Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul S. Boyer, dressed in flame-retardant shirt, wrote:

>My experience has been that slide-bar stereos made with
>my modern SLR are incomparably better in technical
>quality to anything one can make with 1940s or 1950s
>stereo cameras.  The modern lenses are simply better.
>So are the shutters.  So is the focusing mechanism.

Certainly there's truth in what you say, but I think you're overstating
your case just a little bit.  When I compare the results I get from my
RBT against the results from my Realist and Revere, I can see differences,
but they are subtle differences [not "incomparable" differences], and unless
you are doing a side-by-side comparison they are not apparent.  A '50s
stereo camera *in good adjustment* is perfectly capable of taking a nice
sharp picture.  See how well your SLR's do after 45+ years of use, abuse
and storage without maintenence (the condition a lot of '50s stereos are
in), and you will really come to appreciate the ruggedness of the Realist
and Revere cameras.  And no batteries to replace, ever!

>[Look at the way a Realist focuses!  The film is supposed to
>move in and out in back of the lenses!  Try watching that
>with a blank roll, and I think that you will agree with
>my decision not to bother repairing my Realist's rangefinder,
>because basically it is unnecessary when the focusing
>mechanism is so approximate, and one stops down for maximum DOF
>anyway.]

Umm, perhaps I'm missing something, but you can't really do this, as
the pressure plate on the back of the camera is an essential part of
this mechanism, but you obviously can't observe it with the back on.  If
you're saying that the film tends to flop around in the absence of the
pressure plate, all I can say is, "Well, DUH!". :-)

	-Greg W.


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