I describe the concept as "designed to be hard to use" for several key reasons: 1. It's got no viewfinder unless you attach one, which means that the designer

I describe the concept as "designed to be hard to use" for several key reasons: 1. It's got no viewfinder unless you attach one, which means that the designer translated "you never know what you'll get!" into "point and hope for the best". 2. Taking the general aesthetic of a Holga and painting it on a rectangle accomplishes very little besides creating a camera that's awkward to hold. Holga is a versatile platform because they can build many variations into a common chassis. It's the shape it is for a reason. The D would appear to just be an ugly box for the sake of it. 3. If it's digital, there's no way it needs to be as big as a real Holga. 4. Flipping it into B+W mode = lame (to me). Same with having a power switch. 5. Putting variable exposure times on it completely throws away most of the "fun" part of shooting with a Holga. If you're going to shoot shutter priority on a digicam, why not just do so? I accept that not all of the things that bug me will bug everyone. However, if you're willing to suspend your disbelief for a moment to trust someone who shoots 0.5-2 rolls of film every day for the fun of it... the best simile I can think of to describe why this feels wrong is that it's sort of like when a magazine site or book reader wants you to "turn pages". In most cases, the metaphor does not translate in an effective way. The reader ends up irritated and will go back to a real book.