I shot 15 rolls with the Lomo MC-A. Here's why it's not my cup of tea

Main reason: It's hit or miss, with a problematic film advancer mechanism, which is the only mechanism a film camera cannot fail.

I recently got my hands on the highly anticipated Lomo MC-A. I brought it to a trip to the West Coast, shot more than 15 rolls, and after developing them, I decided to return the camera. This post explains why.

The lens is quite good, with nice background separation. I’d say it’s the best lens on any Lomography camera to date.

If you enjoy this kind of honest gear review, consider becoming a subscriber to Camera Clara. Your support helps me keep testing cameras, burning through rolls of film, and sharing what actually works (and what doesn't) without any sponsorship pressure. Join the community and help keep independent film photography writings alive.

The camera looks incredible on paper. Its features are undeniably interesting: a LiDAR sensor for autofocus, multi-exposure mode, flash PC sync port, a solid balance between manual and full-auto mode, DX code reading, metal top and bottom plates, the splitzer filter, and many other features I previously covered here in Camera Clara:

First contact with the new Lomo MC-A: A hands-on review

But after developing the first rolls, the reality of Lomography taking control of my photos showed up, this time with some design flaws severe enough to make me lose interest in keeping the camera.

Multiple exposure is fun on film. It tells a story after the fact. This is Maysa and I with friends. We took our shots in a restaurant, but they got mixed with a double exposure from a casino I’d photographed earlier. It helps remind us that we were in Vegas. The topic interlacing amidst the chaos creates that atmosphere, something I can’t fully control, but really fun. Very Lomo-ish, I must say.

I like my photos to be more documental and sharp, and having a glass lens and a metal body sold me on the MC-A. Don’t get me wrong, this is an excellent camera if you want the best taste of the best of “Lomography experimental look.”

My favorite features are the glass lens (not plastic like the usual Lomos), the multi-exposure mode (MX), which is really fun and unique in a point-and-shoot, and the splitzer filter, which when combined with multi-exposure can push creativity to unprecedented levels.

To me, though, this is not my cup of tea. Perhaps if it cost around $200 I’d feel differently.

The chaos of multi-exposures can tell a story. But I'm not sure if it’s the story I thought I would be telling though.

Design flaws I noticed (by order of severity)

1. Film advancer mechanism

It’s made of plastic, it jams, it’s rebellious, it pulls the film improperly, sometimes forcing you to rewind rolls at the 15th exposure to reload the film. It’s pure chaos, to a point where I consider this a high-severity product issue. It also creates uneven separation between exposures on the negatives. I would prefer having a plastic body with a metal film advancer mechanism than the other way around.

If you’re not scanning with full film borders, or don’t mind agressive cropping, the imprecise film advancing is less of an issue. But know that sometimes it will result in film jams.

Cropped photographic area on the left vs. what the camera registered on the right. Lots of loss. Not every single frame is like that. Others are just tilted. This one is tilted and highly overlapped with the next one.

Across all the rolls I shot, the operation of the film advance lever was smooth (when it wasn’t suddenly and brutally stuck).

Yeah, it does that.

2. The LiDAR autofocus failure

I don’t know if this is an algorithm issue in the electronics, human error, misalignment, or something else, but I had more out-of-focus exposures than I can accept.

What the heck, AF!?

It shouldn’t be difficult to use an autofocus mechanism in a point-and-shoot camera, and I know what I’m doing when it’s time to photograph. But this?!

(And the misaligned frame, present in every single shot. argh!)

3. Light meter

I ended up with some incredibly overexposed shots of scenes that should have been trivial to meter. I think the light meter does an evaluative calculation with a very broad area. I would prefer it being more center-focused for easier control.

Shots like these two should be trivial to expose correctly. One of them is basically a canvas of 18% gray right at the floor. Both are overexposed.

This overexposure issue could be related to the next topic.

4. Less is More

Let’s start with the number of controls a point-and-shoot should have and how they should be presented to the user in terms of experience. I believe that less should be more, and by including tons of controls in a tiny metal box with plastic switches, I sometimes had the EV dial mispositioned, or turned the camera on in MF mode thinking it was AF. And since it’s analog, guess what? Surprise, surprise when developing.

Having a built-in flash is cool, though!

I’m not saying I would prefer not having all these features. I’m saying that a better experience would be resetting them at every boot, defaulting to full-auto mode at startup. This is how most other point-and-shoots behave. You don’t need a dedicated dial for EV compensation in a point-and-shoot, or a physical switch for manual-focus zoning, for example.

To me, this a UX design flaw.

Consider this if you think my critique is brutal

Don’t get me wrong, the MC-A would be an excellent choice if it cost under $250.

💸 How about that sequence of blanks from a Portra 400? The EV dial probably was inadvertently on -2EV, dialed in my bag, I didn't notice it. The whole reason of a point-and-shoot is to be… a point-and-shoot! 💸

At the price point of $550+tax, you can get better options, such as a used Leica Minilux, a Canon WP-1 (much cheaper), a Canon AF-1 (much cheaper), or the compact Japanese luxury Minolta TC-1, all with superior glass.

My point is that if you’re willing to spend $500 on a camera, you mostly won’t mind spending $600-$800 to get something better that will age well and grow in value over time, like used vintage ones.

The Lomo comes packed with cool features in a compact metal body, but the flaws in the film advancer mechanism are simply unforgivable to me because they make me spend money on film, and film is only getting more expensive.

It might be good for others, just not what I look for

I understand this might be the ideal camera for many people. I am far from condemning or acquitting products. These are just my perspectives after using and developing rolls of film. It’s great to use, but the result is not what I expected, especially because of the film advancer mechanism.

The contact sheet never lies. Notice it starts at frame 6. That's because the film jammed, I got pissed, and removed it from camera trying to troubleshoot. I lost 10 shots of Portra, plus blanks, plus overexposed, plus tilted frames. Nah, not for me, I'll pass.

To make things worse, I saw other people online commenting about the same issue. It wouldn’t surprise me if Lomography released a version 2 that fixes this problem, which would only make things worse for owners of the flawed v1. That’s why I returned mine.

It got this one incredibly well though. It's hit or miss. (but with a tilted frame, lol).

I really wanted this camera to thrive. It’s so smart in so many aspects. But not investing in the most important part of a film camera (the film advancer mechanism) was, to me, an unforgivable mistake.

What do you think? Do you have a Lomo MC-A? Do you like Lomography cameras? Leave a comment. I’m dying to know what you think!

PS: All these rolls were scanned with my new Essential Film Holder, stay tuned for a full review of it (spoiler: it's amazing).