Re: TDC Colorist vs. "The Brick"

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dalia wrote:

>I use the Colorist II myself and absolutely love the quality of the
>pictures.  The camera is light weight and fits my hands very comfortably.
>
>It sure beats THE OTHER CAMERA, which is worn on the forehead and which
>takes a full day of hand training just to learn how to hold it.  And it sure
>beats pulling that stupid double prevention exposure over and over and over.

How often do you need to pull "that stupid double prevention exposure over
and over and over"?  You do that only when you want to double-expose.
Unless you are in some trick photography or extensively testing the camera
you should not be pulling the double-exposure lever.

>Not enough credit is given to this wonderful camera's lenses.

If you check the past digests you will see that enough credit was given to this
"wonderful camera's lenses", some of it coming from me (until I sold the one
that I had for sale, that is... ;))

>All I read is REALIST REALIST REALIST.

It has been said before that "Realist" is many times used for Realist-format
cameras.  I do that all the time... When I talk about the "Realist", 90% of
the time I am talking about Realist-format cameras.  Very rarely (like in
this posting) I mean the actual Realist camera.

>Expand your horizons, check out other cameras.  You may be surprised that
>the world doesn't revolve around a brick AKA Realist.

My philosophy is that if the Realist works for you, there is no real reason
to try or use anything else.  If you are curious and have money to burn,
sure, go ahead and try all the stereo cameras in the world until you are
satisfied.  But, can you get a TDC Colorist II for $100? (I am sure that
Dalia can ;), I am just wondering how many others in this list can do it).

On the same subject, Don Radovich writes:

"Also, I had an
early model without double exposure prevention and I was always afraid of
only _thinking_ I had advanced the film, cocking the shutter, and producing
unintentional "art" (although this rarely happened)."

The answer to this is to advance the film right after you take a picture.
I've got into the habbit of cocking the shutter right before I take a
picture and advancing right after I take the picture.  But I must admit
that I have produced some "unintentional art" (pretty interesting though
... ;))

"I think what I like most about the TDC is that
the rangefinder and the viewfinder are combined, thus eliminating what, for
me, was a time consuming step."

The point is valid, but for me (and many others I assume) that use a
hyperfocal type of focusing the rangefinder is seldom used.  For a given
f-stop I set the focusing at a given setting.  I only check the rangefinder
when I take close-ups.

I've said this before... When I first used a Realist stereo camera in 
1988, this particular camera was so much different that my other camera
(a Minolta X-700 SLR) that required that I learn how to use it.  Once I
got into the habbit of going through certain steps, it became second
nature... The Revere and TDC Colorist II are also very different than any
modern SLR and they do require "learning".  When I was  trying the TDC,
I was not feeling as comfortable as using the Realist which I already
"knew".  My point is that there is little sense in comparing "user-
friendliness" in these classic stereo cameras because they are so remotely
different than SLRs and point&shoots of today.  Unless you grew up in the 
50s and are used to rangefinder & totally manual cameras, there is some
learning required to use a stereo camera.  But once you get used to a
particular camera, then you can relax and enjoy!

George Themelis, self-appointed spokesman for the "BRICK" ;)


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