Talk:Toy camera

I hope this is a good start for this topic. -Jerry Cargill 1-3-2005

I dont see why this page is up for deletion. This is an encyclopedia. How are people supposed to learn about toy cameras if they cant look them up? So far, from what I have seen about toy cameras, it sounds like they are not bad at all and may even be a good starter camera. -Kristofer Benham 1-27-05

Added info

I just added some info to the original entry for what a toy camera is. There is no reason to remove this at all. The use of toy cameras is very strong today. Gary Moyer 2/17/05

Me too, and me neither, and me too. I believe this is a good start, and I don't see why this should be deleted, and I added some info.

Please go to Votes for Deletion and add your Keep votes!Fg2 10:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 21 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Toy camera for a record of the discussion.

Toy or not?

It would be useful if this article clarified whether these cameras are produced as toys (e.g. for children) or whether they are just low quality cameras which have been adopted for use as a toy by some group of people. I'd edit, only I don't know the answer!--Malcohol 11:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

They are clearly not 'toy' cameras by any normal definition of toy. They are real, albeit inexpensive and not high quality, cameras. As such they have a particular appeal to some serious professional and amateur photographers who take advantage of their characteristics.

The'toy' description is subjective and demonstrates a certain snobbery. 2A00:23EE:1370:E502:84D9:EDDE:9DD0:EE47 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Toy? Not.

I realize that whether a camera falls into the realm of "toy" is somewhat subjective, but I don't think either the LCA or the Lubitel should be considered "toy" cameras. For one thing, the LCA recently retailed for roughly $100 (it was recently discontinued). The Lubitel, while cheap, features a coated glass lens. I feel that the LCA and Lubitel fall into the class of Russian cheap alternatives to expensive cameras, a class whose members might include the Zorki and the Kiev.

More History?

Could there be a section in here about more recent history? The article lists the cameras in the 1960s, but what have happened to them? I would imagine they have been made obsolete by point and shoot camers. Are any still in use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.35.199 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be an advertising for Lomography.

Is it possible to talk about toy cameras and not about Lomography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.244.17 (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for making it. I'll take a look. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what has gone wrong: this edit, "Merged content from Lomography to here". -Lopifalko (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Lomography is a separate topic, and Lomos were not toy cameras. There is a commercial company with a website lomography.com, but they are not the owners of the Lomography movement, which was grassroots. I vote to unmerge.Martin Turner (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I worked with the lomography company for over 11 years. The lomography movement was started by the actual owners of the company, not to confuse with the LOMO cameras and company which used to be a Soviet camera produced by the Leningrad Optical Mechanical Association or LOMO in Russian.