Re: Value of Quality Stereo

[P3D Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>>Let me post the question a different way:
>>What is the dollar value of a good quality stereo camera today?


The words "good" and "quality" need again be emphasised here. The history of
stereo photography has shown that the interest was always preceded with the
release of an excellent camera. In the 1890's it was the Verascope. In the
1940's it was the Realist. The majority of 50's stereo cameras in the 50s
were good quality.

I guess it's safe to say that I will never understand the logic JQ Public
anyway. I'm a little old fashioned in the fact that I like quality. I
couldn't care less what the cost and brand name of my toilet paper, but my
stereo camera is a different matter. 

Part of the reason I was attracted to stereo in the first place was the
instrument itself. People like Seton Rochwhite and Jules Richard are my
heros, for they had the genius of idea as well as the luck and ability to
make their dreams become reality. Sure there was compromise when it came to
actually marketing their inventions, but not the extreme compromise needed
to run the Greed Machine of today.

 
>>Nishika vs Nimslo: At least Jerry Nims and Allen Lo were proud enough of
>>their camera to put their names on it. Ever hear of Nish and Ika ? 
>
>"Ika" means "squid" in Japanese, so perhaps an "'N'-ish ika" is a squid
>that is sort of like the letter 'N'. :-)
>

I LIKE IT!!!! A squid is slimey, preditory, and preys on the unsuspecting. I
would say now it's the PERFECT name for the company!!

>
>Most of the people on this list who want stereo cameras already have nice ones,
>or can buy or build one as needed.

I think all on this list would like to see a new camera come out on the
market, especially one with a warranty. You don't get much of a warranty
with a $20 camera.


Sam


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