Re: Question (TDC vs. others, prices)

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There was a question about the TDC Colorist I and the price relations
between different cameras.  I agree with Mike K's comments.

>> My question is why does the TDC colorist appear to have the least
>> value of all of the vintage stereo cameras?  

>It doesn't have the least value.  Some others are even lower.  :-)  
>Really, the colorist tends to be about "medium" in price with the 
>Colorist-2 being  maybe "medium-high". 

>Kodak's and even f3.5 Realists tend to be lower in price (mostly
>due to their high availability).

Correct.  The question was asked what is better about the
Realist 2.8 that makes it 4 times the price of certain 3.5
cameras.

The Realist 2.8 is not as common as the 3.5.  The 2.8 lenses are
4-element lenses which in theory are sharper in the corners than
the 3-element lenses of most 3.5 camera lenses.  The 2.8 lenses
do not vignette at smaller apertures like some 3.5 do and work
better with wide angle adapters and other accessories.  The 2.8
lenses have a better reputation for consistent quality than the
3.5.  For those reasons Realist camera owners are willing to pay
the price premium.  Still, if you own a sharp 3.5 camera (TDC
Colorist, Realist, etc.) you can get results which are as good
as the best 2.8 cameras for most photographic situations.

George Themelis


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