Lomography announces Belair X 6-12 bellows camera

Today Lomography announced new line of bellows cameras called Belair X 6-12. Three different configurations are available:

  • Belair X 6-12 Globe-trotter includes 90mm Lens and 58mm wide-angle lens (€349)
  • Belair X 6-12 Jetsetter includes 90mm Lens and 58mm wide-angle lens (€299)
  • Belair X 6-12 Cityslicker includes 90mm Lens and 58mm Wide-angle lens (€249)

Lomography Belair X 6-12 bellows camera features:

  • Exposure Area: 104 x 52mm (6x12), 78 x 52mm (6x9), 52mm x 52mm (6x6)
  • Film Type: 120 Roll Film
  • Interchangeable Lens Mount: 3 Bayonet Type
  • Auto-exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
  • Auto-Exposure range: EV4 ~ EV15
  • Highest Shutter Speed: 1/125
  • Lowest Shutter Speed (B Mode): Unlimited
  • Film Sensitivity Supports (ASA/ISO): 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600
  • Battery Supply: 2x1.5V (2 x LR44)
  • Multiple Exposure: Yes
  • Flash Connection: X-type Synchronization Hot-shoe
  • Tripod Socket Thread: Standard ¼” Tripod Socket
This entry was posted in Lomography. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • wow! so light body for mf… I’m impressed

    • Reinvent the wheel

      Go to Ebay and buy Zeiss Ikon Nettar.
      The same cocept and weight, better lenses, 3-4x cheaper than this:

      Nettar 517/16 with f/6.3 Novar
      Year of release: 1949
      Film Format: 120 roll film (6×6cm exposures)
      Shutter: Vario leaf shutter (or Pronto or Prontor-SV) , speeds 1/25 sec – 1/200 sec (or Prontor-SV: 1sec – 1/300 sec).
      Lens: Novar Anastigmat 1:6.3/75mm, other version with a 1:4.5/75mm
      Aperture: 6.3 to 22 (or 4.5 to 22)
      Viewfinder: optical direct vision viewfinder below flash shoe

      • jon

        if ur shrinking the fim from 6×12 to 6×6 then might as well get a 35mm film even cheaper and more convenient

        or the gsw690iii for quality 6×9 and a rangefinder

      • laurent

        Where have you seen the nettar to have interchangeable lenses and choices between 3 formats ?
        Nothing about the weight of this new camera, so hard to tell if it’s the same as the nettar’s

  • ennan

    Kinda want one. Have a frontier that can scan this and a large format printer to print with.Seems like a good excuse…


  • PhilW

    This really put a smile on my face; a cute, inexpensive 120 folder.
    The only film camera I regularly use anymore is a 1956 Voigtlander Bessa II with Apo-Lanthar lens. I’d have more fun with this because I wouldn’t worry about putting a scratch on it.


  • Zeissdarling

    Seems a cheaper and more flexible option than the australian Razzle cameras. I’d really like to see the results. Bar any lomo ‘light leakage’ i guess it’s sweet n simple and just down to the quality of the lens. No sensors and all that bother! Auto exposure is a major bonus.

    • Considering these as an alternative to the Razzle cameras is like saying a P&S is an alternative to a DSLR.

      • Zeissdarling

        P&S CAN be alternatives to a DSLR. You don’t even have to go DP2M and suchlike. Any indeep photog will be aware that many art photographers and pros outside the studio especially use all kinds equipment. Fat americans are stuck on pricey equipment and low talent. This is film anyway, medium format 6×12 at that price is gggreat. The shutter speed is an obviously an issue but i certainly wouldn’t just own or walk about with just one of these……

  • KL

    Kinda reminds me of the old AGFA.

    Still waiting for a digital bellows compact

    • You’re “waiting”? As in you’re sitting at home, replying to these rumor blog posts without taking pictures for a bellows digital camera to come? 🙂

      Btw, there are heaps of digital cameras out there that can work with bellows.

      • camerageekslayer

        Good thing you’re here Geno to tell us how to live our lives and shoot, otherwise we might have our thumbs stuck up our butts permanently. Keep up that judgmental apathy!

  • amien

    They might make a small 6×12 camera, but the problem with LOMO is about their lenses, they are dirt cheap crap and will never offer anything else then fuzzy muddy shots.

    • Tijmen

      That, and the max shutter speed is 1/125.
      It looks cool, but with a max shutter of 1/125 its completely useless.

      • Speed Freak

        Yeah, cuz anything that can’t shoot at 1/8000th of a second is crap.

        • ProtoWhalePig

          Well no. But a bit more than 1/125 would be useful.

