Realist lens quality comparison Message-ID: <v01530501ad327715b91f@[199.182.80.202]>

[ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ray Hannisian) To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I have listened with interest to the discussion of relative lens qualities, between the Stereo Realist and other vintage cameras. In all cases, the two features under discussion have been sharpness, and reflective characteristics (due to coatings). I have found one other aspect of lens quality about which I have questions.

I have owned a Super Duplex 120 and a Stereo Realist 2.8 (with David White lenses).

Certainly, the 120 has some unique features. Several people have expressed a negative reaction to the 30mm base, claiming that all pictures produced with this camera exhibit 'giantism'. (All the images on my web-site at <http://www.ray3d.com> were shot with this camera, so judge for yourself.) I like its small, light configuration, combined with a 1/200 second maximum shutter speed and 1960's technology lens coatings. It is also excellent for close-up and portrait work. (Mounting the chips presents some challenges as well, as it deviates from the 35mm standard.) 

The Realist, on the other hand, is quite a bit heavier in my backpack. (I have occasionally had problems during mounting, with images that 'run together'.)


I ran a number of test rolls through both cameras using the same subject, location and film type, and made the following observations: 

After matching comparable exposures, the sharpness of images from both cameras was excellent.

There was, however, a noticeable difference in the 'snap' of the color saturation. Pictures from my Super Duplex 120 just had more 'life' to them. (I usually shoot Fuji Velvia or occasionally Provia, although the tests were made with Extachrome.)

I have considered that perhaps there is a difference between the film stocks which are marketed in 120 vs. 35mm formats. I have also considered that the 1960's lens coatings did a better job of transmitting color to the film. 35mm Velvia is also quite a bit more expensive (both when purchasing and processing) than 120 Velvia.

After using both cameras side by side for almost a year, I finally sold the Realist. (I hope this doesn't horrify the photo-3d fraternity.) 

Certainly, the larger base of most stereo cameras would be appreciated in landscape situations, so I have begun a search for another 35mm camera. (This is why I am so interested in the Realist-Revere-TDC comparisons.) Also, Eric Goldstein has very nice things to say about the Belplasca (on the 3D web page), and it has 1955 lenses. 


So, here are my questions:

Has anyone else observed color saturation differences between classic cameras? 

Did I blow it selling my Realist 2.8 before discovering the 3d-photo group (and its illustrious personnel, who might have advised me to keep it)? 

Is there a general dislike for the Super Duplex 120 because of its small base? 

How do the lenses on the Belplasca compare with the Realist lenses? 

Are there other cameras which I should place on my 'wish list? (I used to shoot with twin Bronicas, but found it a bit bulky!) 


I understand that personal preferences are often based upon intangible elements, and that the photographer takes the picture, not just the camera. 


That said, any comments or opinions would be appreciated. 

Ray Hannisian

RAY 3D
Stereoscopic Imaging
http://www.ray3d.com

ray@xxxxxxxxx



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1143
***************************