# Lomography Belair 6x12 folder - an actually new film camera



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2012)

http://microsites.lomography.com/belair/

So a lot of people will already have their lips pre-curled at the word "Lomography", and if you are allergic to their hipster marketing you might want to get your adrenaline shot ready before clicking the link. But personally I think this is quite a credible camera. It takes 6x12 pics - also 6x6 and 6x9, presumably with masks - it has auto exposure which is pretty much unheard of in MF, it has interchangeable lenses (coming with 90mm and 58mm at the moment, and 58mm on 6x12 will be _really_ wide), it's light and relatively compact and it looks good. It's also not _that_ expensive for what is basically a small batch new design camera, particularly with pre-order discount. All credit to them for making new cameras which are not just clones and trying to encourage interest in film.

Been around for a couple of weeks now, but still at 15% off pre-orders - originally 30% iirc. I have one coming which I look forward to taking out to see Christmas shopping crowds.


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

zomg WANT!

eta am i reading it right that the film's £13 for 3 exposures?  scrub that it shoots roll film, right?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> zomg WANT!
> 
> eta am i reading it right that the film's £13 for 3 exposures?  scrub that it shoots roll film, right?


I think that's £13 for three _packs_. That's just Lomography's roll film afaik, it uses standard 120.


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

i was getting confused by the numbers, assumed it was a proprietary format. i has _all_ the processing gear for 120


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 7, 2012)

Those sample photographs look just like the usual crap you get from the old rubbish Lomo cameras. I can't understand the whole point of Lomography. Why not just take ordinary pictures on a digital camera and foul them up in post processing with Photoshop. Most photo software will allow you to mess up the colours or even do a cross processing effect.[/END CURLED LIPS]


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

okay when i put them in my cart i get 15% discount on the plastic body but 30% discount on the metal body. you reckon they're gonna spot/fix that?


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Those sample photographs look just like the usual crap you get from the old rubbish Lomo cameras. I can't understand the whole point of Lomography. Why not just take ordinary pictures on a digital camera and foul them up in post processing with Photoshop. Most photo software will allow you to mess up the colours or even do a cross processing effect.[/END CURLED LIPS]


 
you're not excited at medium format x 2? i am  huuuuuge negs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> http://microsites.lomography.com/belair/
> 
> So a lot of people will already have their lips pre-curled at the word "Lomography", and if you are allergic to their hipster marketing you might want to get your adrenaline shot ready before clicking the link. But personally I think this is quite a credible camera. It takes 6x12 pics - also 6x6 and 6x9, presumably with masks - it has auto exposure which is pretty much unheard of in MF, it has interchangeable lenses (coming with 90mm and 58mm at the moment, and 58mm on 6x12 will be _really_ wide), it's light and relatively compact and it looks good. It's also not _that_ expensive for what is basically a small batch new design camera, particularly with pre-order discount. All credit to them for making new cameras which are not just clones and trying to encourage interest in film.
> 
> Been around for a couple of weeks now, but still at 15% off pre-orders - originally 30% iirc. I have one coming which I look forward to taking out to see Christmas shopping crowds.


 
Blates a rip-off of the old Polaroid folding cameras!
Bit pricey for me, too. I'd rather buy an old Polaroid folder and convert it to rollfilm, tbf.


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

i love my polaroid folder but i want to keep it for instant film ta


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> you're not excited at medium format x 3? i am  huuuuuge negs


 
I've got a 1920s Kodak 2C rangefinder folder and a set of converters so it can take 120 film. negs are about 6x12. Don't really need a loupe to look at them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i love my polaroid folder but i want to keep it for instant film ta


 
Nah, I mean the old rollilm ones that they no longer do films for, not the filmpack models. Shit, if they still did Polaroid instant rollfilm, I'd be in there like Flynn!!


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

i tend to do weird shit with my negs, so bigger's definitely better as far as i'm concerned  (though again i was reading the numbers wrong, it's double width, not triple, right?)


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

plastic lenses


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i tend to do weird shit with my negs, so bigger's definitely better as far as i'm concerned  (though again i was reading the numbers wrong, it's double width, not triple, right?)


 
Yep. You should get 5 or 6 frames per film at 6x12cm.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> you're not excited at medium format x 2? i am  huuuuuge negs


No, putting a huge negative in a camera that is not properly light tight is a really dumb thing to do. That is what Lomo cameras are all about.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 7, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> plastic lenses


 
Nothing to be suspicious about these days. Plastic technology surpasses glass in many respects.

I disagree with Hocus (if he wasn't joking). Some of the shots in the gallery make the lenses look great. They have included a few with TM Lomo flare and some with colour cast just to 'promote' the old school film appeal I guess, but if used properly it should be a good tool.

OTH some very nice bargains on ebay for a MF Bronica with AE viewfinder for example. Or, and old Pentax. Not retro cool folders, but far better value. Whilst I appreciate the appeal of a panoramic format negative (not sure how prices will compare to Fuji's 6x12 secondhand) I think digital has made this novelty/specialty redundant.

Given the choice I would head to ebay for a Bronica.


----------



## wayward bob (Nov 7, 2012)

fuckit, with the 30% discount still showing on the metal body plus an extra 10% code i've jumped


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No, putting a huge negative in a camera that is not properly light tight is a really dumb thing to do. That is what Lomo cameras are all about.


Lomography Co cameras are generally quite well put together. You are perhaps thinking of the Holga... actually modern Holgas don't usually have light leaks either, unless you deliberately bash them about to make leaks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Given the choice I would head to ebay for a Bronica.


