Stereo Cameras...

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings, fellow Stereophiles!

My name is Greg Wageman.  I've mostly been lurking on this list for a few
weeks.  I got bitten rather badly I'm afraid by the "stereo bug" just
recently.  A few weeks ago I couldn't even spell stereophile, and now
I are one. :-)  The recent discussion of collector v. user had me
chuckling, as I was completing negotiations for purchasing my fifth
stereo camera.  I have a number of comments and questions, and I hope
to just stir up all kinds of commentary from you all. (Collector!  User!
Tastes great!  Less filling! (-; )

Stereo Realists

My first Realist was purchased at a local antique dealer's shop.  It was
in an ancient leather camera case.  It's a 3.5, in perfect working order,
lens cover intact, with case.  Also in the bag was a rapid-rewind crank
handle, a set of push-on lens filters in Realist case (with half the set
of six missing, unfortunately), a set of combination lens shade/filter
holders in original White Co. box, and an aftermarket spirit level mounted
in a spring-steel ring, that pushes onto the viewfinder opening.  Oh, and
a pair of Series V haze filters that fit in the lens shade/filter holders.
I bargained the guy down to $210 for all of that.  Oh, and there was also
a lens cap and a set of the screw-on filter holder rings for a Kodak
Stereo, as well as an original instruction booklet for same.  No book
for the Realist, unfortunately.

My second (and probably last) Realist is a 2.8 Custom.  Here's where my
questions start. :-)  According to McKeown's, there are "authentic" 2.8
Customs, and some "knock-offs".  I would like to know more about these.
Who was it that put these together?  Are they really worth that much
less than the "originals"?  Are there varying grades, like some made with
a mix of Custom and 3.5 parts?  Is there literature on the history of
these cameras and/or stereo cameras in general?  If not, why not? :-)

Again according to McKeown's, mine is not a factory-assembled Custom,
since the serial number is too high, but it does have the faster shutter,
2.8 lenses and the larger rewind knob that cuts into the top plate.  It
also has the anti-double-exposure feature w/defeat, which the 3.5 lacks.
I paid altogether too much for it. :-)

Are there any records remaining of original ownership of these cameras?
I know that many Hollywood celebrities owned them in the 50's and 60's.
Since there are only supposed to be about 150,000 of them, that means
that everyone who owns one has at least a 1 in 150,000 chance of owning
one that was owned by a star. Better odds than winning the lottery,
that's for sure. :-)

Kodak Stereos

Boy, there sure is a world of difference between a Realist and a Kodak,
isn't there?  The Kodak is mostly Bakelite.  What do you want for a camera
that listed at slightly more that half the price, I guess ($84.50 for the
Kodak vs. $159 for the Realist).  Mine has shutter problems,
which I am working to fix.  I've already disassembled the camera and
removed and opened up the shutter assembly.  (I can hear some of you
cringing.  I'm very adept mechanically, thank you.  Besides, if I trash
it, the value of yours goes up. (-: )  While I was in there, I
cleaned the front-surface mirrors in the viewfinder path.  Boy, did that
make a world of difference.  No more fog!

The shutter problem at first was that the gear retarder mechanism was very
balky.  Half the time (or more), it wouldn't "wind up" when the shutter was
cocked, meaning you couldn't reliably get a shutter speed slower than
1/200th.  I applied a bit of lubricant, and it now works better, but the
shutters themselves have become very, very sticky.  My guess is that the
new lubricant has turned whatever ancient lube was present to gum.  I think
the best course of action would be to flush the entire mechanism with a
mild solvent such as denatured alchohol.  What do you folks think?  My
only concern is that the lens elements may be held in with some kind of
cement that the solvent could dissolve?

Revere 33

The last of my cameras is a Revere 33.  It too seems to be in perfect
mechanical condition, although when I got it I could hear some small
parts moving inside when the camera was inverted.  I opened up the
bottom plate (which has a dummy screw on it for symmetry, of all things),
and two ball bearings fell out of it.  They weren't very small, about
1.5-2mm in diameter.  Does anyone know if any part of the mechanism uses
ball bearings?  As I said, everything seems to work properly, but I have
no idea how they might have gotten in there if they didn't come out of the
mechanism, and since it isn't broken I haven't taken it apart any further
to see.

Random Ramblings

I was trying to figure out a way to take identical pictures on the same
film stock with each camera, in order to compare image quality, and yet
have some way to differentiate the developed film without "wasting" a
stereo pair on a title card, when I discovered that each of these cameras
has a different method of marking the left and right images of the stereo
pair.  The 3.5 Realist's method is not to mark either image. :-)  The
Custom puts a V-shaped notch on the top of the right image only.  The
Revere puts a square notch on the top of the right image only, and the
Kodak puts one V-shaped notch on the left image and TWO V-shaped notches
on the right image.  Totally bizarre. :-)

Overall I like the feel of the Revere the best.  Both the Revere and the
Kodak automatically cock the shutter when the film is advanced, unlike
either Realist.  All allow the shutter to be cocked manually.  The Custom
requires you to pull out a small pin to defeat the anti-double-exposure
mechanism.  The Revere's viewfinder is harder to use for a person like
me with glasses.  The Revere's rangefinder is superior to the Realist's.
The Kodak lacks a rangefinder.  The Realist lacks a spirit level.

That's probably more than enough for today...  Any answers and information
is much appreciated.  Thanks to all, and especially to the list maintainers.

	-Greg


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1281
***************************