Realist vs. Twin SLR rigs

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

Dr George said:-

>Twin SLRs are great for winning PSA acceptances and awards but are not a
>substitute for a REAL stereo camera.  This has always been my opinion and
>I stick with it :-)

And Dylan The Hippy Wabbit asks:

>For the benefit of us newbies, why is that exactly?
>OK, so the stereo window is preset as mentioned in an earlier thread.  But
>what else?

The window is not an important issue for me because I mount my full frame
SLRs pictures in 7p mounts which gives me plenty of space to manipulate the
window.  The important issues are:

- Interocular spacing
- Convenience

The interocular spacing in twin SLRs is between 3" and 6", depending on the
configuration.  This is too wide for normal stereo photography.  I could
not take pictures of family gatherings with it.  In terms of convenience, a
twin SLR rig weighs more (about 3 Realists or more!) and takes up more
space.  Also, it is frustrating to use and you have to always check the
focusing and exposure settings in both cameras.  That's because you are
working with a system that was not designed as a stereo system and anything
that can go wrong will usually go wrong.  

I can pull the good old Realist out of my coat pocket and snap a picture
quickly.  It is a point a shoot camera!  I cannot do that with the twin
SLRs.  I need time to set them up, and must use a tripod with longer
lenses.  I will only use the twin SLRs to take a picture that I cannot take
with a Realist, like hyperstereos (yes you could use the Realist but twin
SLRs is easier), use of different lenses, etc.  The twin SLR rig
supplements my Realist photography.  It is not and could not be a
substitute.

IMO, George Themelis


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