Re: FED Stereos

[P3D Gabriel Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen and Adam inquire about the FED, compared to a Realist.

>I second Stephen's request.  I looked at the site posted and the FED BOY
>is the one they are selling, not the FED Stereo, from what I could gather.
>BUT, it sounds like a decent camera with some nice newer features that I
>don't think Realists have.  Besides, the price seems right to me.

Yea, the price sounds good, but I think they are selling the FED stereo
and a model that looks similiar to the FED BOY, not sure.

>Would this be a good first stereo camera?

I think IMO, it makes a good stereo camera.
 
>How does it stack up against other cameras?

Now, after stating it makes a good stereo camera, the question is
how does it stack up against the others. The is a good question
and as for me I am undecided. I'd say it's pretty good but I haven't
come across the perfect 3D camera yet. Other than the RBT cameras,
which would be excellent but are in a different price range since
they are custom made.

Back to the FED and other cameras in its price range, the FED stacks
up pretty well, but for me I prefer the Realist. (luckily Dr.T isn't
here to read this!!!) I find the Realist to yield sharper pictures
(with the same photographer! ;-) ), but don't go by what I say because
others have mentioned prefering the FED over the Realist. This is from
my limited experience with one camera and could be a quality control
problem. The one I have is not as sharp when focussing at infinity, but
from what I have read here on P3D, this is a problem with other Realists
also, I think. Another reason could be is that the FED doesn't have a
rangefinder, similiar to the Kodak which doesn't have one either. The
Realist has a rangefinder, which I personally find important. Some
might say, that is not important, then again, maybe a viewfinder
is not important also. ;-)

One thing I like about the FED is that it offers wider pictures, 7p
vs. 5p and has automatic exposure. The limitation with the FED is
that in the manual setting, only the aperture can be adjusted and
the speed setting is held constant at about 1/100 or so.

There has also been some talk of the FED not being sturdy enough.
I have run quite a few rolls though it and haven't had any problems
yet (crossing my fingers).

>Does it produce good results for slides AND prints?
>etc..
>???

I have seen both the Realist and FED give good results but I
personally would give the Realist the edge.
As for prints, you have to consider that, unless your going to
use a View-Magic or similiar viewer, your going to be limited
in the width viewed. Thus a Realist would yield more prints
usable with a traditional Holmes type stereoscope.
Hope this helps.

Gabriel


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