Holga, what is the joke here

J

JSER

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Jeremy
Edit My Images
Yes
Where have all these I was going to say cheap, that's a joke in itself, expensive rubbish toy cameras come from and who wants one.

I have a house full of everything from vest pocket Kodaks, to box brownies and many other makes almost never heard of, all a few pounds each at collector events.

Superb cameras most working, film still available, but people throw away a small fortune on this craze.

If people really want a taste of real historical photography buy an old real camera off Ebay, working, like a Zorki or Rollei B35, a Weston meter and go and have fun, not a plastic toy.

Oh and please Canon, Nikon and anyone else thinking of the latest most unwanted filter effect I do NOT want toy camera or any other kiddy effect on my SLR.

I bet the company who do Holga are laughing all the way to the bank.

I am also seeing many Fuji X100s appearing, in mint condition for about £600, another must have according to the mags a short while ago.

There is a saying that has been around since before my GG Father.

A fool and their money are soon parted.

Rant over.
 
Last edited:
Because for some people they are simply a fun way into creating something. If people want to spend their money on them, that's fine by me - I'd rather have a cheap n' cheerful Holga than a box bloody brownie for tarting about with!
 
Moos3h said:
Because for some people they are simply a fun way into creating something. If people want to spend their money on them, that's fine by me - I'd rather have a cheap n' cheerful Holga than a box bloody brownie for tarting about with!
Click to expand...

Please don't swear, it is not needed.
 
Last edited:
Moos3h said:
Because for some people they are simply a fun way into creating something. If people want to spend their money on them, that's fine by me - I'd rather have a cheap n' cheerful Holga than a box bloody brownie for tarting about with!
Click to expand...

The box brownie was simply an example, wow, perhaps I should have listed a few thousand, I had Lettz, Coronet, Ilford etc, all more fun than a plastic toy. And a lot less.
 
Snore, more Holga/Lomo hate.

Can't you just chuck it in one of the other umpteen hundred threads that exist on this?
 
JSER said:
There is a saying that has been around since before my GG Father.

A fool and their money are soon parted.
Click to expand...

I've got a saying for you... "Live and let live." Or how about "One mans meat..."

Personally I think that the more choice and options that are offered the better and you've only got to look at the quite stunning results some get with this kit to realise that despite what you or I might think others are producing art.
 
:love:

1069-R.jpg
 
At the end of the day, no one is forcing anyone in to buying anything. Having a variety to choose from is better than not having a choice at all right? :-)

I understand that you are entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else. Some people actually like, "toy camera" effect on their cameras. I used it every now and then when I had a EP-2. Having the option on the camera doesn't make the camera worse, you can turn off the option and not use it at all :-)
 
Have you ever listened to a '78 on a wind up gramophone?

That's what a Holga is about
 
Last edited:
As said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Have you actually tried a holga? They are a great fun little camera which are an absolute scream to use.
 
Also, interestingly, from another thread you said," If you want close up don't throw money away until you try Coking P series close up filters, don't be put off by the purists who say get a £300 close up lens, believe me they are good."

So who is being the purist now? It seems to me that it's ok for you to approve of some cheap options and if people don't agree they are purists and yet if people like something cheap and you don't they are idiots and the company making said item are laughing all the easy to the bank for people buying the product you don't like.
 
Davec223 said:
Also, interestingly, from another thread you said," If you want close up don't throw money away until you try Coking P series close up filters, don't be put off by the purists who say get a £300 close up lens, believe me they are good."

So who is being the purist now? It seems to me that it's ok for you to approve of some cheap options and if people don't agree they are purists and yet if people like something cheap and you don't they are idiots and the company making said item are laughing all the easy to the bank for people buying the product you don't like.
Click to expand...

claims the Shaggy clause - wasnt me
 
Davec223 said:
As said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Have you actually tried a holga? They are a great fun little camera which are an absolute scream to use.
Click to expand...

