I try to be generally positive, especially when discussing a concept or prototype... however, I am passionate about film photography and this really rubs me the wrong way.
Making a digital camera that is a) ugly and b) designed to be hard to use misses the whole point of why Holga/Lomo/film is growing in popularity. There is a strong correlation to the impressive sales of vinyl LP records over the past few years (which has been through the roof compared to other physical formats). My speculation is that people are fatigued on things that don't feel "real". They are tired of copies and want something that their kids might be excited to discover in the closet.
Anyhow, the whole point of film is that it has a character all its own, depending on which of the hundreds available you try to use. And embracing the constraint of making each shot count and delayed gratification has made me a more thoughtful photo taker. I find that I can remember every shot I've taken; how I felt at the time, what was happening.
A Holga weighs 200g and if you run it over with your car, you can just buy another one. No batteries required and it can do pinhole stuff, as well as many other modifications:
I'm all for open source camera platforms, but don't put out something with a bunch of arbitrary features removed and various attempts to make the output look shitty "because then it's like film!"
Believe it or not, there's a reason most film cameras work the way that they do which has a direct relationship to the available technology and manufacturing processes at the time it was made.
I want to end my rant on a positive note, so here is a great commercial by Charles and Ray Eames advertising the Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera:
Digital photography has its own interesting things. No need to steal from film. Some people make amazing photos with crappy cellphone cameras. Small sensor compacts (stupid derogatory term: Point & Shoots) have their own, distinctive look (mostly: huge DOF).
Can you explain how the camera under discussion is “designed to be hard to use”?
For what it’s worth, I think it’s fantastic that some companies are experimenting with different digital camera designs. In the digital world, we don’t see the kind of design variety we saw in film cameras. Where are the digital TLRs? For that matter, where are the digital cameras (at all) where manual focus is a pleasant activity? Where are the digital rangefinders with quality lenses? Etc.
Why do digital cameras all need to include screens on the back?
I describe the concept as "designed to be hard to use" for several key reasons:
1. It's got no viewfinder unless you attach one, which means that the designer translated "you never know what you'll get!" into "point and hope for the best".
2. Taking the general aesthetic of a Holga and painting it on a rectangle accomplishes very little besides creating a camera that's awkward to hold. Holga is a versatile platform because they can build many variations into a common chassis. It's the shape it is for a reason. The D would appear to just be an ugly box for the sake of it.
3. If it's digital, there's no way it needs to be as big as a real Holga.
4. Flipping it into B+W mode = lame (to me). Same with having a power switch.
5. Putting variable exposure times on it completely throws away most of the "fun" part of shooting with a Holga. If you're going to shoot shutter priority on a digicam, why not just do so?
I accept that not all of the things that bug me will bug everyone. However, if you're willing to suspend your disbelief for a moment to trust someone who shoots 0.5-2 rolls of film every day for the fun of it... the best simile I can think of to describe why this feels wrong is that it's sort of like when a magazine site or book reader wants you to "turn pages".
In most cases, the metaphor does not translate in an effective way. The reader ends up irritated and will go back to a real book.
Making a digital camera that is a) ugly and b) designed to be hard to use misses the whole point of why Holga/Lomo/film is growing in popularity. There is a strong correlation to the impressive sales of vinyl LP records over the past few years (which has been through the roof compared to other physical formats). My speculation is that people are fatigued on things that don't feel "real". They are tired of copies and want something that their kids might be excited to discover in the closet.
Anyhow, the whole point of film is that it has a character all its own, depending on which of the hundreds available you try to use. And embracing the constraint of making each shot count and delayed gratification has made me a more thoughtful photo taker. I find that I can remember every shot I've taken; how I felt at the time, what was happening.
A Holga weighs 200g and if you run it over with your car, you can just buy another one. No batteries required and it can do pinhole stuff, as well as many other modifications:
http://microsites.lomography.com/holga/modifications/fignatu...
I'm all for open source camera platforms, but don't put out something with a bunch of arbitrary features removed and various attempts to make the output look shitty "because then it's like film!"
Believe it or not, there's a reason most film cameras work the way that they do which has a direct relationship to the available technology and manufacturing processes at the time it was made.
I want to end my rant on a positive note, so here is a great commercial by Charles and Ray Eames advertising the Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EdwmaQltHc