always been impressed with the actual build quality. A Holga is a Holga, but even my Lomography Holga, I think, would be disappointing to the Lomography ethos because it offers no light leaks at all. I suspect that ethos aside, Lomography knows that a lot of its customers do expect a certain level of quality and I extrapolate, based on the products of theirs that I've actually used, light leaks are largely a thing of the past. I would even expect that Diana and Holga "purists" see Lomography as something that ruined the old Holga/Diana subculture by improving those cameras for pseudo mainstream distribution. I would be surprised to find out that Lomography cameras are not looked down upon by those purists for not being "real" Dianas or "real" Holgas and not, well, crappy enough.<br>

So, my conclusion is the opposite and more in line with the original poster's. People who buy Lomography cameras know what they bought, researched well beforehand and see their camera as part of their identity. They wouldn't sell it anymore than they'd sell their skinny jeans and chunky sunglasses. I'm not of that set, but I wouldn't sell my 166+ or my Bel-Air because I like them for how they shoot and for the quality, innovative products they are.<br>

But the Fisheye? Despite robust build, and even if it wasn't pink and silver, it's just not a camera for me. On the actual merits of the camera, I can't be limited to a fisheye. It's kind of like that underwater camera that I never use. The purpose of it is just too limited for what I do. I knew that beforehand and I only got it because it was $14 NIB.<br>

But Lomography has other cameras that I've paid retail for, but never full price, either by buying in early or obtaining during the rare worthwhile sales event (it helps to be on their emailing list). I always go in expecting crap, based on other people's opinions, and I'm always surprised and impressed based on my own experiences.<br>

With the money Lomography makes by selling these cameras at high prices, they are, I believe, the only company that is turning consumer analog imaging into a growth industry. The sold 2 million rolls of 35mm film last year when film is disappearing off of the shelves of even the grocer. Film is becoming a specialized market and Lomography putting itself in the position to head that market. That's good for all of us because Lomography is actually opening labs and increasing processing and developing services in brick and mortar stores when traditional photo shops are closing down everywhere else en masse. <br>

Like it or not, in many ways, along with Fuji, they are becoming the keeper and protector of the analog flame. Their commitment to film, like no other company, should be appreciated by film users. Those cheap overpriced cameras keep us all going.<br>

If you can find a 166+ or a Bel-Air on ebay, don't be surprised to find that it bids up to nearly the full retail price even after the buying frenzy that follows a new release has long ended.</p>

<p>I think it's easy to dismiss Lomo as a place where you can buy lo-tech stuff at high prices to be cool. I think this kind of marketing puts a lot of people off because it's kind of the same concept as buying really expensive name-brand sunglasses when cheapies will do.<br>

But it's not quite the same. When you're shopping for clothes, there is the understanding that you want to buy something that's modern and in style, even if you're not a fashion diva. I mean, you can go to any number of second-hand stores and keep yourself in good, durable second-hand clothing and go about your business not understanding anyone who would buy new clothes. Of people who buy new clothes, there are those who would never pay retail and only buy off the sale rack off season, still happy to get new name-brand clothes, but at a fraction of the cost. Then there are those who have to have the lastest clothes or accessories by top designers and exorbitant prices. None of these camps understand each other.<br>

Lomography is one that I resisted liking for a long time. I don't see what the big deal with the LC-A is and there are plenty of other P&S cameras to choose from that do just as good of a job.<br>

There are many, many people out there who know that there are plenty of cameras made out there that will do just as good of a job as a Leica, but then, there are the Leica people. They largely get left alone based on the perceived superiority of that product. You can name almost any other manufacturer and attached to each is an ethos and a following, disciples if you will.</p>

 

