I wrote 90% of this review before blogger decided to delete my post. I am now starting over.
The Belair X 6-12 is one of the latest cameras from the
Lomography folks, and was a bit of a departure from their usual MO. Lomography, being almost synonymous with the "toy camera" movement, normally makes very cheaply produced, all-plastic cameras. I won't get into the pros and cons of toy cameras or the lomography movement, but will say that this is what got me into photography and what enabled me to experiment with medium-format photography in the first place.
Back to the Belair. I hate to let you, reader, in on my thoughts on the camera so early in this review, but I have a very important point to make. Though I said the Belair seems like a change from what Lomography usually does, it fit squarely into one of Lomography's main goals: to give us affordable access to a style of photography normally reserved for the pros or rich amateurs. In this case, unfortunately, I feel Lomography tried to fit too many of these styles into a single camera. I'll explain the details of the camera before I get to the review portion.
First, the Belair cameras (there are actually 3 models) are very fine-looking, folder-style cameras in the design. Actually, to be sure, the design of the camera is absolutely identical to the design of the
100 series Land Cameras in regard to the folding portion, the bellows, the light meter eye, and the finder. It basically looks like a Land Camera from the front, and a Kodak folder from the back. Why mess with something that worked, right?
 |
Belair X 6-12 City Slicker Edition
photo via Lomography |
The camera front pops out by pushing a button on the bottom and carefully (as always) pulling the front out to expand the bellows until the metal supports lock in place. Unlike the vintage cameras from which this design was "borrowed" the bellows on the Belair is made of black rubber. This, I feel, was a great idea. Older cameras used black fabric, paper, or vinyl, and while this worked for those cameras, provided proper care was taken with them, something tells me Lomography's quality control would not have been strong enough for an error-prone material to succeed. The rubber will obviously stay intact as long as sharp objects are kept away. To collapse the front for storage a set of spring-loaded pins are pushed on the top and bottom of the metal supports and the front is carefully (again) pushed back in. Lots of wiggling and shifting is required to make sure this doesn't put an end to your camera. As I have mentioned many times before, no force should EVER be applied to anything on a Lomography camera as they break far more easily than can be imagined.
 |
Side view
photo via Lomography |
The back is released for film loading/unloading by pulling the small tabs on each side, at the bottom, and then pulling the back completely off. The literature that comes with the camera, and with all Lomography medium-format cameras, points out that the camera uses 120 film, and that color or B&W film can be used. I don't know of many cameras that can use
only color or B&W film, so I don't understand why they always say that, but maybe they're just trying to add as many positive bullets to the spec list as they can get away with.
 |
Lens & light meter eye
photo via Lomography |
One feature of the Belair that is very rare for Lomography is the fact that the lens are interchangeable. The camera comes with two lenses - a 90mm and a 58mm. Both lenses, like most Lomography and other toy cameras, have plastic optics. The lenses have a few focus settings, similar to most cheaper cameras (1m, 1.5m, 3m, infinity) and have two aperture settings, which are f8 & f16. I'll talk more about the lens settings and upgrade options later. The lenses - actually the lens mount to be exact - are the biggest source of frustration for me with this camera. To attach a lens one simply lines the lens up with the body and gives a tiny, maybe 1/8" turn to "lock" it in. I've read a handful of reviews written by others and have yet to see somebody else mention that they experience what I do, but on my camera (I have the Jetsetter Edition, if that makes any difference) the lenses simply don't stay in place at all. I have to hold them in place when actively using the camera, and have to put the lens back in every time I remove the camera from my bag. I may try to devise a solution at some point, possibly by adding something to hold the lens in with pressure or temporary adhesive, but I haven't messed with it yet. Actually, the lens cap that goes on the back of the lens when not in use also fall off constantly. With the interchangeable lenses come a pair of interchangeable finders, which do stay in place without issue. Each finder has the same angle of view as the matching lens, making it easier to frame shots.
Another feature of the Belair designed to make the camera more user-friendly for beginners is the automatic shutter. An aperture wheel is set on the light meter eye to select the correct ISO, allowing the camera to measure the correct light for the film and to choose shutter speed accordingly. I'm not sure if the light meter takes lens aperture into account (I suspect not) but in my experience the speed settings appear to be pretty accurate for an evenly exposed photo.
