Author Topic: New generation Dianas (Read 7178 times)

Karl · « **on:** April 25, 2008, 11:13:07 AM »

I recently got one of the new generation diana's with the smart box, book and everything. However, I am finding it to be beyond bad. The film spool holder bits are pathetic and the film won't lie flat enough and the take up is really slack so the end roll is loose.

Before anyone points out that unpredicatble and toy like nature of these camerasetc , I know, I know, I know, but these are (considering the ?40 price tag) really poor compared to the Holga and I was wondering if anyone had tried modifications or 'improvements'. I would like to get a flatter film plane and tighter roll up on the spool.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2008, 02:04:12 PM »

Re the loose film take up, can you not deploy the old Holga trick of placing some film box card under the holder so that it holds the film tight when the camera's closed?

Bummer about the build quality of the new Diana. Personally I went off my Holga once I learned how to use it because it was just too predictable and I wasn't looking for the security of a reliable camera. In an attempt to find a new whipping boy I started using my Dianas/clones because they all had little quirks. However, now that I'm pretending to be a halfway competent photographer and not hiding behind the alleged unpredictabilities of my equipment (hard to pull of given the fact that I now use mainly good quality SLRs), maybe I should start using my Holga again?

jrong · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2008, 08:02:40 AM »

I had a similar problem, Karl. Unable to source a REAL Diana, I succumbed and fell for the Lomography version, which was overpriced for what it really was, but came with fancy packaging and all the meretricious bells and whistles. I was disappointed; nevermind the Diana blue top being a more garish version of the original, the entire camera felt light and exceedingly tacky, and like you, I had serious trouble loading film into it and keeping it flat. The back cover also wouldn't go back on after I loaded the film, and my first roll of film was a terrible disappointment. Yes, the Diana is of far worse build quality than the Holga.

I managed to source a vintage Diana F after that, and the difference is really startling. The original Diana feels smoother and I have been getting better pictures from it, although the huge parallax error is still something to get used to!

Never tried any mods on the new Diana. I'm tempted to flog mine on eBay for a bargain.

Jin

gregor · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2008, 06:33:45 PM »

I've tried a couple of Lomo's Diana+. I gave one away and the other sits on my shelf until someone else says they want it. The first roll I shot through a Diana+ was a fat roll - no, it was an obese roll. After that I put couple of pieces of gaffer's tape under the feed roll holder (leaving room in the spool holder's hole to make proper contact with the film back). But I should have predicted that: by default every 'new' original Diana I have acquired over the years gets a couple pieces of gaffer's tape in the same spot.....

With the Diana+ all the shots were flat and simply really bad 4.25 x 4.25 shots nothing of interest at all. Except one where I accidentally had the focus set at 2-4 meters when I wanted it at infinity...

Like I said, the shots (with the exception of that one) were flat with little if any DoF, etc.... They weren't soft and dreamy, as 'they' say (whoever 'they' is - hah!). I'd say they were spongy and lifeless. I've seen a rare few interesting looking Diana+ shots. They were 6x6 and were all done with pre-release cameras by testers.

Francois · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2008, 10:24:28 PM »

When I think I almost bought one... lucky I held back.

artpunk · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2008, 02:36:39 PM »

I have shot over 41 rolls of film with my Diana + cameras (one Diana F+ and two Diana +'s) and have had good experiences with them 99% of the time. I will respectfully disagree with any suggestion that the build quality is any crappier than the traditional Dianas and can attest to that because I have compared both side by side. I will also disagree that the Holga is in someway a 'better' - toy camera - it's apples and oranges people.
Here is what I like and dislike about the new generation Diana + in point form:

Points for:

4 apertures (the traditional 3 - sunny, partly cloudy, cloudy, plus the pinhole)
Choice of 3 negative frame sizes (panoramic, 6?6 and 4?4).
The ability to shoot pinhole shots on the same roll as plastic lens shots.
The ability to shoot pinhole traditionally or with the lens on.
The ability to mount your Diana+ on a tripod, it makes using the B shutter selection so much easier for pinhole and night shots/long exposures.
The Diana F + gives the added opportunity for flash photography with the provided flash or using a modern hotshoe flash of your choice with the provided hotshoe adapter.
The plastic doodad (even though it is a bit of a gimmick and fiddly) to allow really long exposure times without physically holding the shutter down).

Points against:

The loading of film is a bit fiddly, not as easy as with the traditional original Diana camera, but you get used to it with practice.
The film advance can wind on accidentally if you are not careful, for example, when putting it in a camera bag.