      • Alex

        You havn’t shot much more than digital have you. I have lenses with slower max shutters than that and they produce fine pictures. It is a shame people like you exist in the photography world.

        • Tijmen

          I have shot plenty film.
          Why is everyone such a butt-hurt asshole around here? Everyone here thinks they know more than anyone else.

          Good luck shooting your über cool FP4 on a sunny day with a max shutter of 1/125. Fucking pricks.

          • Heapa Butt Hurt

            If you ever shot film as you claim, you’d know you never shoot FP4 on a sunny day. Sunny days are for Pan F.

            I think you kinda like butt hurt. That’s OK. It takes both kinds in this world. Some of us are pitchers; others are catchers.

          • pooh

            So what? Everything’s got a solution, and in this case, it’s a ND filter.

          • Tijmen

            Ok. So, what do you do if the film is already in there? Do you always shoot 36 frames at a time? Finish your roll when you’re done shooting or just throw away half your roll because the conditions aren’t right?

            And as far as ND’s go: good luck finding ND’s for that lens.

            I’m just saying it doesn’t make any sense to have the highest speed at 1/125, simply because it SEVERELY reduces the versatility of the camera. It’s cool to shoot when the conditions are right, but more often than not, they won’t be.

          • docphoto

            I have two M6s and I like to keep them around 125th/250th when shooting street… so yeah… it is limiting in some situations.
            and just for the record: one does never shoot fp4 on a sunny day?
            i happen to shoot delta 400 and triX pushed to 800 and even 1600 on a sunny day… why? because i like the look? because i dont want to change film indoor? because i need the shutter speed and the dof?
            so who are you to tell anybody which film to use or judge their choice? do you ever spend a second thinking that not everyone’s shooting style is like yours? get your head out your butt and start using it!

          • Nawknai

            There are so many dickhead photographers who think they’re better simply because they’re older and have decades of experience with film…..

            Alex, even if he had only shot digital (which he says he hasn’t), doesn’t mean that “It is a shame people like you exist in the photography world.” I’ve seen lots of photos from people with decades of experience, and they’re shit photographers. People like you. The world has moved on to faster shutter speeds than 1/125 seconds, better image quality, and greater flexibility. You probably hold onto memories of shooting with film and brag about it to others, because your photography is shit, and you feel like you’re being outshot by lots of people around you. Your feeling of superiority because of film experience is like feeling superior because of a disability.

            Alex, you’re retarded, but that’s ok. *pats head*

          • tim

            Lol 36 frames… you really dont know anything about film do you?

          • Les

            FP4 is ISO 125. Going by the sunny-16 rule, that’s 1/125th at f:16 in the mid-day sun.
            I don’t think there’s a problem, unless you regularly shoot somewhere where the light is much brighter than on Earth. If so, welcome to our planet, enjoy your stay.
            Note the aperture markings on the lens. It’s a 6×12 camera, so you won’t be shooting at 1.4 (unless your budget is 10,000 times the asking price for this Lomo).

        • docphoto

          well… that might be true under direct lighting… walk around the corner of a building, you’re in the shade and your shutter speed drops to 1/15th… or you open up to f4… with which zone focusing is a lot harder than at f16!
          oh.. and i rather rely on a good light meter than on estimation…
          then once again… you must be travelling a lot if you know the lighting conditions on other planets so i guess light meters can’t compete with your experience! 😉

      • NerdBuster

        My friend, this is no place for sensible talk. Sad nerds and bad marketing people have the last word here.
        Flame now, geeks, keep it coming, make me feel superior once again 🙂

      • Dave

        Hey gang,

        Before you continue ripping each other over shutter speeds, I think the lenses only have two aperture settings: f8 and f16. For slide film, 1/125 may still be limiting, but for negative film, it might not be. I regularly exposed my negative film 1 or even 2 stops over its ISO label. Negative film can handle a lot of overexposure because I believe there’s a limiting agent during development. So blown highlights in negative films, and also due to their generally long shoulder, aren’t quite as distracting/offensive as in digital. Burn in the highlights and you can recover quite a bit of details.

        Which is to say, obviously, this Lomo won’t float everyone’s boat, but take it easy. I’ve shot with high-end DSLRs to disposable film cameras. I’ve had keepers and crappers from all of them. But just as important to me, I’ve had a lot of fun using all of them. Whatever inspires/encourages you to go out and experiment and shoot and get the image you want (and within your budget), do it!

        I’ve been thinking off-n-on about the Fuji GF670W (>$3000!), but given how little film I shoot these days, this Lomo might just fit. I know there are other options, but they either have fixed lenses or are bulky. This Lomo may only have two lenses, but I’m prematurely hopeful they (or even a third party) might introduce more.

