Ugh. Lomo Launches 110 Camera To Match Its 110 Film


Take photos that will make the pictures from your 2004 cellphone look good
Take photos that will make the pictures from your 2004 cellphone look good

Just a few weeks ago, Lomo started selling craptastic 110 film cartridges so you could relive those bad old days of ugly, grainy photos you thought you’d left back in the 1980s.

Now, the horror is complete, for Lomo will also sell you a 110 camera to go with the film.

There are two models of the Fisheye Baby 110, the regular and the “metal.” Both have a 170˚ fisheye lens and matching viewfinder, shutter speeds of either 100/sec or bulb (open for as long as you keep the button down) and an aperture of ƒ8. Clearly, no effort has been spared in making these cameras as mediocre as possible.

The Metal model also has a PC socket for triggering a flash, which might be pretty handy with the other frankly terrible specs. Also, it’s made from metal.

How much for these hunks of junk? $39 and $59.

Source: Lomo

  • Paul Lloyd Johnson

    What a ‘craptastic’ article! Why highlight something you think is rubbish? This whole article is just bitchy and unpleasant. If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything.

  • SaturnSix

    As a professional photographer, I think that the author of this post has a fundamental misunderstanding of what good personal photography is. Its not about capturing the exact excruciating detail of every scene in perfectly color balanced, 22 megapixel hyper reality. The greatest shots are those that capture the feel of the moment. A light leak on a beach shot for example will forever remind someone of the tone of that day more than a technically perfect shot. In fact, it is those happy accidents which make capturing time in photos magic. 

    Also, what the heck does this have to do with Macs?
  • Bryan Clifford

    I think Charlie is just jealous that he can’t take a photo with a Lomo. While certain snobs may think it looks like crap, other snobs think the perfect imperfections are great. I agree with Satrun, wtf does this have to do with Mac? And why just openly bash something that you have no contextual arguments against. Your just being a sour sport with no actual fact as to why they “suck”. 

    You should be as critical of your arguments as you are this piece of technology.

  • Jason Bartlett

    Uh, HELLO! He didn’t like it because he didn’t get it for free!!! This is Cult of Mac, remember? They give great reviews to stuff they get for free, like, oh, let’s say MacKeeper – The infamous software that takes over and destroys your system but has a cute little icon that makes it appear innocuous.