I think they are great cameras and a fantastic introduction to medium format, toycamera and pinhole photography. Yes, I have a traditional Diana 151 camera and Diana F's as well as a couple of clones and I enjoy shooting with them too, but the one I reach for consistently now when I walk out the door is the new generation Diana. I have uploaded a few examples from my Diana + cameras below for your consideration...

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

gregor · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2008, 05:33:21 PM »

artpunk - I'm glad you enjoy shooting with the lomo series Diana cameras. The issue has pretty much been will the Lomography Diana results be the the same or similar to the original Diana - at least that's the issue with people who love the original Dianas. However the Lomography Diana is only a Diana in name and cosmetic appearance and that's what really ticks people off about the camera and Lomography.

I'll agree that it's one among many cameras that are a good entry point for the 1st time MF shooter, but it just won't pull off shots like these (I really wish it could).

I'm not pimping these shots as better or worse that anything I've seen from the Lomo Dianas - this is the type of photo I expect from my Dianas and Lomography doesn't cut the grade. With the scarcity of original Dianas the hope for Lomography's Diana remake were high and subsequently a letdown.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

artpunk · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2008, 02:50:17 AM »

Gregor, thanks for your reply, but I already said I love the original Diana cameras too...
I'm not sure exactly what it is these 'people' (presumably you being one of them, but really who are these people?) who fall into the category - "that's what really ticks people off about the camera and Lomography" want from what I basically see is a different toy camera with the Diana name. Just as a Banner or Asiana is not a Diana 151, the Diana + is not one either. To expect otherwise is to simply be naive I fear. Please tell me you don't believe all the marketing hype you hear, whether it comes from lomography or the Coca-Cola company! I never thought that the "Lomography Diana results be the the same as the original Diana" but they ARE similar - Every original Diana cameras photos differed from one to another, so really what is the definitive original Diana look? I know one of my 'original' Diana F's was a real letdown too, and it was NOT made by lomography.
Forget the fact that the new generation Dianas are sold by lomography, forget the hype, forget that it is named after the original Diana 151 (whose design has never been exactly sacrosanct) and simply look at the camera for what it is - I'm glad you concede that the camera is worthy of consideration as a another choice of toy camera to use if you want to get into medium format plastic lens technology. As I have attested, it is a perfectly good camera for that, and many other things... BUT why anyone should choose to be "ticked off" is beyond me.
Either buy the camera or not. Use it or not. But for heavens sake don't try and fool yourself or anyone else that it is somehow not up to some sort of arbitrary standard (set by whom?)
Please don't complain that

Quote

all the shots were flat and simply really bad 4.25 x 4.25 shots nothing of interest at all.

- I mean really, I don't wish to cause offense, but that argument took me by surprise. Blaming the Diana + for producing "really bad 4.25 x 4.25 shots nothing of interest at all" is a bit like a carpenter blaming his tools for producing bad woodwork! I personally didn't mind your first shot of the weatherboard house, but do tend to agree with your assessment of the other two images, but you really can' t blame the camera for that. Any camera pointed at a line of trees or the tops of some buildings and not focused properly will give the same results, sorry.
Are you trying to tell me my or other Diana + shots fall into that category too? I know not all of my shots are good (whose are?) But you can't blame the camera for that and you can't ignore some of the really beautiful shots I have seen taken with this camera [not necessarily by me

]
Honestly, once again I must stress that I really am not trying to cause offense, but I am trying very hard to find some logic in your argument. The camera is a perfectly good camera for what it does and that is coming from someone who also loves the original Diana. Further to that what it does can be really good depending on the subject matter and photographer. Any camera is just a tool, it's how it is used and the 'eye' & brain of the photographer that makes the photo.
I respectfully put it to you that "the hope for Lomography's Diana remake were high and subsequently a letdown" were only a let down to some, and I truly feel sorry for them, because I think they have missed out. Its a shame they haven't seen the potentials of this camera or just had some kind of unrealistic expectation...or what? I still am finding it hard to see where the detractors are coming from and even more pertinently I am still to hear a logical argument backed up by hard evidence.
I know the Diana + fulfilled my (and plenty of other photographers) expectations and then some that I never even thought about before I used it.
btw - you want 'dreamy" photos? What about the photo below for 'dreamy' aspects? And surprise, surprise...guess what camera it was taken with?