Yes I have, the Holga 135BC and the blackbird TLR

My point was that the price is comical, if these childrens toy cameras were in fact realistic in price for their actual worth, say £9.99 then fine, henc my "laughing all the way to the bank" comment.

You will hear nothing of them a year from now, if people want to really try something (I have also tried and failed at, so I am honest) try pingold photography.
 
Maybe people buy them because they do what makes them happy instead of being miserable and whinging about what other people choose to do with their lives?
 
I think OP made a valid point that the items are over-priced for what they are and that some folk buy them because they are must-haves of the current craze/fad/trend/fashion - and that those folk would not explore other equipment because the other equipment is not in the same fashion league.

Considering the amount of money spent by people from these boards on high-end equipment with the goal of the best optical and technical performance & purity possible, surely this phenomenon of buying equipment because it has so many failings strikes a chord of (comic) absurdity? The OP did ask 'what's the joke? I'm surprised that so many here have failed to see the joke :p :D

One poster made a point about a post by the OP not being a purist because he advocated trying Cokin filters before going for a more expensive alternative - that comparison doesn't work for the reason that the Holga is popular because of its failings - the comparison would be to suggest holding back on the purchase of a DSLR/modern point-&-shoot until the Holga has been tried!
 
I'm trying to work out what a Fuji X100 has in common with a Holga - I do not have one but it actually looks quite a good compact camera. How many compacts actually have a prime lens these days - it's a trend I would welcome.
 
weybourne said:
I think OP made a valid point that the items are over-priced for what they are and that some folk buy them because they are must-haves of the current craze/fad/trend/fashion - and that those folk would not explore other equipment because the other equipment is not in the same fashion league.

Considering the amount of money spent by people from these boards on high-end equipment with the goal of the best optical and technical performance & purity possible, surely this phenomenon of buying equipment because it has so many failings strikes a chord of (comic) absurdity? The OP did ask 'what's the joke? I'm surprised that so many here have failed to see the joke :p :D

One poster made a point about a post by the OP not being a purist because he advocated trying Cokin filters before going for a more expensive alternative - that comparison doesn't work for the reason that the Holga is popular because of its failings - the comparison would be to suggest holding back on the purchase of a DSLR/modern point-&-shoot until the Holga has been tried!
Click to expand...

For me there isnt a joke. Look back at the iconic images of the last century, and there are many "great images" that are not clean, have blemishes, and issues

I feel people are fed up with the clinical clean "on white" presentation, where models are flawless, the images are razor sharp yada yada

My observations about 78's was a good one. I have a very high end hi-fi - it is brilliant, clinical, and produces a perfectly clean accurate sound

I have a '78 wind up gramophone, I pick up old 78's form car boot sales for a few pence. When I pop one on, the whole house smiles, its a organic happy experience. The musicians on the old disks could play, and the singers could sing. There is no crutch of auto tune, or after production, it is just pure music. I feel that that is why photographers like me shoot film, pinholes etc.
 
boliston said:
I'm trying to work out what a Fuji X100 has in common with a Holga - I do not have one but it actually looks quite a good compact camera. How many compacts actually have a prime lens these days - it's a trend I would welcome.
Click to expand...

From what I've read elsewhere, the criticism is that it is very expensive for what you get/what it does - and that compact micro 4/3 systems offer similar/better for less. But micro 4/3 systems don't offer that retro/Leica rangefinder look. The price does seem very steep to me and I can only surmise that such a high price can be asked because people will pay that much for a 'must-have' item - there are plenty of pages on the internet referring to the X100 craze.
 
