CURRENTLY SOLD OUT
 | Shop by category |
{"delay":300}
|
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Best Selling in Film Cameras
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Save on Film Cameras
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- You may also like
Having heard so many rave reviews about the world and secret cult of Lomography. I've found myself feeling deflated and sort of unlucky! I've put 2 films through my second hand Diana F+, and both have shown zero results. I don't know if I just have bought a dud or what? Whenever I get a new camera I bracket everything to figure out the way in which I like to shoot to get the best out of it, with both of these trial films I worked in the studio, and played around outdoors with natural light. I double and triple exposed some shots to get good effects and nothing. Does anyone know a good sight to run an MOT equivalent on the DianaF+? I know a bad workman should never blame his tools, but I am seriously baffled!
ok
Verified purchase: Yes | Condition: Pre-owned
Bought this as a gift for a friend who is a hobby photographer. He thought this was brilliant and the gift was an absolute success! Cute and handy camera with flash and everything.
Arrived quickly and in good condition. Thanks!
Verified purchase: Yes | Condition: Pre-owned
Lomography - both the pseudo-art-form and the company whose brand name the practice shares - is a polarizing thing. Its detractors say it's a pretentious activity for hipsters, using overpriced junk sold by a money-grabbing evil empire that sell things purely on branding alone. Its followers claim it has charm, warmth, and a sense of community and fun. Me? I fall into the latter camp, but I can definitely see the argument presented against it. In a non-biased sense, not favouring either side, a lot of Lomography's cameras are made entirely of plastic, but are ingeniously designed. There are a whole load of add-ons made, which while expensive for what they are, are always a lot cheaper than the "proper" versions used by "proper" photographers. And the results? Well, they speak for themselves. They do often have that old-school warmth and dreamy haze, and can (depending on what you do) have some buck-wild colours that can look stunning. The Diana F+ is a prime example of all of the above. It's relatively lightweight plastic, and probably wouldn't take to being dropped too well. And as its viewfinder doesn't look through the lens, the only focusing option available is a basic zone focusing ring. And forget about the light metering and countless aperture/shutter speed settings on your expensive SLR: Here you have two speeds (N, which is about 1/60, and B) and four apertures (handily shown, for the beginner, as cloud, part cloud, sun and pinhole - F/11, F/16, F/22 and F/150 respectively). And if you don't like the basic lens, or don't like using 120, or if you prefer instant photography, there are add-ons available to change all of that. The 35mm back, for example, is very popular. So what you have, ultimately, is a camera that while easy to pick up - unlike SLRs, you're unlikely, as a complete novice, to get overwhelmed with options) - is pretty tough to master. You can spend years just taking basic snapshots and getting decent results, but if you want to teach yourself how photography works, this is a good way to learn principles like metering by eye, Sunny 16 rules, etc., and eventually, you can get some amazing photographs worthy of hanging on a wall somewhere. Whether or not you want to buy this, however, depends on how patient and tolerant you are. Yes, you will get a lot of underexposed shots at first. And yes, nothing will be perfectly sharp and in focus. But that's part of the charm, and part of the learning curve. And for the £45 it costs on average (or £80 with flash), you'll have a lot of fun with it. Carry it everywhere; it'll become your new best friend.Read full review