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

beck · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2008, 03:34:31 AM »

Cameron, I think from what I've seen so far from the Diana+ community, your work best represents what the D+ is actually capable of doing. And I guess it helps to shoot something solid such as you do as opposed to something more, well, you know. A perfect example is that last frame of yours there. Wow, is that something else. I've snubbed my nose a dozen times at this camera, and yet, it yielded some interesting results for me while using the pinhole. I've cursed it up and down solely for the fact of where it came from, but I got over that and want to use it again knowing I can get something decent. I've not played around with it too much since buying it and would like to fire it up again soon. Despite its design flaws, I've gotten used to it and load it without worry now. The only thing that is puzzling is that fading line that appears around the frame. But I don't sweat it and attribute it to the toyness of it all. Cameron fights a good battle with the + and I have to take his side and defend this plastic crap....er, camera. Haha...

moominsean · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2008, 04:32:23 AM »

i think one of the biggest problems with diana+ (not to insult anyone here) is the user. i'm indifferent to lomography, but there is a tendency for 90 percent of people who shoot with products from lomography to shoot photos of friends while hanging out or doing the whole 'i didn't aim at anything in particular' style of shooting. the diana+ is a bit more difficult to use in that the results aren't as consistent as even the holga...so it requires a bit of a learning curve to make it work well for the individual user...requiring patience that i don't think most people with cameras in hand, film or digital, have. on flickr i see tons of 'i ran my first roll of film thru my diana+ and the shots suck, or the camera is cheap, or the roll is fat, or there are lightleaks, so should i sell it, etc. etc." this is after, like, ONE roll. people buy these things and expect them to be as easy as digital. i'm not perfect or anything, but i've shot hundereds of rolls through my toys over the past 5 years and i mostly see a big difference between earlier stuff and what i shoot now...because i've spent time learning the strengths and weaknesses of my cameras.

i haven't used my diana+ very much, but that's just because i have too many cameras. i've liked what i've shot from it so far. i'm not at all concerned about the cheap build of the diana+... i wouldn't have expected any less from a (modern) diana clone. a lot of what i see in the build (like the tongs to hold the spools in) is very common with other cheap chinese plastic cameras. and i personally don't think $50 is very much to spend of a camera, really. not sure what people really expect, but the world is full of noobs, and some people move up and others are always noobs.

as for flatness, maybe it's a developing issue, or even printing/scanning. i haven't had much luck with non-specialty shop bw developing...usually very poorly done...and horrible prints. that;s why i develop my stuff. and scanning in photoshop defnly requires a bit of finesse. it's very easy to scan a shot and end up with an image with very little contrast.
i actually did a blog post awhile ago on pre and post work in photoshop:

http://moominsean.blogspot.com/2008/01/photoshop-versus-reality.html

anyway, makes me want to use my diana+ again..

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

gregor · « **Reply #10 on:** July 20, 2008, 05:28:37 AM »

well, I dunno what to say folks - I'm old school Diana 151. I have 8 of them, a couple I've modified and 6 I haven't. The 151 is my primary camera, and have been shooting with them and the holga for years.... To a certain extent, I agree with the statement that it's not the tool, but the carpenter. To a certain extent I disagree with that - if a camera doesn't work for you, it simply doesn't (for example, I couldn't shoot a good 35mm shot if my life depended on it - no matter what camera I used).

I don't fall for the hype and by ticked off I can only say that Lomography hyped it as true to the original + extras: I wanted a camera that is in production that would have the qualities of the 151 - as did many Diana photographers tired of buying a camera off ebay that may or may not work.

That simple. Perhaps the best solution is to stop touting cameras, take our shots and leave the badge off our shoulders about what camera was used - it's the vision in the end that makes the photo....

artpunk · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2008, 06:17:06 AM »

Quote from: gregor on July 20, 2008, 05:28:37 AM

Perhaps the best solution is to stop touting cameras, take our shots and leave the badge of our shoulders about what camera was used - it's the vision in the end that makes the photo....

Look Gregor I agree very much with your last statement. It's funny because I was just perusing the preview of the latest edition of Light Leaks magazine (where one of my Diana 151 shots is included in the gallery I am proud to say) and in an interview with Teru Kuwayama , he said

Quote

"I'd say it's strange to get dogmatic about
cameras. Photographers obsess over cameras in a
way that's peculiar. I like cameras but I don't think
it's helpful to get so wrapped up in a tool kit."

I have to agree with him, yet here I am...