The final noteworthy feature of the camera, which happens to be the main selling point, is the fact that the Belair can be used for not two but three size formats. The smallest format available is the standard square, 6x6 size (we're talking centimeters, my American friends), giving you 12 photos per roll of film. From there you can move up to the slightly rarer 6x9 format (8 photos, in case you don't like math). But the real selling point here is that a 6x12 format is also available. That's 6 enormous, panoramic photos per roll. For those of you who are only reading this to be nice to me, I would like to explain that 6x12 format is almost impossible for photographers without spending thousands (or thousand, at least) dollars on a camera that can do nothing but 6x12 photos, though of course they usually do them very well. 6x12 is a big deal for a consumer-priced camera. There are, of course, some major problems with shooting in 6x12 format though - the biggest being that most commercial, automated film scanners can't handle 6x12 negatives. But a flatbed scanner can certainly handle them.
Needless to say, I have loads of cameras that can shoot in 6x6 or 6x9 format, so since I have gotten the Belair (as a Christmas present) I have only shot in 6x12 mode. Oh, and the format is changed by switching out the mask inside the camera, behind the lens and in front of the film, meaning that a single format can be used for an entire roll of film. That's pretty standard, but worth mentioning perhaps.
As promised, I will now mention the lens upgrade options. Lomography has produced two premium lenses they are calling "Belairgon". They come in 90mm and 114mm, and unlike the standard lenses, they both have glass optics. The 114mm lens advertises an extremely shallow depth of field, making it ideal for portraits. The problem is that these lenses are $200 each! For that reason I will not be reviewing the lenses, and unless somebody gives me a pair I will never be using them. It would be nice to see the sharper images, but I suspect the improvement isn't worth the money as the lenses still only have 2 aperture settings.
I guess that's a pretty good starting point for the beginning of my critique of a few features. Just like the saying "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" some of the more "professional" features of the camera are limited pretty severely by the fact that the lens has only two aperture settings, and both settings are pretty close to the middle of the usual spectrum. It is not possible to achieve either shallow or deep depth of field. As I said before, the 114mm Belairgon lens specs advertise very shallow depth of field, but I have trouble believing that with a maximum aperture of f8. You never know, though. Because f16 is the minimum setting all panoramic shots tend to have a dreamy, slightly blurred look. Some of this may be due to the plastic optics. I don't mind the blur, honestly, but do wish I had the option to have very sharp photos if I want to use the camera for its most exciting negative format. And I do. Even one more stop, to f22, would make enough difference for me to be much more excited. I would also like one more stop in the other direction - either a f5.6 or even skipping that and going to a f4 would be great to try out.
The finder is also a bit of a frustrating part, too, though reading other reviews makes me feel like I am happier with the finder than most. Since the finders are set up to display the same angle of view as the lens, but the negative format is interchangeable, the Lomography people have devised a rough way to frame shots more accurately than guessing. A few sets of "teeth" are visible in the finder to show where the approximate edge of the frame will be depending on which mask is being used. Clearly these are approximate, as are almost all finders in non-SLR cameras, but I have not had many frustratingly unpleasant surprises with framing. I suppose, for me, much of the appeal and understanding I have with toy photography is that nothing is predictable. That's the way it should be, and if that is not acceptable I feel that only very expensive, precision-made cameras should be used. But where's the fun in that?
 |
Inside of the finder
Taken with iPhone |
Despite my very recent dismissal of framing accuracy, I will say that the parallax issues are slightly frustrating in a camera that has lenses so clearly made for portraits.
Parallax error, for those who don't want to follow that link to the wikipedia article, is actually a pretty easy concept to explain and understand. Parallax is just the difference in perspective (in sight) between two different physical points. Look at the layout of the room you are standing in, with attention to which objects are visible to you, and how far they appear in relation to each other and the edges of your sight. Now move five feet in any direction and look at the same layout. Everything looks different - some things previously visible are now hidden, some new things appear, etc. Pretty simple. The same issue is present with cameras where the lens and finder are not in the exact same place. This is barely noticeable when taking panoramic shots focusing on things way off in the distance, but the closer the subject the greater the parallax error. This is something I am quite used to, though, as most of the cameras I use are not SLRs (where the finder
is the lens) so I get used to using the finder to get close and then trying to make a guess about what adjustments would be needed to get the lens aimed in the exact right spot. A little practice and this becomes fairly easy to deal with.
