SLRs vs. Realist for beginners

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

I wrote:
   
>>There are people in this list who have not taken the first step yet...  
>>You and I agree that the Realist (or equivalent) is a good choice for 
>>this first step.  Before we move to the second step, we have to 
>>acknowledge that, for many people, the Realist is all that is needed.

And Gabriel Jacob replied:
    
>Oh is that right! I guess that means I will (and others) have to take
>one step back or a few steps back since I never bought a Realist format
>camera. I think you are missing the mark on this one. 

Thank you for putting me straight! ;)

>It's much more
>complicated to take 3d pictures with a single (or twin) SLR since so
>many other factors are in play here (stereo base, focal length, static
>or dynamic subject, etc.) In my opinion the best route would be to 
>buy two single-use cameras (or 1 or 2 SLR) as this is the most flexable
>option. Also this way a beginner apreciates the subtleties of 3d picture
>taking.

Again, I do not understand.  You admit that it is much more complicated
to take 3d pictures with a single of twin SLRs and then you go ahead
and recommend this for a beginner???  Or for someone that might not
be interested in dealing with these compications and utilizing the
system to its best potential?

>So as a first step I would recommend.
>Use a single 2d camera and take two consecutive shots.
> Or use two 2d cameras for simultaneous shots.
>   Or buy a 3d camera that is easy to get film processing.
>    Then if and only if someone gets serious into 3d photography
>    and are not happy with the quality of 3d cameras with easy 
>    processing or wants the convience of a single 3d camera 
>    as opposed to a single or twin SLR then they can spring 
>    for a Realist format camera. (Note it comes in last on my list) 

And I stand with what I said (and Sam Smith apparently agrees
with me):  After you experiment with print film and your regular
camera (most people start like this), if you want to continue with 
slide film it is much more convenient to go with a Realist than 
twin SLRs.  I cannot take candit pictures of my children or family 
events with the 6" separation of the lenses in my side-by-side SLRs.  
For the casual stereo photographer the Realist (or FED, RBT; a real 
stereo camera in other words) is the natural first choice.  Twin SLRs
are one step ahead with obvious complications and inconvenience but
also potential for unusual (award-winning in PSA salons!) images.

Price-wise, it is usually cheaper to buy a $100 Realist than a 
second 2d camera.

George Themelis


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