fjablo wrote:
Ugh damn. At this point seems pretty much confirmed that they all suffer from that issue. At least the first batch..
Very curious to get my films back (shot 3 rolls so far), but lab is still closed this week 😭
And this is why we have not seen any reviews from the 'big name' testers on-line. Lomo must have put the kabosh on their reviews as they do not want this to be publicized.
The current trying to be influencer are nothing but gushing glitter and strawberry soda with their reviews. I called out one re frame spacing, and he said it does it but he does not mind...
This is also why i am waiting for a big retailer to carry them - like B&H - so if there is a problem I just return and get my money back.
3 out of 24 frame spacing issues is not too bad IMO, and with scanning one often has to crop into the frame a bit anyway. But I would much prefer to have proper spacing. It would be a shame to have an epic shot of undeniable proof of space aliens visiting earth ruined by a framing issue.
Geoff D F wrote:
3 out of 24 frame spacing issues is not too bad IMO, and with scanning one often has to crop into the frame a bit anyway. But I would much prefer to have proper spacing. It would be a shame to have an epic shot of undeniable proof of space aliens visiting earth ruined by a framing issue.
It's not a big deal to me either. Honestly feels like a beta issue that can be sorted out in the next batch. All of the frame spaces are inconsistent so it must be some sort of gear regulation. If anyone wants to see the full roll on a light table you can zoom in here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/oiNoSqtmvuvmzmZ79
I'm a bit more concerned about optical/coating issues. Maybe I am expecting too much but my little Canon Sureshot with a 32/3.5 seems more center sharp. But the veiling flare seems bad. Some examples:
This is like f11. Shot with sun in frame so purposefully bad conditions. DSC_0079 by Winblad von, on Flickr
Whereas these are shot wide open and the sun is no where in the frame or really even in front of the camera.
These were tests shots of the back of my travel trailer. Dead on flat surface sloping away, focused on bottom line of the window. I did this to see to gauge the fall-off, to see how planal the focus would be. It's pretty good at 2.8 with really no distortion either). What I did not expect was this much ghosting flare. (NOTE: I did not use the provided UV filter here). They do sell 3.5mm hoods for Rollei 35 users on the cheap. I might grab one.
Desmolicious wrote:
And this is why we have not seen any reviews from the 'big name' testers on-line. Lomo must have put the kabosh on their reviews as they do not want this to be publicized.
The current trying to be influencer are nothing but gushing glitter and strawberry soda with their reviews. I called out one re frame spacing, and he said it does it but he does not mind...
This is also why i am waiting for a big retailer to carry them - like B&H - so if there is a problem I just return and get my money back.
If mine shows issues (which I am pretty sure it will) I will test their service in Europe. Should be pretty straightforward tbh because consumer protection rights are quite strong over here. If I remember correctly there's a statutory warranty for products like that, with burden of proof on their end. So they will likely just replace or fix it.
Question is how long will it take and how much of a financial disaster is it for Lomo. All issues aside I still think this is a fantastic product and I hope they're successful with it (but also fixing the issues for buyers, obviously).
Desmolicious wrote:
I want this product to succeed, but I am also happy to wait it out until they iron out the bugs. Wait, iron out the wrinkles. Shake off the bugs.
Yeah but it is unclear as to what the changes are going to address.
With yours, did you check to see if the interior lens box was correctly matted so there would be no internal reflections possibly causing flare? Needs to be a matte black, not a shiny black finish.
Desmolicious wrote:
Yeah but it is unclear as to what the changes are going to address.
With yours, did you check to see if the interior lens box was correctly matted so there would be no internal reflections possibly causing flare? Needs to be a matte black, not a shiny black finish.
You can see the interior in the video I posted about the aperture mech. It looks like it's mostly cast as one unit and it's adequately matte if not actually flocked. I'll look at the pressure plate next time I open it up but I recall it being glossy black metal like most SLRs.
The lens coating is deep blue, like something from 1945, with no other colors present to suggest that its actually multi-coated.
Desmolicious wrote:
His comment about - an demonstration of - the loose pressure plate was very interesting.
This is a pass for me unless Lomo fixes the film spacing and loose pressure plate.
Just checked my copy and compared the pressure plate against the Leica Minilux and Nikon F2. The MC-A's pressure plate is indeed very loosey goosey in comparison. I think he found the most likely culprit for the issues we're seeing.
Unfortunately that this seems to affect most or all of the first batch cameras. Guess I'll have to get in touch with Lomo and get a replacement camera once I got my film back..
I'm having a hard time justifying NOT keeping it to be honest. What do I do with that $550? That's the cost of like one boring digital prime. (Actually I just bought the refurb Z5 for less than that so if you are a starving artist, go do that instead!).
I cant find a film compact that allows me to change/override ISO, focus this quick, or prefocus for that matter, let alone control the entire exposure triangle.
At the same time my dinky $50 Canon Sleek gets by in brighter light just fine and doesn't flare the second the suns comes up over the horizon. The VF is impossibly small but the focus cross hairs are like, well, hairs and not Comic Sans thick. I've been taping foil on the film canister to change the DX coding.
So yeah, I think WAIT until Lomo gets production sorted out if you can. They had this camera under wraps for so long I dont know why they didnt just wait to get it fully sorted out.
fjablo wrote:
Just checked my copy and compared the pressure plate against the Leica Minilux and Nikon F2. The MC-A's pressure plate is indeed very loosey goosey in comparison. I think he found the most likely culprit for the issues we're seeing.
Unfortunately that this seems to affect most or all of the first batch cameras. Guess I'll have to get in touch with Lomo and get a replacement camera once I got my film back..
The flimsy pressure plate could be causing the film spacing and flare issues.
I'm definitely seeing frame overlap, ghosting, etc. But honestly, fairly happy for the money. If they can fix the pressure plate/overlap thing I think it'll sell well.
The main issue for me is the viewfinder not being super accurate, but... show me a film P&S where it is.
