12 Comments
User's avatar
Paul Glover's avatar

Any camera which fails at the most basic part of its job (and this one fails at several apparently) is a hard pass for me. Especially when screwups cost money, and the camera itself isn’t cheap.

Then again I’ve never been a big fan of the “random results” thing, so I’ve never been Lomography’s target audience.

There’s no excuse for going premium on the outside (and the price tag) but cheaping out on the most critical mechanism in the whole camera. That isn’t even random, it’s just frustrating.

Hanz's avatar

Dang. Yea. Those image spacing problems are quite serious. It's rather unusual to see, and I expect you're right that lomography with correct that in the mechanical make of the camera for future models.

Backfocusing or missing is a problem that has long plagued point and shoots. Yet, I think my 90s Samsungs are hitting more than this, maybe.

Tis unfortunate. I too wanted this camera to be a pristine option.

George Appletree's avatar

Sure, taking Lomography for a serious stuff is like parachuting with a party balloon

George Appletree's avatar

yes, I visited the first lomo stores before 2000 and had a lomo and an Holga etc, and got rid of them long ago; they wanted to do photography “unserious” and they did it, damn

Renato Rocha Miranda's avatar

muito bom! e op resultado ficou sensacional!

Victor Bezrukov's avatar

haha after 15 rolls ;-))) some images are great. ;+)

Raf Lopes (CameraClara.com)'s avatar

Some are indeed! It’s a fun camera, but the film advancer mechanism got me :(

Raf Lopes (CameraClara.com)'s avatar

It’s definite. I won’t even spend time developing the next rolls I took on the Lomo MC-A. It’s a COMPLETE SHITSHOW. I swear, I won’t even lose time developing my next rolls. ALL photos are out of focus, extremely vignetted, blurred.

THE LOMO MC-A IS A SHITSHOW.