<p>Okay, the above answer is a bit long-winded. Here is the bottom line:<br />The Lubitel 166+ is not at all that old FSU Lubitel from the past. You can't think you know it already because you've got an old one lying around, assume it's just a gimmicked 166U, dismiss it as overpriced, tell about how you got one for a couple bucks at a garage sale and walk of feeling better than those suckers who paid $350 for it new.<br />Key Points: Astonishingly good viewfinder with rare split-image microprism finder, bright fresnel screen, and totally flat image, improved taking lens (and maybe improved viewing lens) with a greater, closer focus range than most other TLR's, super high build quality overall, unique features (perhaps most compact 6x6 TLR ever made), lightweight and portable, two year warranty from lomography USA (they have an email address, a physical mailing address and a 1-800 number in New York City; I called it and Angela and Tony were very nice and told me they could get any part for it, repair it or replace the entire camera for manufacturing defects within warranty period for free), and some things your average 1960's TLR won't have besides the split-image finder and compactness, like a hot shoe (as well as pc socket) and 35mm capability that is fun to use. Might be a small point, but TLR's usually don't take a filter as easy (and as inexpensive) to find as the common 40.5mm.<br />In exchange for the small TLR with some very modern (for the TLR era) features, that's easy to shoot and frame, you have to use a red window for medium format film frame tracking, you get a limited shutter of B, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125 and 250 with an aperture range of f/4.5 to f/22, no automated features, no light meter, no case (although one is available for $50) and no self-timer.<br />So, by all means, if the Yashica and Mamiya or even something else is more appealing to you, go for it. I just thought you'd like to know which Lubitel, exactly, is the "expensive" one that often gets confused with and often quickly dismissed for the cheaper less desirable old Soviet era relics for which, probably, most of the above statements are true except for that they break easily.<br />Unfortunately, the sale is over, so the price from lomography.com is back up to $349, but it's readily available for about $280 anywhere else. At least now you now what you might get for your money.<br>

If you buy from Lomography directly, you get a 14 day no questions asked return policy, too. I don't know if this applies if you get it from somewhere else, and keep in mind that you'll end up paying shipping both ways if you return it just because you don't like it. That's what the website says, anyway. I'm keeping mine.<br>

I suppose that I should also add that I am in no way affiliated with Lubitel or Lomography because I'm not. I'm just a little bit of a TLR nut and after making the same assumptions everyone else has about the 166+ ever since it came out in 2008 (but secretly wanting one anyway), I got one on sale a week or so ago purely out of curiosity and I was totally taken by surprise at the improvements made to this camera that I only truly became aware of when I had it in my hands and took it for a spin. It's almost a crime that Lomography doesn't make these improvements known the way they could.</p>

