Re: Initial Nimslo Value

[P3D Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I am not sure that Sam Smith or the person to whom he is replying to
>ever used a Nimslo.  The Nimslo is mostly plastic with programmed
>autoexposure.  Nishika, with its useless ballast, probably conatined
>more metal.  Nimslo's Scottish (Timex) models tend to be less reliable
>than the later Japanese versions.  

I've got one right in my hands, Mr Orovitz. I've got another unassembled
one, and its chassis is aluminum. The cover is plastic, all gears except the
advance sprocket are also metal. So are the lens mounts and all shutter parts.


>Since the camera cannot focus, I disagree with the term "precision"
>optics.  Nimslo's glass optics were optimized for indoor shooting
>leaving them unsharp at "infinity."  I have made very sharpe 8x10 prints
>from Nimslo images, shot indoors.

What does that have to do with the actual optics? If the focus is changed
you will have razor sharp pictures at any distance. The optics are still
good. A focus control would have been nice, I admit.


>In 1982 terms Nimslo was neither a $200 nor a $20 camera.  A quick look
>at old copies of Popular (or Modern) Photography will show that a price
>in the $75 - 100 range would have been fair and competative.

Now you've really lost me. Compared to what? Are you saying there were
Nimslo ads ( or other lenticular cameras) in these magazines? Which issue?



Sam


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