I was looking at the Bronica ETRSi on eBay recently, where there are some good deals. It's not really the same sort of beast though; it's 6x4.5, to begin with.

I do also have a nice 6x9 folder which came from VP, I admit. But I can use more than one camera.... I'll probably sell my 6x12 Holga Pan once I get the Belair though.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 7, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I was looking at the Bronica ETRSi on eBay recently, where there are some good deals. It's not really the same sort of beast though; it's 6x4.5, to begin with.
> 
> I do also have a nice 6x9 folder which came from VP, I admit. But I can use more than one camera.... I'll probably sell my 6x12 Holga Pan once I get the Belair though.


 
For me, the ETRSi was too much of a compromise. Even when a good selection of hi-res films were available the step up from 35mm didn't really justify the inconvenience of handling and extra cost. Giving more thought I would probably look for a Fuji, but I suspect they still command pretty good prices.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah, I do also think sometimes that if I am going to mess around with MF SLRs I should at least be getting 6x6 out of them. But there is a sizeable price jump. Luckily there is little danger of my having the spare cash to get one in the near future anyway, unless I sell my digitals.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 25, 2012)

I went past the Lomography shop in Shoreditch today and thought I'd pop in and have a feel of one. They only had non-working display prototypes there but apparently they are pretty much the same as the production models.

The black plastic one is very light indeed, and felt odd to me because of it - while the metal one just has a metal plate rather than a metal body, it did feel better. Though the guy I talked to said he preferred the plastic one when using it. Folding and unfolding it was a bit awkward tbh, I think there's a knack to it - you have to squeeze it slightly and push inwards. The lenses screw in and out quickly unless you mess it up like I did. The back is removable via two pull-out clips at the bottom, pretty easily, and it comes with two finders which twist-attach to the top and have the full 6x12 wide view, with little arrows indicating where 6x6 and 6x9 stop. (Not very easy to see these, but tbh this is more for 6x12 use than anything else.) There are only two apertures - 8 and 16 - and the focus is a simple clicky zone one on the lens. Anything smaller than 6x12 is set by putting a mask in when you open the back, as you'd expect, nothing complex there.

The whole setup feels... eccentric but usable. Focus and shutter release are all around the lens, and the only thing you do at the back is wind and change film, so you wouldn't hold this like a normal folder. I immediately defaulted to having left hand with fingers near the lens and palm supporting the rest of it. Folded, it's slim and light - it would easily fit into a coat pocket, perhaps a bit long for most jacket pockets.

Anyway, it's assuaged my impatience for a bit.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 25, 2012)

I'm sure there's a gag somewhere about your fresh prints from your Bel Air...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 20, 2012)

Has anyone else got theirs?

I have to say I'm not that happy with the exposure - it seems to underexpose everything I've taken so far (though that's only one roll to be fair). Also the focus to infinity... isn't. I have a feeling that the best idea is to shoot everything at f16 with a 400 film in the daytime, and/or use a flash in lower light with stuff that is close.


----------



## Firky (Dec 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Has anyone else got theirs?
> 
> I have to say I'm not that happy with the exposure - it seems to underexpose everything I've taken so far (though that's only one roll to be fair). Also the focus to infinity... isn't. I have a feeling that the best idea is to shoot everything at f16 with a 400 film in the daytime, and/or use a flash in lower light with stuff that is close.


 
So it's shit?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 20, 2012)

firky said:


> So it's shit?


Can't really say yet. I should take more pictures with it, to be fair. The reports are also quite mixed - I've seen some great pictures posted.

I'm cool with the lo-fi Holga-type aesthetic, but I like that to be deliberate rather than because something fucked up.


----------



## Firky (Dec 20, 2012)

I had toyed with getting one myself buy chose not and decided to wait until I saw some large scale feedback. I still have mixed feelings, I keep thinking I can probably get a cheap plastic camera made in China for a fraction of the cost and get the same (or better) results. Will keep an eye on the thread though.

Does it feel 'good' when using the mechanics of the camera or is quite toyish?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 20, 2012)

firky said:


> I had toyed with getting one myself buy chose not and decided to wait until I saw some large scale feedback. I still have mixed feelings, I keep thinking I can probably get a cheap plastic camera made in China for a fraction of the cost and get the same (or better) results. Will keep an eye on the thread though.
> 
> Does it feel 'good' when using the mechanics of the camera or is quite toyish?


It's really light, which doesn't help, and feels a little weird to fold and unfold - though the one I got is definitely better than the pre-production one I tried in the shop.

What's most awkward is the grip position. Everything is around the lens, including the shutter release, but you can't hold it just there or it would flop about, so you have to have your right hand around the lens and your left at the back. This is just not very ergonomic, especially when looking through the viewfinder, and you also look like a dick. It's also not great for holding it steady.

I'm going to take it out tomorrow with some 400 film and give it another go. I've set up a return already, just to stay within the 14 day period, but I can cancel that if I suddenly love it.

You can get the Holga 120 Pan for 30-40 quid which does 6x12 - admittedly it's nowhere near as compact, and doesn't auto-expose or have wide-angle lenses, but pictures of scenery when focussed to infinity look much better to me.


----------



## starfish2000 (Dec 24, 2012)

I went in the Lomo shop in Carnaby Street, its really popular with women this stuff, if I was single Id hang out there, I was like the only male customer for 30 mins, weird!


----------

