Value of Nimslo

[P3D Jonathan Orovitz <jorovitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Recent photo-3d postings have contains arguments that Nimslo is (or was)
a $20 camera.  The other side claimed it was more like a $200 camera.  I
believe these price estimates to be extreme. Since Dr T expressed
confusion over my last posting, here is a summary and more explanation. 
I apologize, in advance, for its length.

Page 174 of the May 1982 issue of Popular Photography had a small
feature on the new Nimslo system.  Its list price was $249.95 for the
camera and $64.95 for the flash.  That makes $314.90 plus sales tax or
shipping, less any discount that might come along.  Ads in the October
issue suggested that some dealers had them in stock.

A few months later I saw my first sample Nimslo snapshots.  Those
convinced me that Nimslo was not worth the asking price.  A well done
lenticular can be a thing of beauty.  I own a few.  I really enjoy
them.  By comparison, Nimslo's samples were nearly depth-free. 

At the risk of repeating myself, I found $300+ price excessive.  While
you might say that it is hard to put a price on a then-unique camera, I
was not alone in thinking that it was not good value for the money.  The
public stayed away in droves.  To make matters worse, electronics in the
Timex-built (UK) cameras frequently failed.  By the time the price came
down to near $200 and production shifted to Japan, Nimslo's reputation
was ruined. 

For me, $300 or so 1982 dollars was too much for a plastic-bodied 3-D
camera that had no aperture control and did not focus.  Even $200 was
too much for an unreliable camera that did not live up to its hype.  

I mentioned the Olympus an other 3-D camera prices to show what one
could buy for less than the price of a Nimslo.  An Olympus XA, which
actually sold closer to $130 new, is a glorified pocket-sized camera,
not an SLR.  BTW, Several basic SLRs of the period sold for less than
$200, with a lens.  XA's cheaper cousins, the XA-1 and XA-2 with
features closer to Nimslo's, sold for well under $100.

Why else do I mention the XA-series?  They became popular cameras to use
in pairs for stereo.  I bought one in 1982. I eventually bought a
second.  Perhaps you can guess the rest.

When I saw a Teco Nimslo at $145 in 1986, I thought it was then worth
the risk.  The Teco modifications and the lower price made Nimslo far
more attractive to me.  I have taken many rolls of film with it and,
given its limitations, find it a good photographic tool. My
Japanese-built Nimslo is reliable and its programmed exposure system
works well.  It is not a piece of junk.

Let us not forget the value of money.  Although the CPI, and my salary
have doubled since 1982, the cost (in 1982 dollars) of photographic and
other technology has taken its own course.  Some things cost more while
others cost less.  Used mainstream classic stereo cameras have not
changed much in price over the past 15 years.  Video equipment is much
cheaper.  Nikons's top of the line SLR has gone from $700 (F-3) to $2500
(F-5).  
So back to the original thesis.  The Nimslo is not the $20 piece of
junk, that Nishika clearly is.  I did not buy a Nishika, even at a
close-out of $75.  IMHO, Nimslos were never worth the original $314.90
asking price.  For me, a modified new Nimslo was worth $145 in 1986.

End of story.  Any on-topic questions?  Does anyone want a pile of old
Popular Photography magazines?
-- 
Jon Orovitz

"Would Freud's Sig contain his Id?"


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1976
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************