<p>I think that Lomography may have shot itself in the foot a little bit by revamping the venerable old loved and hated Former Soviet Union Lubitel because people write off the 166+ as hardly more than that same old thing just remarketed with a hefty price tag to rich kids. When the 166+ came out in 2008, I, like most photographers, already had a Lubitel (okay, a few--okay, more than a few). They are cheap, light, easy to maintain, sturdy (this is about the only website full of users that has maligned the build quality), make decent photos and are fun to use if you keep in mind that it's not a modern camera and won't give you a modern camera feel. It's kind of like an Argus 75 that allows you to focus and change the aperture.<br />But, the Lubitel also, as it did with me, gave a lot of people their first taste of real medium format. For $30 including shipping back in 2002, I still treasure that first Lubitel 2 of mine providing me the opportunity to find out something I didn't know about myself up until I had it: I was a good photographer. Every camera I'd had before then was basically consumer garbage, not much more than disposeable cameras. You can say that I'm fond of the Lubitel.<br />The start I got with that, of course, led me to want more right from the start. I went nuts a little bit and got lots of TLR's from a certain auction site and elsewhere. Flexarets, Rolleis, Yashicas, a Ciro-Flex, and lots of other cameras, too, a Hassie, Kiev, Hartblei, Iskra, Agfa folders, and even a Fuji GF670. I don't collect much anymore--I am married now. My camera budget now is spent on my wife's shoes.<br />But I have more than enough to keep me tinkering to the grave.<br />I am only prefacing my answer to let you know that I know TLR's. I can grab almost any one of them made from right out of my closet (or from under the bed, or from the climate controlled basement, or the dresser drawer, there could be one in my glovebox at any given time, you get the picture). This is important because, I think you can tell that I'm going to take a leap and recommend, gasp, a 166+.<br />I gave this camera an extensive and thorough review just the other day on a certain huge retail website in order to dispel misinformation that was placed there by the main review: the 166+ is not at all that old FSU Lubitel from the past. You can't think you know it and write it off as an even more gimmicked 166U, dismiss it as overpriced, tell about how you got one for a couple bucks at a garage sale and walk of feeling better than those suckers who paid $350 for it new.<br />Now, if you feel $350 is too much for this camera, I get it. The prices have come way down lately, though, and I think it's a lot tougher to say they are overpriced now.<br />Why the 166+ over a Mamiya or a Yashica? That's a personal choice and I certainly can't recommend it over certain models as being better or worse. As with all cameras, it depends on how you see yourself using it.<br />I just want to say that the 166+ is a serious consideraton now because of a couple of things that FSU Lubitel doesn't have:<br />1. Excellent fit and finish. This camera has come up quite a bit over the old build quality (which wasn't bad in the first place, unless you got a 166 Olympic and expected the shutter cocking mechanism and the frame counter to work). But to be fair, both my Olympics came to me at least twenty years after they were made and went through who knows what. They both work fine now, though, and have worked fine for ten years. The 166+, however, has been completely poured over by Lomography engineers and designers. It's amazing what they've done with this modest little camera, which some in the past could have called a pseudo TLR. Not anymore. <br />2. Improved viewfinder. You have to have one in your hands to appreciate it. It's a little small, about the same size as the one on my Primo, Jr. Other than that, it can't be faulted. It's bright with a fresnel screen, it's flat from edge to edge--no curviness like on the old Lubitels, and, what surprised the heck out of me because the following feature isn't even mentioned anywhere in the sales literature on on various retail websites: it's got a split image microprism finder. I find a couple of mentions of this feature from users on flickr and other sites, but that was only after searching to look for it after I was astonished with what I saw when I got this camera out of the box. This split image microprism viewfinder is high quality--works like the one on your 1980s manual Japanese SLR. What more could you ask for except for maybe a TTL meter to make it all perfect? Well, you don't get the TTL with the Lubitel 166+. To my knowledge, only late Rolleis and one Seagull TLR model have this feature. If anyone knows of others, then, well, maybe it's not such a unique feature as I think it is.<br />3. Compact. Okay, all Lubitels are compact. But it bears emphasizing. This camera is hardly larger than my aforementioned Primo, Jr. 4x4, but it shoots a 6x6. It's also about the same weight. There isn't a Yashica 6x6 or Mamiya or Rollei that came make this claim.<br />4. Two year warranty. That says not only something about the camera, but the confidence that Lomography has in their product. Now, it's a "manufacturing defects" warranty, according to the printed manual. I don't claim to know how great it is or that Lomography has awesome support, so take it with a grain of salt. But just as the sites that retail the 166+ don't know about the split image finder, they also don't seem to know about any two-year warranty (BH lists it as one year, but also says it has a self-timer, which the 166+ does not).<br />5. Recent price decreases. This makes it pretty hard to pass up when a good refurb Yashica or Mamiya could cost you about the same and isn't protected with a two year warranty. <br />Did I mention that I'm pretty impressed with Lomography for bringing us this camera? I mean, Lomography is also partly to blame that it gets confused for the older Lubitels. They market it right along with most of their other trendy, cheap, bubble-gummy, can't-be-taken-seriously light leaky, streaky, limited use cameras. But their recent release of the Bel-Air, the smart phone scanner and their Petzval project has raised my eyebrows to the idea that they're making more substantial efforts and going cool places.<br />I'm only kind of mad at myself that I've been without this camera for four years. But, again, it's Lomography's own fault for not letting me know about this finder--which, by the way, is also removable.<br />If you think that a TLR isn't "real' if it doesn't have a frame counter, shutter cocking with film advance and features like that, then, well, you got me. All the manual controls on this are separate. This is not an automat, by any means.<br />Hold it in your hands.It's kind of like a small Ciro-Flex, but with a lot of extras and the size of a, maybe, Yashica 44. It also has that wonderful finder that you won't find in a TLR almost anywhere else.<br />The Yashica or Mamiya will probably have a faster lens, if that's important to you in the day of high speed film. The slowish 1/250 shutter might turn you off, because it makes it harder to take advantage of high speed film if you think you might shoot in bright sun as well as indoors without flash--a problem you won't likely face with your Yashica or Mamiya. You might also prefer a frame counter and some automatic features, even if you'd rather not have the weight and increased camera size that usually comes with those features (though Lomo, itself, behind the iron curtain added such features to a 6x6 this size with the Lubitel 166).<br />Just so that you can be informed in your upcoming purchase, Steve.</p>

<p> </p>

I use Series 5 bayonet adapters and Portra +1, +2, and +3 lenses. Of course, you need two of each. Works fine.