Realist vs Kodak

[bercov@xxxxxxxxxx (John Bercovitz)]

>> I have committed a few mistakes recently.
>> 1. I bought a Mac instead of a PC. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
 
> Serves you right!  You should have known that a PC offers more 
> the money, the same way that a Realist stereo camera offers more 
> for the money than, say, a Kodak stereo camera.
 
Now see what you've done, George?  See how you are?  Now you've 
caused someone to insult the disk operating system and windows 
environment from the Behemoth of the Pacific Northwest.  I should 
like to rise to their defense.  It is well-known that their 
lawyers have done all that is humanly possible to bring you the 
best of everything that exists.  No one can rightfully ask for 
more than that.  8-)  8-)  8-)
 
Now, to get serious for a minute, I think when it comes to lenses, 
there isn't much difference between the common Realist and the Kodak.  
 
On the plus side for the Realist is a rangefinder.  As we've 
discussed recently, when you have a short lens (35 mm) and a small 
aperture (f/8 to f/16 usually), you'd have to be stereoblind not 
to have enough depth perception to be able to set the distance 
dial on the Kodak sufficiently accurately.  However, if you _are_ 
stereoblind, and I seriously think there are a few stereoblind 
stereographers, then this feature might be helpful.  On the other 
hand, most stereoblind people are pretty darned good at judging 
distance through other means.  On the plus side for the Kodak is a 
bubble level which is useful in those few tricky situations where 
one's sense of plumb is fooled by a few degrees.
 
The body material for the Realist is metal which means it can be 
dropped, and bent, and realigned, and be good as new.  Of course 
you have to recognize that it's bent and get it fixed or you'll 
have crummy pictures.  The Kodak's body is Bakelite and I would 
guess its yield strength and ultimate strength are virtually the 
same.  This means if you drop it and it doesn't break, you sure 
don't have to worry if it got bent.  On the other hand, you stand 
to lose it all in one accident.  In addition, the great mass of 
the Realist can be useful in improving the steadiness of the shot.
 
There must be some other significant differences I've forgotten
to mention.  Would someone care to enumerate?

John B