Re: Realist etc.

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

>What I was trying to say was that why should anybody buy
>an old 50's camera for $100 when there are good albeit more
>expensive cameras out there.

So, who should anybody buy a camera for $100 when they can buy
a camera for $400?  Good question indeed...

I read this a couple of times and still it does not make sense.
I would make more sense stated as "*better* albeit more expensive
cameras".  Unless if by "old 50's camera" you mean *inferior* 
camera.  More about that later...

>I elaborated on that by stating that
>if people can spend money on a good viewer then they can surely
>spend money on a good camera, that's all I was trying to say.

And I said that, usually, people spend money on a second camera
while they do not have a good viewer.

>The relationship between the audio system and 3d was that
>people tend to least look at the most important component
>of their system, regarding 3d I was trying to imply if 
>for people who care as much about viewers and skimp on 
>getting the best camera and buy a 50's camera, this doesn't
>make sense. 

You keep on talking down the 50s cameras.... Is that because the
cameras were made in the 50s that makes you think that they
are inferior?  Somebody should put you straight on that... 
BobH perhaps?

>One more thing, my intention is not to offend anybody and I respect
>peoples opinion on the Realist. I have nothing against it but
>what I do find unsettling is the general 3d approach of looking
>at the past and not at the future.

You appear to believe that the Realist and any camera made
in the 50s cannot match the quality of the cameras/lenses
made today and also that the Realist format is a dead thing
of the past.

I have a problem with both statements.

Goodnight (finally!)

George Themelis

Who predicted that Labor day will be a dead photo-3d day??? ;)


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