3 lomo compacts reviewed

No, it is not but I read his 'Rangefinder Chronicles' blog a couple of day ago, and he makes a connection. These cameras all (small) make a different 'attitudinal' view to a scene. I liked his not heavy handed but subtle difference between these cameras. In fact one of my favorite 35mm cameras (except that it does not have any settings) is the Olympus Stylus Infinity. I have just brought it out of retirement because of his blog. Thank you.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

and from 15 years ago:

Found Photos by John Carter, on Flickr
 
I believe XA4 isn't Lomo camera as long as it doesn't has some unknown meaning. This days I prefer my phone for this kind of shots, just wish it had 24mm lens instead of 28.
 
That why I sad, 'Well, 2 lomos and an Oly' Ko!

Thanks John - the stylus, or as we call it in Europe Olympus mju-2 is the camera I had for my years between my first cameras as a kid and starting to collect cameras much later. It served well, made you concentrate on the photos and took good pictures. I am trying to find a goos one on eBay for under £90 to add to my collection now!

btgc - the cameras on mobile phones are wonderful things, not least as it means you can have a decent camera with you at all times. But it's not film, of course. And I love film too much.
 
Huss - I think you are right overall too. The XA4 probably takes the best photos but the wide lens on the LC-W allows you to make even better compositions some times. That was kind of my conclusion on my blog.

Nick
 
The different film used in every camera makes it very hard to compare the results from the different lenses.
For instance, I use Fuji C200 or Superia 200 on my LC-A, and this combo produces completely different images compared to the ones you posted using the Lomo film in the same camera.
 
Can you post some sample pics 13P? I would be interested to see. Despite what you say appearing logical, I think in fact it might just be my LCMs-a Classic is soft as I say - because the tri-x film I put though it gave just as soft results and that film rarely does - plus I used a roll of that lomo 100 in the l -w and it came out sharper and more contrasty so I really think it is the lens.
 
Nice photos Alessandro. And the lens renders well in the second. Of course, I agree it is not about shares - but it is clear from looking at your photos and mine (also from my roll of tri-X) that my LC-A was considerably softer. I still like it, but for those times I want a soft lens, for more dreamy exposures perhaps. Is yours an LC-A classic from the Soviet Union in 80s (like mine) or a more recent Lomography made one?
 
Thank you, Nick :)

I agree with you that the LC-A doesn't sport the sharper lens on Earth, but at least in the center I don't find it that soft either.
And it seems to me that the frames I shot are noticably sharper and show much more saturated colours than the ones from your test.
I guess that film plays a major role in this difference (and also in the differefence between the cameras you tested) but there are aso too many variables in the middle to make any statement: subjects, lighting, development and scanning...

My LC-A is a soviet sample from the late 80s.
I bought it apparently unused and just replaced the light seals myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top