Re: Stereo's Future

[P3D Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Paul S. Boyer, dressed in Nomex, 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.

Gregory J. Wageman politely responds:

> Certainly there's truth in what you say, but I think you're overstating
> your case just a little bit.

I admire Greg's restraint. 

Many modern slr lenses are *not* simply better; they may be faster and
they may zoom, but lots of them are junk, particularly the 35-70ish
zooms many folks seem to latch onto. These $100ish "standard" zoom
lenses, even from Nikon and Canon, are loaded with defects...
lack-luster resolution and contrast, loads of distortion. They stink.

I'll tell you flat out that the 50 year old Ilex Paragon triplets on my
beat up old 1947 realist outperform a modern consumer grade Canon or
Nikon 35-70 zoom hands down, certainly subjectively and probably
objectively, at the small apertures most of us use 95% of the time. And
the Zeiss Tessars on a Belplasca compare very well to modern consumer
grade prime lens from Canon or Nikon, both subjectively and objectively,
again at "stereo" apertures. Ditto the Ektars on some 2.8 Realists.

Shutters? Well how are we comparing? If raw speed is all you care about,
then a focal plane shutter's your choice. But how about flexibility with
a flash? Or the ability to arrest motion without distortion? Or
instantaneous operation without mirror lag?

Or how about this... I (and many other photographers) feel that the
"character" of classic lenses is far superior to many/most modern
lenses, particularly the more natural contrast they exhibit and
character of the out-of-focus areas (Japanese glass has always performed
poorly on this measure, even by the manufacturers own admission). By
these subjective measures, we regard many of the classic lenses as
"better." Now what?

How are you defining "better?" Which lenses/shutters are you comparing
to what? What qualities of lens/shutter performance do you feel are more
important than others, and why? "Better" is a term which is descriptive
of nothing and contributes nothing in enlightening the discourse. If you
prefer the lenses and shutters on your slrs, then perhaps you can
provide us with a good measure or description of why, and then we could
take your opinion and use it in forming or revising our own...


Eric G.


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