RE: Nimslo vs. Realist (photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

[P3D Steve Owsley <scooter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>George Themelis writes:
>

>Grant, just ask yourself this question:  "Here I am, shooting happily 
>with my
>fully automatic and lightweight Nimlso, taking these wonderful 
>pictures...
>A large group of stereo photographers torture themselves with this heavy, 
>brick-like, difficult to load, fully-manual, light-leaking, more 
>expensive, 
>etc., Realist.  Why don't these people trade their Realist for a Nimlso 
>and
>keep the change?"
>
George, George, George!!!

My answer is these are both wonderful, high quality cameras.  They are good
at different things.  Both have sharp lenses. (Hey, the Nimslo even gives
you a bonus set!)  They are both capable of producing ribbon winning slides
(I know, 2 of my very few ribbons were slides taken with my Nimslo.)With the
Nimslo, you have a fully automatic camera, easy to use, no adjustments.
Perfect for capturing spontaneous people shots.  Vertical format very nice
for people shots.  The Realist (&certain other '50's stereo cameras) will
also produce excellent results, a bonus is the wider image size.  However,
it takes the average photographer a bit more time to set up the Realist for
a picture.  Add flash, and the situation is even more complicated. (George,
I know the last statement does not apply to you :-))! 


One of my ribbon winning slides was taken on a Halloween night in San
Francisco.  I was new to stereo photography.  I had a basic understanding of
the limitations of the Nimslo.  Just put the flash on the camera and go out
and shoot.  No focus adjustments, no shutter/aperture adjustments.  Very
sharp, crisp slides, at least within flash range.  Very simple and easy to
get good shots.  You can concentrate on the subject matter, and not so much
on the mechanics of taking the picture.

I now use the Realist/Revere for most of my picture taking.  These are
mostly shots of static objects.  If I were going to a party, or taking
candid shots of people on the street, Nimslo would be my first choice.
Could I get results as good with the Realist?  Of course, but I'd be paying
a heck of a lot more attention to the mechanics of picture taking, rather
than composition, and would probably lose a lot of good spontaneous shots.
Realist/Nimslo, both excellent cameras, they each have their place.  I
haven't seen a stereo camera yet that excelled in everything.

So, without trying to start a war over this, my 2cents are that you are not
slumming when using a Nimslo.  It is a great first camera, it is a nice
addition for someone who uses a Realist. The Realist will give you more
control, more options for special effects, and a few more choices in
mounting supplies and a wider stereo window.  The Nimslo will give you
convenience, ease of use, high quality results, and a very nice dedicated
flash unit is available as well. The Nimslo is easier to carry around, and
lightweight. Both cameras are capable of producing sharp slides.  

I currently use the Realist, Revere33 and Nimslo. I would be reluctant to
part with any of them.  If I thought one of them was a poor camera, I'd get
rid of it in a heartbeat.

best regards,

Steve.


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