I feel that this concept misses most of the true charm of a Holga. The linked article says "there are some change in functionalities in order to make it useful." Which seems practical, but also kind of misses the point. I still think it's a beautiful homage to 70s & 80s camera design.
Holgas have random imperfections and a total lack of quality control. Every Holga has slightly different level of light leaks, chromatic distortion, vignetting, etc.
Holgas are hackable. People flock them, make light seals, replace the lens with a pinhole, make Holgaroids, etc, etc. It's essentially a plastic box with two moving parts.
Holgas give you no technological photographic control inside the box. You have one (varying) shutter speed or Bulb, two (largely unknown) apertures, and whatever speed film you dumped in it. If you need to adjust exposure then you need to do it when you develop your film, or not at all. This is, in my opinion, both limiting and freeing.
All that said, I would love to see this camera made with a glass lens. A traditionally styled, intentionally restricted, digital camera with a retro look. Provided it didn't cost $2000. :D.
The sad truth is that, I bet, if it was ever commercially produced then it would be forced to have an LCD screen on the back. I can picture the hipsters crowding around in a bar to chimp the screen, right now...
Can't you do that with an otherwise complete digital camera? I don't see why one can't introduce kitschy design flaws in the LCD... and furthermore putting an LCD with standard inputs creates even more opportunities for hacking.
I try to be generally positive, especially when discussing a concept or prototype... however, I am passionate about film photography and this really rubs me the wrong way.
Making a digital camera that is a) ugly and b) designed to be hard to use misses the whole point of why Holga/Lomo/film is growing in popularity. There is a strong correlation to the impressive sales of vinyl LP records over the past few years (which has been through the roof compared to other physical formats). My speculation is that people are fatigued on things that don't feel "real". They are tired of copies and want something that their kids might be excited to discover in the closet.
Anyhow, the whole point of film is that it has a character all its own, depending on which of the hundreds available you try to use. And embracing the constraint of making each shot count and delayed gratification has made me a more thoughtful photo taker. I find that I can remember every shot I've taken; how I felt at the time, what was happening.
A Holga weighs 200g and if you run it over with your car, you can just buy another one. No batteries required and it can do pinhole stuff, as well as many other modifications:
I'm all for open source camera platforms, but don't put out something with a bunch of arbitrary features removed and various attempts to make the output look shitty "because then it's like film!"
Believe it or not, there's a reason most film cameras work the way that they do which has a direct relationship to the available technology and manufacturing processes at the time it was made.
I want to end my rant on a positive note, so here is a great commercial by Charles and Ray Eames advertising the Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera:
Digital photography has its own interesting things. No need to steal from film. Some people make amazing photos with crappy cellphone cameras. Small sensor compacts (stupid derogatory term: Point & Shoots) have their own, distinctive look (mostly: huge DOF).
Can you explain how the camera under discussion is “designed to be hard to use”?
For what it’s worth, I think it’s fantastic that some companies are experimenting with different digital camera designs. In the digital world, we don’t see the kind of design variety we saw in film cameras. Where are the digital TLRs? For that matter, where are the digital cameras (at all) where manual focus is a pleasant activity? Where are the digital rangefinders with quality lenses? Etc.
Why do digital cameras all need to include screens on the back?
I describe the concept as "designed to be hard to use" for several key reasons:
1. It's got no viewfinder unless you attach one, which means that the designer translated "you never know what you'll get!" into "point and hope for the best".
2. Taking the general aesthetic of a Holga and painting it on a rectangle accomplishes very little besides creating a camera that's awkward to hold. Holga is a versatile platform because they can build many variations into a common chassis. It's the shape it is for a reason. The D would appear to just be an ugly box for the sake of it.
3. If it's digital, there's no way it needs to be as big as a real Holga.
4. Flipping it into B+W mode = lame (to me). Same with having a power switch.
5. Putting variable exposure times on it completely throws away most of the "fun" part of shooting with a Holga. If you're going to shoot shutter priority on a digicam, why not just do so?