I simply entered into this because I have heard and read so much absolute bullshit talked about the new Dianas and I'm well and truly sick of it, so for some stupid reason find myself defending them, even though their results can and do speak for themselves.
Basically what you finally said was that it doesn't work for you (and neither do 35mm cameras it seems) but that doesn't mean the new Dianas won't work for others... I also think if you forgot your expectations about what you wanted/expected from the Diana + and actually focused (no pun intended) on what it can do for you you might be pleasantly surprised.
Really Karl's original post and the "me too" follow ons piss me off because they are disingenuous and give the wrong impression and can put off people (Francois as a relevant case in point) from even giving cameras like the Diana + series a fair go.
Hell, if I sprouted how many times my Holga didn't work for me then people would get the same impression of a Holga, but the simple fact it was ME that had the problem, not the camera as can be attested to by the many beautiful shots that have been taken with the Holga. (and I'm including in those examples photos by people like Wally Billingham who is another Diana+ detractor I have crossed swords with before, but whose work I admire and respect)
The same is true here, if someone has a problem with the Diana or any camera for that matter, it just may be that the problem lies with them, simple as that...so leave the bloody camera out of it OK?!
You may as well post a thread saying "I shot some crappy photos" or perhaps (at least constructively) "I'm not sure about scanning and my photos have no contrast (or whatever), can someone advise please?" but for Gods sake NO MORE posts along the line of "I can't get what I want from this camera and ITS ALL THE CAMERAS FAULT!" or I swear I'll go truly postal!

...ehem... OK, excuse that outburst, but I hope you can see what I mean...

Oh, and thanks Beck, much appreciated (and yes that light refraction/reflection from the mask or whatever it is used to annoy me too, but I've learnt to accept it as just part of the expected results with this particular setup one day i may even try and see if I can solve it)

@ Sean, yes it is true, you do have too many cameras! What you seem to be capable of doing with them never ceases to amaze me though! I had a chuckle at your "this is after, like, ONE roll. people buy these things and expect them to be as easy as digital." comment, it was only yesterday that I put up a sort of 'advice for beginners in film' post on my blog because I was getting a bit frustrated by those kind of threads in flickr. One more "I got really dark pictures" from someone who shot indoors with their Diana or Holga using 100 speed film and I'll put my head in a bucket for the rest of the year I swear. Thanks for the link btw, I always find useful and interesting reads in your blog, but miss some sometimes. (...well, you know about shift work!)

OK I'm done with this, but if I have offended anyone, sorry, not intended, get over it, I'm just one guy with an opinion ...

gregor · « **Reply #12 on:** July 20, 2008, 06:15:00 PM »

it's early and I haven't had enough espresso and probably shouldn't even attempt to type...

Quote from: artpunk on July 20, 2008, 02:50:17 AM

Any camera pointed at a line of trees or the tops of some buildings and not focused properly will give the same results, sorry.

Just an FYI the shots I posted that you're referring to are shot with a 151, focused properly the lens on this camera is very soft and this aesthetic is what I go after with my Dianas. I picked these 3 not because I consider them some of best. These simply show one extreme of how I prefer to use the Diana. The camera used for these is softer than my others 151s....

Just a clarification - nothing else to read into this comment.

BTW - congrats on the inclusion in the new issue of Light Leaks !

LT · « **Reply #13 on:** July 20, 2008, 06:33:43 PM »

lets stop worrying about the suitability of certain cameras for certain uses. It's great that some people are pleased with their results using various cameras and also sad that others are disappointed with their versions of the same.

I have to say I'm of the opinion that the camera does not and should not control the outcome. The ultimate result is really in the hands of the photographer, so disappointing results are something to be overcome and worked on rather than used as a reason not to use a certain tool for image capture. That said, I'm sure we've all found or bought various cameras that we hoped would help us in our artistic journey only to find the ensuing results so utterly useless that we never use it again.

probably best to accept that some of us enjoy a nice hot chilli and other prefer an asparagus soup.

instead, lets be thankful that there is plenty of film available for us to continue producing our disparate photographic creations.

peace and butterflies etc

Skorj · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2008, 08:28:05 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on July 20, 2008, 06:33:43 PM

I have to say I'm of the opinion that the camera does not and should not control the outcome.

True words. True words, and if anyone can say this and mean it, it is of course Leon - the man who can use a Fujipet like a Bronnie, and vice versa...

(I went looking for the Funnels from that old 'Pet you had, but could not find it, as it is an excellent example of just that.)

Skj.

LT · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2008, 01:47:01 PM »

you mean this meagre effort?

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

moominsean · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2008, 06:13:40 PM »

butterflies are anything but peaceful...

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2008, 07:38:39 PM »

when you put it like that Sean ... I can see your point

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2008, 10:12:14 PM »

The sequel to
Alfred Hitchcock's
The Birds

Presenting
The Butterflies

Skorj · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2008, 12:38:38 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on July 21, 2008, 01:47:01 PM

you mean this meagre effort?

That's it. I could not get something like that from a real camera, let alone a toy. One of my faves, and an excellent example of the argument - its not the camera!

eyecaramba · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2008, 02:36:01 PM »

Will soon put up results from my manure pile pinhole camera.

"What a load of crap!! comments will be welcomed.