I don't really have much else to say about the way the camera works, but will mention one last supposed flaw that I have not encountered personally. I read from several people that the film does not spool correctly on the take-up spool. I can feel that the spools aren't kept very tight, meaning that they can slip back or forward slightly after advancing the film. This typically means that the camera is prone to warping the film inside the camera. I have studied my photos closely and see only tiny indications that this is happening to me, and it is such a small difference that I may as well say that this is not an issue in my camera at all. Though I don't want my Belair to warp my film, I actually love film warping and have a
camera that I treasure for it. The other potentially film-ruining result of the spools not staying tight is the dreaded "fat roll" issue. I actually do get a bit of this with my camera, but haven't really seen any major problems with it. "Fat roll", which I'm putting in quotes because it's a pretty unofficial term despite being a fairly standard name for it, is where the film isn't wound tightly on the take-up spool, making the film and backing paper end up sticking out further than the spool, which leaves it vulnerable to being penetrated by light after removing the film from the camera. My usual solution is to remove the spool in a dark room (or darkroom) or at least in subdued light. I seal the roll up as usual and wrap in foil to ensure no light gets in. When taking the roll to get processed by the lab I just explain that I've got a fat roll, and they have no problem dealing with it.
So, friends, that's more or less a wrap. I'll do my pros & cons bullet list, as I usually do, and I'll post a few 6x12 photos I took while on tour with the ol' band. These photos were taken on the ultra cheap 800 ISO film branded by Lomography, as it came for free with the camera. I do not recommend Lomography's film as it is overpriced and cheaply produced. As if Lomography wanted to prove my point, the first roll I ran through the camera had a large tear in the actual film itself. It was still developed without issue, but a little frustrating to lose a shot due to film quality, rather than the usual photographer quality issue I suffer from.
I don't really want to spend any time talking about the three models, but will just say that the only differences are mostly in look, and slightly in construction. The most basic model is mostly made of black plastic, where the other two have many more aluminum parts. The difference between the middle and top models, from what I can tell, are purely in color and grip material, though the $50 price difference makes me curious if I'm missing something. If anybody knows please leave me a comment. The specs are identical.
Pros:
- The Belair allows one to take panoramic shots for a fraction of the cost of a standard panoramic camera. This alone is enough of a selling point that I believe it to be a worthwhile camera to have if 6x12 is a goal. I only wish this would have been the main focus of the rest of the features of the camera...
- Interchangeable lenses add to the versatility, and I'm sure the glass lenses are great.
- The Belair looks very nice. The bellows and collapsing portion of the camera are a major eye-catcher, and from a practical standpoint it's nice that the camera isn't always unfolded as it would be enormous in that case.
- The rubber bellows will, unless I'm missing something, make the camera last longer than a vinyl or cloth bellows.
- Automatic shutter speed makes the camera easier to use, and allows for quicker film wasting.
Cons:
- The price! This is often a con in my lists, but that's because the whole point of the Lomography and toy camera movement is to take experimental and creative photos without having a pro's budget. Seriously, the cheapest of the three Belair models costs $250. The higher-quality lenses are $200 each! Too much! It would be better, in my humble opinion, to offer a more basic version of the camera for a lower price.
- Aperture options. Two settings in the middle of the spectrum is far too few, and a panoramic camera with large aperture settings doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I shouldn't complain much. Two is better than one.
- I wish those lenses would stay firmly fixed to the camera! One of these days a lens will fall from the camera while I'm taking a photo and will be ruined, and I'll be super angry about that. I don't think I should have to devise workarounds for something so basic.
- It's stupid of me to mention this, but given the price it would have been great to have better storage/protection. The finders came wrapped in small squares of cloth, where I would have preferred pouches of some sort so that they can stay inside their protective fabric. Also, it'd be awesome if the lens caps stayed on so that they don't get scratched up inside the camera bag.
And now, here are a few photos I took in 6x12 mode on Lomography 800 color film, scanned with my Epson flatbed, and did no editing to... forgive the dust.
 |
Downtown Salt Lake City
Taken with Belair X 6-12 Jetsetter on Lomography 800 film |
 |
Salt Lake Temple
| Taken with Belair X 6-12 Jetsetter on Lomography 800 film |
|
 |
Texas State Capitol
| Taken with Belair X 6-12 Jetsetter on Lomography 800 film |
|
.JPG)
