Realist vs. Revere

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis) To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Re: Realist vs. Revere, holy wars are in order? Not really... 

For what is worth, here is my opinion (limited since I have only used a Realist and TDC Colorist II, but also twin SLRs and have seen slides from all different camera systems in my PSA and SSA slide-sharing activities):

1. With pictures taken routinely at f8 and f11, it is almost 
impossible to see differences in image sharpness. 2. Differences in film used or camera steadiness are more important 
than camera optics.
3. Minor differences in sharpness can only be seen in a good viewer 
(cross out single-element optics or projection) 4. Within certain limits, picture sharpness is low in my list of good 
photographic qualities and these limits are being met by the average Revere or Realist or other stereo cameras. 5. I have failed to see difference in sharpness between a Realist 3.5 
and a 2.8. For my photography a 2.8 is not better than a 3.5. 

With lens's sharpness out of the picture, you only have camera features, appearance, feel and conveniences to compare. The Realist has the reputation of being less attractive or user-friendly than the Revere but it also has the reputation of mechanical reliability. I have dropped, ran over with my car (!) and generally abused my dear Realist and is still clicking like it just came out of the box. 

It's been a while since anyone compared those two cameras and not many people will openly claim that the Realist IS a better stereo camera. Don't forget that when people talk about the "Realist" and how happy they are from it, they usually mean "Realist-format camera". Or if they mean the Realist camera it's just because they are so many of them around.

If you are happy with your dear Revere 33 and if it works for you, don't even bother to try a different camera. 

George (happy with his dear abused Realist) 


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