I accept that not all of the things that bug me will bug everyone. However, if you're willing to suspend your disbelief for a moment to trust someone who shoots 0.5-2 rolls of film every day for the fun of it... the best simile I can think of to describe why this feels wrong is that it's sort of like when a magazine site or book reader wants you to "turn pages".
In most cases, the metaphor does not translate in an effective way. The reader ends up irritated and will go back to a real book.
Sounds good except for the full frame sensor. It is just silly on a camera of this type. It would make the camera way too expensive it would require too much auxiliary electronics and memory to operate, which would also increase cost and power requirements. Also full frame makes the DOF relatively narrow which is a problem for a camera with such a rough and uncertain method of focusing. (I am sure a lot of the original Holga photos were out of focus).
He should redo it with a crop sensor. Even one of the small sensors of snapshot cameras would probably work for this.
If you use a full frame sensor, you get the full effect of vignetting from the plastic lens. Otherwise, you lose a lot of the Holga charm. Essentially, the lens is right-sized for 35MM or a crop sensor while it's generally used with 6cm medium format negatives.
That said, you could get the same vignetting effect from a smaller sensor by changing the depth from the lens to the sensor, I wonder how well that would work.
Woukd this use an actual holga lens? I thought the project would require the design of a new lens as they dont make holgas anymore.
If you get a new lens you can easily get all the distortion and vignetting you want on any size photosensor. Those are very easy to achieve getting rid of them is the hard part.
Also it should be noted that vignetting is a much bigger issue for digital cameras than it was for film. Most modern professional and semi pro cameras use on board electronics to get rid of vignetting. So vignetting is pretty much guaranteed in this simple design.
Jesus. For that price I can get a solid 35mm film SLR in good condition. As an avid photographer (both film and digital, moreso film) I've never understood the point behind Holgas, especially given how much they cost.
However, I encourage you to try the Holga or a Diana before you knock it. Try some modifications and see what comes out. I've been crazy-glueing miniature glass dollhouse props into my Holga. Except the first roll, I forgot it would be upside down so I have all these shots of people with wine bottles on the ceiling.
The point behind Holgas is the same point behind slot machines. The fact that there's so little control over what you're doing makes every shot that turns out feel like a gift from God. I couldn't imagine using my Holga as my only camera, but it's a fun diversion. Actually, I can't imagine using any of my cameras as my only camera.
Also, you can get a basic holga for around $30, the more expensive stuff on the lomography.com site is for the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe.
If you use a full frame sensor, you get the full effect of vignetting from the plastic lens. ... Essentially, the lens is right-sized for 35MM or a crop sensor while it's generally used with 6cm medium format negatives.
I'm not sure I follow. As you say, a normal Holga lens is used on 6x6 which is almost four times the surface area of 35mm film.
So you're not going to get the same lens vignetting as you get on a 6x6 frame without shrinking the lens proportionally.
There's also detail. Large film area is one of the reasons why you still get some clarity in your picture, even though the lens distorts the light.
So if you drop to 35mm equivalent or smaller then your lens has to become proportionally less crummy as well as smaller, in order to get the same result. If that's your goal, anyhow.
I'm not entirely certain that Holga is a 35mm lens on a 6x6 film transport, but it is plausible. I have never looked to closely at a Holga -- it's not my preferred tool.
I suspect that the chromatic and anastigmatic aberration that are characteristic of a Holga are a result of a single element meniscus lens, which is well known for having these problems. I've heard that the lens is also made out of plastic, which transmits lights differently from glass. All that combined with poor quality control at the Holga plant means that every Holga is special.
Meniscus lenses are simple enough to manufacture, which means that they can probably be made to vignette on a full-frame or crop sensor.
Meniscus lenses are simple enough to manufacture, which means that they can probably be made to vignette on a full-frame or crop sensor.
The problem I see is that you still need a -better- meniscus lens in order to get the same quality photo on a smaller film plane.
Maybe this isn't really a factor, but it's certainly one of the reasons why I prefer my Holga over 35mm toy cameras - you can see a bit more in your crummy quality photo. :).
