« Too good for words. | Main | Friend in a box. »

December 10, 2001



you can have mine if you want! i was caught in the hype and now it's gathering dust. instead of '
'arty' my shots were simply 'crappy' :)


Well, that's a fabulous offer Mena!

If you don't take Shauny's offer, I would recommend you make your purchase from Amazon. I bought mine last year through lomo.com and it took several weeks if not a month to arrive. Amazon says it ships within 24hrs. Good luck and I can't wait to see the pics you take. I have so much fun with mine - I take it everywhere and I'm constantly looking for the next shot.

It's such a fun camera.


Thanks for the offer, Shauny!

Which camera do you have? And what do you want for it?

I was actually going to buy one off Amazon since I already have a gift certificate and didn't want to pay anything out of pocket.

The question I have -- is besides the fact that one camera has four lenses and the other one, what is the real difference between the $150 and the $50 ones on my wishlist?


You definitely want to go with the $150 model. The $50 supersampler is fun but you'll be disappointed overall, I think. It is pure gimmick, unlike the Kompact Automat, which is just 85% gimmick.

Bottomline: the Kompact is the one with the world-reknowned lens that gives the wonderful, warm, saturated photos. That's yr pick.


If you're thinking about getting a Lomo [or something like it], I'd recommend a camera called the L'espion. It's a digital camera that fits onto a keyring, takes quicktime movies and only costs about $60. The image quality isn't great but then it's ultra-portable. I bought one a few months ago and I'm very pleased with it.



I agree with Matty. I've heard the supersampler ones don't live up to the Lomo hype. I haven't tried one myself, but do know that each uses different lenses and you won't get the same effect from the super sampler as you would from a real lomo.


Can somebody explain the difference between the lomo and a standard point-and-shoot?

The difference in the camera and how it makes the photos different.

The Lomo web site it such a pain sometimes.


The standard Lomo ($150) is metal and heavyweight. With Fuji film it takes incredibly saturated photos - especially in low light. The super samplers (I have both ) are plastic, don't shut so well and don't have the robustness in terms of lens and shutter as the standard. They are fun to play with but not as durable.

I have been really impressed with the images from the standard camera. Check out this site: https://www.quarlo.com
These are all Lomo shots.

agent x

i have the camera, and i love it to death. it's really small and easy to get aquianted with. also, it works best with low speed films which are really chep, you can get polaroid brand 35mm at 100 asa for less than a dollar a roll. also, it looks reallycool when you're carrying it and you can pretend you're a russian spy or something. also, there's no flash and it's ultra quiet so it's not obtrusive at all, people never know when you're photographing them.

p.s. the super sapler is a trick/toy camera that takes four pictures at once, 1 second apart, but all on the same frame (kind of like the nickelodeon photo blaster, but not different pictures). if you want to get aquianted with the lomo, there's an $11.00 version called the chmena from freestyle photographic suplies, and it's very similar in pinciple, but not specifics.

so, yeah.


There's a few unique things about the Kompact Automat. They are as follows...

1. Auto exposure. It will leave the shutter open until enough light has hit the film. Awesome for low-light shots.

2. Wide angle, high speed lens. This lens provides the interesting colors and the great saturation. This brings me to...

3. Amazing colors. These two things really make everything look like real life colors, since there is no need for a flash.

Those are the big things. I know lomo.com is a pain, but go there and check out the world archive that will show you how cool the photos can be.


My boy bought the lomo for me a couple years back and I must say, it was the best present I ever received. It does take some time to figure out how to get it to do what you want, but then again the lomo is a camera for those who prefer a high percentage of chance to operate in their art. Some photos turn out okay, but because of the light meter and lens, the right combination of subject and light yields art--night photos, for example, are phenomenal. It's fine for taking to shows because you sometimes just come away with fantastic light collages (and a vague blur of guitar at time).
Not good for those who want super-crisp Life pictures, but, as said previously, extremely helpful with the spy gear.

The sampler also takes practice, but has yielded many good pictures. Best case scenario: with your lomo, you should have a costco membership. You will likely take some so-so photos, but with a ten-pack of film coming in at under twenty bucks and processing for under three, you should be setting up a gallery in no time. I take my lomo everywhere and shoot everything, so cheap processing is essential.


maybe you should check out the Holga. it's a medium format camera, but the images are crazy interesting. https://www.freestylesalesco.com/holga.html


Aw, come on, the Lomo isn't so wild after all. I have tried it, and it does not compare to a Canon G2, for example (I know, the latter is x-fold more expensive, but the point is - the Lomo pictures aren't so *unique* after all).

First, Lomo's secret to leave the shutter open until enough light has come in - well, isn't that the way all cameras are supposed to work? I mean, if they wouldn't, you'd get underexposed pictures, wouldn't you?

If I inactivate the flash on my cameras, they take the same ghostly, shiny night shots - big deal.

As for the colours, and the slightly distorted, blurred and darkened edges: a) Colours are a function of film much more than of the camera or lens, and it is possible to get vivid colours with virtually any camera. b) I have seen the Lomo take MANY images with boring, dull colours - it all depends on the scene and the available lights. c) If you want to use your photos as they come out of the camera, then it's ok with me, but most people I know (including myself) use post-processing. Now, if you do, it's not difficult to assemble a script to do digitally in Photoshop or -paint exactly what the Lomo does analogously. And that way, I keep a pristine, undistorted, undarkened orginial in the drawer (in case, someone does want a not-so-artsy looking picture), and have the Lomo effect under complete control. I can even crop my image, select a focus of interest, and THEN blur and darken the corners of the cropped image.

Now to the term 'art': I don't want to start a philosphical debate, but in my understanding, art means that I either have a certain control over the process itself, or over the selection of the results. The Lomo does give me very limited control, and often leaves me with (motion-)blurred and out of focus pictures. The pictures often look nicely, but they ALL got the same look, and that gets boring and not so artistic after a while.

I really like the Lomo effect, which resembles the retro/trash effect some advertising agencies and designers use (cf the Diesel ads), but I don't want ALL my pictures to show the effect. SO I think an image is really art when it affects the viewer due to how I manipulated it. Otherwise, it's chance, not art.

OK, enough ranting for today - I liked the Lomo a lot, when I first got it, but after a while, I longed for the control I get with a more advanced camera. The Lomo was good in one respect, though: It taught me some lessons about perfection coming from imperfection.

The comments to this entry are closed.