Re: "Collecting" vs. "Owing and not using"

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kersenbrock wrote:
> I didn't say that one'd necessarily *like* the selection, but one may not *like*
> the selection of stamps that the post office has today either. I was showing
> the great similarity of stamp collecting and stereo camera collecting.  The
> former is a *lot* bigger business, I think, and there will be differences
> (such as "selection") due to the size difference -- not due to the nature of
> collecting.

Ok, it appears from here that we've arrived at our usual juncture of the 
abstract vs the concrete, or the metaphysical vs the "physical," as it were. 
>From my side of the coin:

I agree with you: "Likes" or "dislikes" are irrelevant; let's focus of 
function. If we use function as the criteria of whether we have in-production 
stereo cameras with which to satiate ourselves, then I would content we clearly 
do _not_, unless you can afford a Leica-priced RBT. The other cameras you 
discuss are not even partially functional instruments from the working 
photographer's POV, without control of focus, exposure, shutter, format, etc. 
Can you take a picture with them? Yes, under some circumstances. Can you bring 
them into a location situation with uncontrollable external variables and count 
on getting consistent, technically acceptable photographs with them? No, you 
cannot.

To get back to your postage stamp analogy, it would be as if we were only able 
to go the the Post Office and purchase postcards, and not stamps. Can you write 
with them and mail them? Well under some limited circumstances, yes. Are they 
as fully functional as your "collectors" postage stamps? No, they are not. I 
can't communicate a lengthy or complex thought with postcards, I have no 
privacy, I can't enclose a photograph... :-)  Continuing with your analogy, I 
think what we have available to us in production now are a few affordable 
postcards, and a single type of postage stamp which is extremely expensive (and 
from what a couple of RBT owners have said, not all that great optically by 
modern standards).

Is this distinction a small, hypothetical one? I think it's a major obsticle in 
the high level pursuit of stereo photography. As I raised in an earlier post, 
It is as if a musician with developing talent weren't given access to a decent 
instrument upon which to practice and perform. The finer instruments aren't 
made anymore; should the musicians be offered those which remain at absolute 
"supply and demand" top dollar collectors prices? Fortuneately, many, many 
people don't think so.

> One might also consider what a Realist (etc) would cost today if their
> 1955 price were corrected for inflation into current day dollars.  I'm
> not so sure that RBT's would be considered *that* much more expensive.

Although this is really off the topic, we've actually explored this a while 
back. While RBT's cost about what a Leica M6 costs currently, Realists were 
about half to two-thirds the price of Leicas in the late forties and into the 
50s (depending upon lens choice, etc). And Kodaks were about the same price of 
flatties like the retina during this time. Adjusted for inflation, there in no 
reason to believe that "todays" realists wouldn't be half to two-thirds the 
price of today's RBTs, if they could be produced and marketed on a commercial 
sale.

> However, this isn't really pertinent to my point of availability.  Nothing
> is free, everything has those who can afford things, and those who can't.

Only in a world where absolute laws of supply and demand are in effect all of 
the time. Fortunately, we do not live in such a world (if we did, many millions 
of people the world over would go without basic foods and medicines which they 
now receive, precisely _because_ most don't believe in the absolute of supply 
and demand governance). And fortunately, we have many, many list members who 
offer us their "Strads" and "Guanaris" (well, almost!) at prices which reflect 
not just the marketplace, but the "mission" as it were; to help make scarce 
resources available to as many interested folks as possible.

I raise these points mostly because I truly think we need to recognize and 
thank these folks for their kindness and their generosity, with the hope that 
they will continue in their ways!


Eric G.
egoldste@xxxxxx


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