Re: Any tips for a would be stereo camera purchacer?

[P3D <PTWW@xxxxxxx>]

>I have to say that certain cameras are prone to certain
>problems, some of which can be fixed one way or another.  The Realist has
>the infamous light leak, the Kodak has the slow shutter, etc....

>from time to time, certain cameras slipped quality control
>and ended up with mismatched lenses.

This all sounds like good information for someone shopping for their first
'50s stereo camera.  I wonder if a concise summary of common problems
by make/model could be assembled for inclusion in the FAQ, and first
time shoppers directed to it when they ask for help.  That would seem a
mite friendlier and more helpful than "Ask the questions that you would
ask when buying any camera."  I seem to recall stumbling upon at least
a partial listing of such information recently.  Does anyone know
where that might have been?  Dalia's web page, perhaps?

To go one step beyond purchase warnings, perhaps some expert eagle-eyed
list member with a quality (T'd RB) viewer would be willing to offer a
special quality review service to first-time stereo camera buyers.  For
a fee of, say, $20, this sharp-eyed expert could review a roll or so of
slides taken with the proud beginner's new acquisition and check for
problems that might well go undetected by the user in the 30 or 60 day
right of return period.  I'd be happy to do so myself if I had the
equipment and the experience, but I presently have neither. :(

Consider, for example, the story of the Revere I borrowed.  It was used
extensively by the original purchaser, who has now been dead for many
years.  When his widow also passed away, the camera was inherited by
the original owner's grandson...who happened to have graduated from the
leading school of photography in Philadelphia, and was a part-time
professional (flattie) photographer.  Before buying my first stereo
camera, I borrowed the Revere for a trip.  Now I don't know for a fact
what Revere's warranty policy was, but I would think and hope that they
would have exchanged the camera if the original owner had noticed the
problem and complained about it.  The professional photographer who
inherited the camera , I am fairly certain, never knew about the mis-
match problem.  (He did, however, often complain that he could not
view projected stereo slides for more than about 30 minutes because
it gave him a headache.  While mounting problems no doubt played a
large role, could the FL problem have been a contributing factor as
well?)  Recently, a slide taken with this camera came into Dr. T's
hands and he immediately detected the problem.  When I heard about it,
I looked back at other slides I had taken with that camera.  When I
looked at one in particular and alternated left and right eye views, I
remembered an odd experience I had when I first looked at that image:
I told my wife that I knew the images were supposed to be different
horizontally, but I never knew there would be a vertical difference
as well.  But it never went beyond the "hmmm, that's strange" stage.

So here we have a 40 or so year old camera used by at least three
users, one of whom was a professional, and the mismatched focal length
problem was either not recognized or not properly diagnosed.  (This
is my first experience with mismatched focal lengths, so I am not an
expert, but I would describe the difference between the two lenses
as substantial.)  So how can a new stereographer (who probably has
nothing but a cheap steal the light viewer) really expect to detect
potentially significant problems within a mere 30 or 60 days without
utilizing the services of an expert to review the slides...or, at least,
a listing of potential problems, their symptoms, and their significance?

Paul Talbot


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