I don't think "better" is really a consideration at the Holga or LOMO factories. :-)
A guy that knew who was very serious about doing sharpness testing on lenses pointed out that lens resolution doesn't really matter that much. He claimed that most lenses had resolution far beyond the capacity of any media that we could record images to... and things like flare and aberrations were far more important. I have no idea how true this is, but it certainly sounds plausible.
That looks really good. Minimalism in cameras appeals to me, especially as they keep getting bigger and screen-y-er and button-y-er. And the batteries keep dying sooner.
I do think it could use an aperture control, however. And having to remove the lens each time is not an alternative (as it looks like they would go there). F-stop is critical to cameras. Add another ring to the lens, maybe.
You can "cheat" if you want to appear to rebel against digital by applying an approriate filter to the output of a digital image.
iPhone even has an app called "Hipstermatic" to will make your iPhone pictures look like they are taken with a Holga.
There is a lot to be said though for experimenting and a hands-on approach to photography : making your own lesnes, alternive developing processes and so on. Then it is more about the process, the learning experience, rather than just the final result.
The idea of channeling the mojo of the Holga isn't so exciting to me. However, I've wondered for a while about the feasibility of an "open-source" camera that was designed publicly and could be produced by any manufacturer. My guess is that high-quality sensors aren't an off-the-shelf part and so would be difficult to source and stabilization technology may also present challenges.
CHDK has shown that letting developers at the internals of camera operation can have cool results. I think a platform designed from the ground up for tinkerers could be amazing for photography.
Sigh, this thing doesn't actually exist as a product at this time. At the right price point, I would buy one.
If you want to experiment with plastic-lens digital photography, you can buy a lens for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax cameras here: http://holgamods.com/
Here's an example of a picture shot with my DSLR + Holga Lens:
I like the Holga concept, although I doubt it can be manufactured cheaply enough, being not a mass-market product.
What I really would like to see, is a micro four-third format camera with slim, simple, retro-style body equipped with built-in hi-res EVF and only essential controls through physical knobs (aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc). No LCD, no menus, no face detection. In other words, take Panasonic GF1 or Olympus PEN E-P2 and strip them down to absolutely minimum.
I'm really into this idea of lo-fi digital that I'm seeing for the first time in this thread!
I wonder how difficult it would be to create a cheap digital back for a holga? I guess the easiest thing would be to cannabalize the cheapest digital camera you could find, but i wonder if there are any home-brew approaches to the sensor...
Unfortunately the terms "cheap" and "digital back" don't seem to go together. :(
You could mod a 10 year old old Hasselblad/Mamiya/? 6x6 back onto a Holga but even those backs are still worth plenty of $ I think. Enough that you'd want a Hasselblad or a Mamiya to go with them. Lot of trouble when 'Hipstamatic' is $5 or so. ;).
That said, I'd love to build a digital rangefinder camera from a 70s era rangefinder. If anyone has links to any successful frankencameras of this kind, I'd love to see them.
Ah, I forgot that the holga was a medium format camera... and I just realized I have no idea how physically large the sensor in my cheap digital cam is... hmmm.
Holgas have random imperfections and a total lack of quality control. Every Holga has slightly different level of light leaks, chromatic distortion, vignetting, etc.
Holgas are hackable. People flock them, make light seals, replace the lens with a pinhole, make Holgaroids, etc, etc. It's essentially a plastic box with two moving parts.
Holgas give you no technological photographic control inside the box. You have one (varying) shutter speed or Bulb, two (largely unknown) apertures, and whatever speed film you dumped in it. If you need to adjust exposure then you need to do it when you develop your film, or not at all. This is, in my opinion, both limiting and freeing.
All that said, I would love to see this camera made with a glass lens. A traditionally styled, intentionally restricted, digital camera with a retro look. Provided it didn't cost $2000. :D.
The sad truth is that, I bet, if it was ever commercially produced then it would be forced to have an LCD screen on the back. I can picture the hipsters crowding around in a bar to chimp the screen, right now...