More thoughts on formats

[P3D Sam Smith <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I must say I've never enjoyed the 3-D digest more interesting than the last
few issues. Discussions are lively and interesting, as they always should be.

I have a few more notes I'd like to throw in, and I'll try to convey them in
a way to not offend those more sensitive. Most do pertain to the Realist, so
if you're tired of hearing about it skip on.

Regarding the Realist and the 5-P format, I have a few question about it's
design.
 Why do most 5-P format cameras lack borders between frames? I really find
that inconvenient for several reasons. It certainly makes it difficult to
cut, as there's absolutely no room for error. Not only that, but I've had
several Realists and Kindars that want to overlap every third frame a
little, making cutting and mounting even more critical. For anyone who takes
negs instead of slides, there's no way you can properly project one of the
end negs of a strip in the carrier without masking part of the image. Why
couldn't the designers just spaced the lenses a couple of  millimeters more
apart and solved this problem? Both the Verascope F40 as well as the
Belplasca have lots of space between frames, as any conventional 35mm camera
does.

Since the Realist was in production for 25 years, why couldn't they
eliminate the need of pressing that button on the back while simultaneously
advancing the film? Or did they, I've never used the last of the Olden
models. No other 5-P format camera I'm aware of needs this extra step, and
it's one that usually requires both hands to accomplish. I've seen the
results of some jokers who try to bypass this step and attempt force the
advance.

Why couldn't they have provided filter threads?

Another plus for 7-P: a 24x30mm image is exactly proportionate to an 8x10
enlargement. No loss, no waste. This format should have been the standard
for conventional 35mm, not 24x36mm.

Now let's discuss current prices of cameras with the prices of cameras in
the fifties. I'm using Modern Photography's 1951 Directory Issue as
reference. In this year, there are four different cameras I'd like to use in
comparison to 1996. 
The Realist Model ST42 was David White's top-of-the-line stereo camera. It
sold for  $ 227.50 US.
The Leica IIIC was E.Lietz's top-of-the-line 35mm rangefinder camera. It
sold for $ 350 US
Franke & Heidecke's best was the Rolleiflex Automatic 2.8 TLR at $ 325 US,
and Nikon's "S" was $ 349 US

In 1951, a "good" factory wage was around $ 50 a week, meaning it would take
over a month's wages to purchase the 2.8 Realist. As for a Leica, Rollei or
Nikon, you'd be looking closer to two months.

Why am I bringing this up? I'm sure most of you have already figured this
out. Even in the tough times of today, factory wages of $500 to $ 700 a week
are common, not extraordinary. With top-of the-line Leicas, Rolleis and
Nikons now going for $ 2000 and up, it seems that little has changed as far
as affordability. Yet what has happened to stereo camera prices? Is the RBT
really that far out of line at $ 3000? A used Realist today may be had for
only a few hours labour to the average worker, not an entire month !
Alas I too cannot afford an RBT, but my eyes still glitter when one comes in
sight. Maybe next year....

I hope I'm not bringing up issues overly discussed, there's such a wealth of
info in the Digests I'm sure I miss lots by scimming.


Sam


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