Geoff D F wrote:
I wonder if Lomo will announce that they have sorted the film spacing issue, or are we just expected to wait until enough reviews have appeared that don't mention it? It looks like a potentially great camera and I'm keen to buy, but Lomo's silence is not inspiring much confidence.
I'd assume if they make a public announcement, then they would have to recall all the cameras affected and replace them. They most likely will quietly fix the issue. Might be awhile till it gets sorted, unless people start returning them, and/or making complaints online that Lomography actually sees.
Anyone seen any reports of someone who has checked the film spacing and found it to be good? I've only seen reports where there have been issues or it not mentioned at all.
Geoff D F wrote:
Anyone seen any reports of someone who has checked the film spacing and found it to be good? I've only seen reports where there have been issues or it not mentioned at all.
I recall reading (Reddit maybe?) of one person saying they did not experience any spacing issues. If I find that post again I'll share it here. Unfortunately it was only one persons claim that I've seen, granted the negatives always outnumber the positives when it comes to things like this, since happy customers don't tend to post about it. I wonder how many units sold thus far?
Grime wrote:
I recall reading (Reddit maybe?) of one person saying they did not experience any spacing issues. If I find that post again I'll share it here. Unfortunately it was only one persons claim that I've seen, granted the negatives always outnumber the positives when it comes to things like this, since happy customers don't tend to post about it. I wonder how many units sold thus far?
How did he determine he did not have film spacing issues? By checking his negatives? Or did he just receive scans and the scans were ok - but he has no idea if the lab cropped them?
actual user experience of the two people on this forum shows film spacing issues. Add to that to the reports in the wild and this is a real problem, not just bad luck. I questioned one youtube reviewer who gave a glowing assessment if his had frame spacing issues. He said it did but did not bother him so he did not mention it in his review!
Desmolicious wrote:
How did he determine he did not have film spacing issues? By checking his negatives? Or did he just receive scans and the scans were ok - but he has no idea if the lab cropped them?
actual user experience of the two people on this forum shows film spacing issues. Add to that to the reports in the wild and this is a real problem, not just bad luck. I questioned one youtube reviewer who gave a glowing assessment if his had frame spacing issues. He said it did but did not bother him so he did not mention it in his review!...Show more →
If I remember correctly he developed them himself, but I can't recall how many rolls of film.
I wouldn't trust that Youtubers reviews. That is pretty important information, but I suppose he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds, and wants to receive more products for review.
I also think it is a real problem, and I'm glad I am in no rush to buy one. I do hope they acknowledge and resolve the issue soon.
Peter is reasonably positive about it, but there are several comments about overlapping and crooked frames, and film getting jammed. Lomo looks to be sending properly functioning cameras to reviewers, but the QC seems lacking in ones being sold, at least at this stage.
I'm heading to Japan in April and was hoping to purchase one to be my film camera but am quite undecided given the reports.
Geoff D F wrote:
Peter is reasonably positive about it, but there are several comments about overlapping and crooked frames, and film getting jammed. Lomo looks to be sending properly functioning cameras to reviewers, but the QC seems lacking in ones being sold, at least at this stage.
I'm heading to Japan in April and was hoping to purchase one to be my film camera but am quite undecided given the reports.
If you're undecided, maybe just buy it from a place with a good return policy. Go on your trip, and if it gives you trouble, just return it when you get back. Would Yodobashi Camera have them perhaps?
- 2 rolls of HP5 with significantly wonky frames and frame spacing issues, including some overlapping frames (occurs approx 3x per roll, so 6 affected images).
- 1 roll of Kentmere 400 with uneven frame spacing, but much better than the HP5 and no overlapping frames. Not sure if the film stock plays a role or if this was just by chance.
Haven't scanned the film yet, but will do so later.
I'll also raise a support incident with Lomography over the film spacing issues in the coming days. Lets see how they handle this.
- 2 rolls of HP5 with significantly wonky frames and frame spacing issues, including some overlapping frames (occurs approx 3x per roll, so 6 affected images).
- 1 roll of Kentmere 400 with uneven frame spacing, but much better than the HP5 and no overlapping frames. Not sure if the film stock plays a role or if this was just by chance.
Haven't scanned the film yet, but will do so later.
I'll also raise a support incident with Lomography over the film spacing issues in the coming days. Lets see how they handle this.
I'd be very interested in what Lomo says. Was your camera from the first batch?
Grime wrote:
If you're undecided, maybe just buy it from a place with a good return policy. Go on your trip, and if it gives you trouble, just return it when you get back. Would Yodobashi Camera have them perhaps?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I can wait until the issue sorts itself out if needed. I have other cameras that I could take.
These are from the first roll of HP5. Some are cropped a bit due to overlapping frames.
I'm happy with the image quality - edges get a bit blurry, but I don't mind that. Even flare resistance looks okay to me (had the UV filter on all the time).
These are nice results! I'm dropping off a roll today that I shot with the UV filter so curious how the extra layer of coating helps flair. I also shot f4 or greater most of the time.
FWIW I examined the pressure plate after this last roll came out. I don't really see any issues with it compared to my other P&S.
The compact nature of this camera, ability to pre-set in anticipation, and the general responsiveness really shined on my last trip. If it delivers I will keep it or ask for a replacement.
If it misses focus on some key shots (I have a few in mind) or the flare is too much on those key shots I am going to ask for a refund. Because my $40 Canon is smaller and nails focus and at 3.5 doesn't flare. The MCA has a bunch of other advantages but it needs to clear that hurdle.
These are from the first roll of HP5. Some are cropped a bit due to overlapping frames.
I'm happy with the image quality - edges get a bit blurry, but I don't mind that. Even flare resistance looks okay to me (had the UV filter on all the time).
