Re: beamsplitter

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >P.S. - One thing I forgot to mention on my previous posting is that one
> >       should used a beamsplitter *only* on lenses which have stationary
> >       front elements.  Meaning that the front doesn't rotate when the
> >       lens is focused.  Some lenses rotate and only a glutton for punishment
> >       would put a beamsplitter on that kind of lens!  :-)
> 
> 
> I have a polarizing filter on my SLR that is independently rotatable, and has
> mounting threads on both sides.  Perhaps something like this would work?  Also,
> these people:

The point of using a lens that doesn't rotate is that one wants the beamsplitter
to be "even" when taking the picture, so one doesn't want to have to re-level the
beamsplitter for every adjustment of focus.  It would just be a pain.  With the
Pentax beamsplitter (the II model I think), I just got in the habit of 
looking directly *at* the end of the lens/splitter once in a while to check the
alignment of the splitter to the bottom of the camera and to adjust it if needed.
This is done with nearly no thought at all.  But that's it.  Focus and shoot, refocus
without the eye leaving the SLR's viewer and shoot something else.  Etc.  
> 
> #>Joel Alpers
> #>Rocky Mountain Memories - Equipment and Supplies for the 3D photographer
> #>rkymtmem@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> sell beamsplitter attachments for a considerably less "obscene" price.  Maybe I
> can talk someone into getting me one for Christmas...
> 
> Still doing the "click, move to the right, click" method,


As has been pointed out to me in email, for "starting" the really best way is
to get an inexpensive realist-format camera.  I've gotten one for as low as $60
(a Kodak).

At least one Realist f3.5 went for $95 at a local camera show last weekend (I know
who sold it) and I know at least one Realist f2.8 went for a little over
$200.  Much nicer for general use than a beamsplitter.  If one does a lot of
sports or action shots the beamsplitter can have great advantage, but for
"general use" the realist format is the better and cheaper way to go, certainly
compared to the Pentax beamsplitter (at current prices).  

A Realist 3.5 or Kodak Stereo camera (the two most popular and easy to find) plus
even a high-end "super-deluxe" viewer (say, a Realist Red Button viewer from
Dr. T) together still cost less than a new Pentax beamsplitter.  And with Kodalux
processing, one can start w/o having to fuss with mounting although the list will
encourage you to do it yourself.  :-)

So beamsplitters do have niche advantages, but they aren't "better" for general use,
nor are they necessarily that much cheaper due to availability of inexpensive 
realist format cameras if one is very patient.

Hard to be patient getting things which are so much fun though.  :-)

Mike K.



------------------------------