    • King Of Swaziland

      But dirt cheap crap IS THE POINT!

      It’s supposed to be what it is, cheap, kitschy, and substandard image quality.

      Just like you can use instagram to turn your top quality digital photos into faded snapshots from a 1950s family album.

      • ProtoWhalePig

        It isn’t particularly cheap IMHO. I got a Mamiya RB67 for $100. Now that’s cheap.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    Well at least you can focus the dirt cheap crap, and even change it. That makes it better than a Holga. 6×12 makes for something, possibly. This could be a start of something.

  • softondemand

    I got faked.. I thought that was the new Fuji which is being shipped now as we speak

  • Professional

    I think none of you shoot film or professionally for that matter and you put someone down because he wants to shoot faster than 125s . What a bunch of looseeeers

  • What size sensor does this camera come with? How many megapixels?

    • mat

      lets see 6×12 format is 512 megapixels drum scan, what ur dinky dslr is only 24megapixel?

      • docphoto

        congratulations! bash others for no reason!

      • ROFL

        512 megapixels from a 6×12 shot? If you’re going to scan it at that you’re talking about scanning a 35mm film frame at 82 megapixels. Not even digital is that good. You’re off the mark by around a factor of 4.

        Even if you were to scan a 6×12 frame and get 512 megapixels out of it, you need to shoot at f/4.5 or faster to avoid diffraction.

        You give film users a bad name.

  • matt

    I shoot 400iso film as standard in sunny and low light conditions.

  • Tim


  • bjrichus

    The whole idea of a Lomo made camera is that it leaks light, lenses are so poor that the focus is off from one side of the frame to the other (several times more variation than *some* Nikon D800’s used to do), and more variability if you press on the junky plastic “too hard” that you can never be sure about what you are going to get. So a semi-retro style bellows camera that looks quite stylish and is it going to produce the same kind of low, variable quality images as the other models or are they cleaned up a bit?

    At this kind of price too?


    Just like the new Hassy version of the Sony NEX, is it style over substance?

  • Chris

    Reminiscent of many loved folders that I have! Remember the Plaubel Makina 67 and W67?
    1. Why not concentrate on the idea that there is a company out there willing to produce a film camera!
    2. Creatively, maybe think of it as a film transport with a lens mount – an interchangeable mount…
    and finally, no flames please,
    3. 6×12 is only 6 exposures; so few you could almost zone system each roll…

  • laurent

    Strange to read so much negative reaction. A new film camera is always a good news because it will lead more people to film and keep this media available for a longer time.
    People complaining about the quality and specification should have a look at fotoman or linhof, they provides 6×12 camera as well, with better specification and great quality, and the price is in another league.
    Do we really expect another $3000 film camera ?
    I don’t because I can’t afford it. At least this lomo thing brings me the opportunity to shoot 6×12, the spec aren’t useless as read in another post and, as far as I can judge from the samples on their website, quality is not as low as lots of lomography products.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      I agree with you and Chris and a few others here.
      I have the whole RB67 system and one thing I CAN’T do is produce a wide angle shot like I could with this. Even with the 6X8 back it only scales down to about a 24 with the 50 mm lens. Even with the Hasselblad 903swc, a dedicated wide angle camera, you get a picture equal to using a 24 if you are measuring horizontally. You get something closer to a 20 if you measure diagonally, and are using a 6.6 back, so you would have to take a square picture to even get close to the wide angle ability of this camera. That’s fine if you want a square picture, but if you want a panorama, this camera would do a panoramic shot equal to something slightly wider than a 20 on a 35mm camera, and with a negative twice the size of the Hasselblad. So you could have a lens with twice the blur of a Hasselblad or three times the blur of your Nikon lens and still get the image quality you are accustomed to. If it’s any better than that you would need to resort to taking multiple shots with a tripod and stitching images together to beat it’s quality.
      So I’m kind of excited about using a 58 mm lens stopped down a bit on a 6X12 back. Maybe even without a tripod. And then fold it up and stuff it in my pocket.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        But then I went to the site and looked at the pictures.

        If only they could get someone to make some lenses for them…

  • John

    It’s a Billy Clack (Agfa).

  • Fants

    Am I the only one who notices that the edge sharpness on the sample shots is awful? Especially since they’re claiming incredible lens quality on this one. A lot of those ARE at reasonably close focus, though, so I guess further samples might change that.

  • Joe

    What kind of bayonet is it? With a bayonet adapter you can mount some old LF lenses (Angulon etc.) and the the quality will be perfect!

  • Back to top