RBT: Why not use Nikons

[P3D Jon Golden <3dman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adding to what Greg Wageman said:

>>I at first thought the same way you did.  When I was deciding whether or not to invest in an RBT, I did some research on the KR-10M.  I was quite surprised to find that this camera was very highly spoken-of by everyone who had used one, and now that I have the X2 I understand why.
>>You could pay more (LOTS more) for a Nikon or Canon body, but why?
After all, it is the lens that mostly determines the quality of the
picture; the body is ultimately only responsible for exposure.  The
rest is features and ergonomics, and I find nothing wrong with either
of these on the Ricoh/RBTX2.  The KR-10M is obviously a highly under-
valued camera; I think RBT made a very shrewd decision in using them.
>>Incidently, the Ricoh GR-1 is currently being highly praised.

Greg...taking this a step further.  The new X3 and X4 units here that I
am evaluating (production line runs of these are being made this fall)

Having experienced these cameras now, and meeting and talking with many
of the fine photographers using them....I would like to reinforce that
it is the photgrapher ...not the cameras that takes the picture.
When I got my first rolls back from my X2 two years ago, I was really
dissapointed....but I DID NOT KNOW THIS CAMERA.  It took some learning
but soon I grew to love and appreciate the X2.

 Having a RBT/Nikon body and lens setup would certainly benefit those
who are already committed to the Nikon family of lenses...and a fine
camera it would be, but how many are there out there with this
situation?....and the cost....I would guestimate a minimum of 5000.00 to
6000.00 on the low side.  All that for a sharper picture??....not by
leaps and bounds.  And if 35mm format is not good enough..lets go to a
Herman Miller medium format setup for $10-15,000.00.  

The new entry level cost RBT X4 is a very simple and easy to use camera,
manual control all the way around, with internal light metering, and the
possibility of other readily available lens sets/filters.

After NSA Bellvue....I used the X4 (Cosena Cs1 with 35-70mm macro zooms)
...while Phyllis Maslin and Simon Bell, whom I was travelling with...put
the X3 through some tests. Although the automated and imposing looking
X3 recorded some fabulous images of the Penninsula rain forests, rugged
beaches...and even the Toronto jazzfest later on...the X4 that I was
using produced fantastic results as well, and the images tell the
story...not all the talking about the specifications.  Also..the X4
wieghs about 1/2 of what an X3 weighs....as it has no motor drive,
housing for 4 AA batteries...and other elements that make the X3 weigh
more. 


For the logical choice of a well functioning camera for stereo...that is
resonably reliable...and affordable to as many as possible....and the
new X4 is their lowest cost offering yet.  Look for reviews this fall on
it....I am confident that this model will do very well for its value.

Dont mean to be redundant here...but as I have always said...the
photographer takes the picture....not the camera... Forget an RBT if its
not your cup of tea, and a Realist Custom 2.8 is not going to make you
"better" pictures than a regular 3.5, get it for the use of the wide
angle Steuinheils so you dont get vignetting....or because you are a
collector...  a TDC or a Revere are just fine and produce (with your
talents and skills of course) great images.

Well its time to go make a pinhole stereo camera out of a cereal box!
I bet it will make some sharp images for me....as long as I take the
pictures....not the cereal box!  See ya!  Jon Golden



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