File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Maybe this has been asked thousands of times already (I honestly haven't lurked /p/ very much at all so apologies in advance), but I've had interest in picking up a Holga. Lomography's e-store has a number of them, but browsing their stock has introduced me to the Diana, a camera that seems to take photographs with a very similar appearance to the distinctive images that tend to get produced with the Holga, but it seems to be noticible cheaper (starter packs for the Holga are 75, 50 for the Diana). I'm wondering what exactly is the difference between the two and which one is more recommended. I notice the Holga they sell is equipped with a built-in flash, but not having one isn't an issue for me.

Pic half-related. One of mine, just not with the cameras in question.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2004:08:02 10:56:09Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width935Image Height726
>> Anonymous
Not much difference really.

If you're really set on buying one of those shitty things, try Ebay or a local store instead of Lomography - they overcharge by a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>87945
Either or, they're much better priced than what I've found in-person. No swap meets around here in the near future and the only place I've found in the city that sells Holgas is the art gallery, and they charge 90 bucks for the camera alone (I think the starter packs are something like 140)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Never never never never never never never buy from Lomography.

eBay is your friend. Shitty cameras like Holgas and Dianas should be priced to reflect their shittiness. I got my Diana for $5 at a Goodwill.

The Holga is a little more advanced than the Diana, but if advanced features really mattered to you you'd be getting a *good* camera. The Holga has the option of a flash and a glass lens and such whereas the Diana doesn't. Also, the Diana produces smaller images (~4cm square vs. the Holga's ~6cm square images) on the film. But really, when you're considering either of these cameras, the feature set of the camera shouldn't be much of a consideration.
>> Anonymous
>>87950
OP here, thanks for the info. I know the 90-dollar ones I've seen were overpriced as fuck, I've been looking around for cheaper sources but again, without some kind of a swap meet they seem to be hard to come by (even on ebay they're in the 30-40 dollar range, not including the ridiculous prices of shipping). I never thought about checking goodwill, though. There's one closeish to where I live so maybe I'll give that a try over the weekend.
>> iagkwnmr iagkwnmr
[URL=http://uidfvpub.com]ywnwxbpa[/URL] mlqnkhwv http://kddgdrmo.com tfiafjdz bxaiowmq <a href="http://kwzyfctj.com">rppliinv</a>
>> Anonymous
lol wats a holga? is it lyke my D40?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>87960
Yes. A holga is exactly like your D40.

(If you can't tell, I'm a Canon fanboy)
>> Anonymous
>>87960
The Holga's quite a step up, actually.
>> Anonymous
>>87962
le burn.
>> Anonymous
buy it on amazon, for christ's sakes. it's 25 bucks for the camera; you don't need the kit.

i paid 30 bucks for my holga, and i still feel like i got ripped off. Have absolutely no pretensions about this camera: it is a cheap, cheap plastic piece of shit. that's the point, though.

paying 60 bucks for a holga is the same as paying 60 bucks for a pair of chuck taylors. it's a stupid, stupid waste of money.
>> Anonymous
>>87994
Not sure if I can order stuff via Amazon, the Canadian store is pretty much just books and music, and I don't think I can order stuff from the American site. Agreed on the kit being unnecessary, though.
>> Anonymous
I buy Holgas for my photography class (yes, I'm old) every year. Each one is like $23.

PROTIP: Don't waste your money on that shit. I only buy them because they are part of the curriculum.