People spending money on film, film cameras and developing - whatever way, whatever method, I'm happy with it, as long as it keeps film alive.
 
weybourne said:
From what I've read elsewhere, the criticism is that it is very expensive for what you get/what it does - and that compact micro 4/3 systems offer similar/better for less. But micro 4/3 systems don't offer that retro/Leica rangefinder look. The price does seem very steep to me and I can only surmise that such a high price can be asked because people will pay that much for a 'must-have' item - there are plenty of pages on the internet referring to the X100 craze.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly interested in a "retro" look but it does seem to offer a physical marked shutter speed dial which even top end DSLRs have now dispensed with. As far as I can see its main failing is that the lens has no distance scale.
 
weybourne said:
From what I've read elsewhere, the criticism is that it is very expensive for what you get/what it does - and that compact micro 4/3 systems offer similar/better for less. But micro 4/3 systems don't offer that retro/Leica rangefinder look. The price does seem very steep to me and I can only surmise that such a high price can be asked because people will pay that much for a 'must-have' item - there are plenty of pages on the internet referring to the X100 craze.
Click to expand...

Micro 4/3 doesnt offer the same ISO performance as the X100 going from what I'v seen and neither does it offer a built in hybrid viewfinder.

The styling likely does account for some of the cost but not nearly as much as many seem to suggest if you ask me.
 
Richard King said:
For me there isnt a joke. Look back at the iconic images of the last century, and there are many "great images" that are not clean, have blemishes, and issues

I feel people are fed up with the clinical clean "on white" presentation, where models are flawless, the images are razor sharp yada yada

My observations about 78's was a good one. I have a very high end hi-fi - it is brilliant, clinical, and produces a perfectly clean accurate sound

I have a '78 wind up gramophone, I pick up old 78's form car boot sales for a few pence. When I pop one on, the whole house smiles, its a organic happy experience. The musicians on the old disks could play, and the singers could sing. There is no crutch of auto tune, or after production, it is just pure music. I feel that that is why photographers like me shoot film, pinholes etc.
Click to expand...

But it isn't 'just pure music' - it sounds nothing like what the live performance would have sounded like - it is full of distortions, frequency limitations, hiss and pop - your high-end hi-fi will do a much better job of conveying a likeness of the original sound. A lot of modern production techniques/equipment is there to ensure that such distortions are not present in the finished product. If the source that you're playing from has been aurally 'photoshopped' with auto-tune etc. beyond recognition of the original - then that's a different issue.

Some of the great music of the past is still with us in the form of 78s but because the music is a masterpiece, it doesn't follow that it is because of the recording technology that it is nor should it follow that the low technology made, in part, the music a masterpiece - the same goes with iconic images.

Surely there are other ways to avoid the 'crutch of after-production' without using film or purchasing a camera that leaks light like a collander.

I'm not speaking out against using a Holga - I just don't think it is such a wonderful thing.
 
I think the subject is going off tangent here, I think what most people here, including myself, is saying is that the OP should not be tarring everyone with the same brush.

In his post, it seems that he is insinuating that the Holga is "expensive rubbish" (expensive even highlighted in bold). Fair point if someone bought it to look cool and it ends up in a draw gathering dust after a month or so. But there are also people out there that are genuinely using this camera on a daily basis, creating images that they love and enjoy. These people will say that it was money well spent and worth every penny. To be told that what they are using is expensive rubbish, and that they are a fool who got conned and robbed of their money by Holga, is a little harsh.

Same with the X100, yes there are some who are selling theirs on after a few months of ownership. But generalising every seller as selling theirs because, "in reality, it sucks" is unfair. There are many out there that have bought theirs, and continue to use theirs and think its the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm sure not everyone on this forum are pro photographers, needing high end pro gear. Yet a lot of use own numerous lenses that cost more than the camera body itself. To some of us, it is an investment and a hobby. But I have colleagues at work and friends who are not in to photography, who would call it madness.
 
And of course towards the latter years of 78 rpm dominance the quality was definitely there and people decried the drop in quality that came with the new stuff, but the analogy with the Holga type ends there as I don't think that anyone can really argue for them on actual IQ rather than artistic value :D There's deffo a place for them though, and the look on digital, IMVHO :D
 
R.Y.K. Lee - any relation to T.M. Lee? :lol:

p.s. - I don't think the OP was tarring everyone with the same brush - and didn't he later say that he has a Holga?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top