Initial Nimslo Value

[P3D Jonathan Orovitz <jorovitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sam Smith  <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>The Nimslo was a $20 camera ?? Are you sure you're not mixing it up
>with the Nishika? The Nimslo WAS a $200 camera. It was well made, 
>mostly metal construction, and precision optics. There's no way they
>could have sold it for $20.

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.  

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.

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.  In today's
terms (considering technology and currency changes), a hypothetical
motorized Nimslo Mark II would sell for $125 - 150, like the Rittai or
3D-1000.

-- 
Jon Orovitz

"Would Freud's Sig contain his Id?"


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