Re: Nimslo construction, price, and value

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan Orovitz writes:

>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. 

No, I think you just agreed with him!!! ;)

>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.

It is this kind of logic that is killing us today... If you expect a decent
stereo camera with all the bells and whistles for the price of a modern SLR
today, then you'd better stick with the cheeseburgers... :-)

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

I buy those for $100 or less, today... What was your point gain? ;)
 
>Jon Orovitz

-- George Themelis


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