Nimslo construction, price, and value

[P3D Jonathan Orovitz <jorovitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sam Smith replied:

>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.

I think you just agreed with me.  If the camera will not focus where I
want it to, even seven precision ground elements of the rarest-earth
glass are useless to me.  I was sorely disappointed with my first few
rolls of Nimslo pictures (c. 1985) because they were so soft.  I shot
slide film and made 8x10 flat prints.  Perhaps the soft distance shots
do not show up in a lentuclar print.

>>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?

Of course there were no other 1982 lenticular cameras to price compare
with Nimslo.  I was addressing the issue of quality.

If you look through one of those magazines, you will find single-lens
cameras of similar quality.  Having found one, the price would neither
be $20 nor $200.  When I first saw Nimslos advertised, the price struck
me as outrageous for a point and shoot camera, regardless of the number
of lenses.

In the early 1980s, $20 would buy you a piece of junk or the most basic
non-adjustable camera.  On the other hand, $200 would get you a small
precision instrument like an Olympus XA, with all its bells and whistles
(e.g., aperture control, rangefinder focusing, light meter needle,
backlight adjustment,. . . and enough money left over for a
cheeseburger.

BTW, at that time used Stereo Realists (f/3.5) and Kodak Stereos could
be bought for $100 or less.

-- 
Jon Orovitz

"Would Freud's Sig contain his Id?"


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