Re: MF3D

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Michael Nankin wrote:

> The Sputnik lens is much sharper than
> I ever imagined and I've had much less trouble with light leaks and
> fogging than I thought I would have after reading Sam Smith's Sputnik
> modification advice (although I'll still do it). Also, the lens spacing
> on the Sputnik is ideal for portraiture. So for a few hundred bucks,
> I've jumped into MF3d.

I would add that I have had no light leak or contrast (flare) problems
with my later model Sputnik either, so anyone wanting to try one of
these cameras shouldn't be frightened off by the horror stories. The
tube aluminum and metal viewer which came with my camera (also later
model) is optically really pretty good, and you might want to be on the
lookout for one of those, too.

Lens resolution tests ok on 'em (especially @ f/16) and if everything is
working right they can give nice contrast and, coupled with reduced film
grain, apparent resolution can be striking. I, too, have shot at
portrait distance with mine and gotten good results.

It is a quirky camera: focusing must be done with care to get good
track, the viewfinder is a bit difficult, the shutter release is poor,
lens hoods are important. Still, the machine is capable of some
impressive results.

Someone asked if it is more expensive to shoot 66 stereo than 35 mm...
clearly it is with increased film + processing costs/pair and mounts
more expensive (film can often be found on special at places such as
Freeestyle). Camera/viewer costs average higher, but if you look hard
you can do comparably to 5 perf. 

Mounts (66 and 645), mounting guage, Sputnik manual (free on his web
site!), etc, available through Joel Alpers and Rocky Mountain Memories.


Eric G.


PS  If anyone is interested in _really_ cheap MF stereo, try a Holga! I
just shot a roll of hyper cha-chas with one, and blew a good chunk of
the Stereo New England meeting away!


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