P3D Re: Kodak over Realist?

[Mark Josephson <icebox@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

John, if you're new to the list, be aware that George, while a really nice
guy, is not a good source for why you should use a Kodak, since he is a
Realist fanatic.  The benefits and weaknesses of Kodaks & Realists is a
common topic; you might try looking in the archives.


Let me preface my comments with the warning that I am not trying to start
a Kodak/Realist flame war; I'm only trying to balance this out.  Realists
are fine cameras.

> 
>  3. They only have one hand (try using the Realist with one hand!)
User-friendliness is important.  Realist loses on this front.

>  4. They prefer plastic and aluminum over steel.
Means that the camera is lighter, and that you can't be a klutz.  Then
again, my Kodak survived a fall on a ski slope (it was inside my jacket,
and I didn't fall directly on it).  Yes, the Realist is sturdier than the
Kodak, but in general, the way to prevent camera damge from dropping, is
to BE CAREFUL AND NOT DROP THE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

>  5. They don't like rangefinders or slow-shutter speeds.
I haven't found the lack of slow shutter speeds limiting.  When I need
slow shutter speeds, I need two seconds, or one second, not 1/10.  I end
up using the B setting on the Kodak and a watch.  Works well enough,
though the need for lots of bracketing eats up film.  But you'd be no
better off with a Realist in that situation.  

As far as the lack of a rangefinder, I haven't missed having one.
Using small apertures whenever possible eliminates most
focusing problems for me.  Either that or I'm a good judge of depth.

>  6. They prefer simplicity over reliability.
Excuse me.  If the traffic on this list is anything to go by, Realists are
just as much, or more trouble than Kodaks.  Kodaks do not seem to be any
more or less reliable than a realist.  Gee George, your bulletproof
Realist was quite reliable in Greece this year, wasn't it?  

George is right that Kodaks are simpler than Realists.  Obviously,
once you get used to the quirks of any camera, it will be easy to
operate, but Kodaks require less learning before use.  For example, you
don't need to learn how to load the film in a Kodak.  Also, you get a
rewind crank on the Kodak.  

>  8. They don't like to be challenged.
George, you Realist users are just as wimpy as Kodak users.  Real men (and
women) use view cameras to do stereo 8x10s.  Where are your stereo 8x10 
contact prints, George?

As far as Kodak users not wanting challenge, the challenge I want from
photography is composing a picture, figuring out the lighting, etc.  Not
figuring out how to load film, or rewinding without a rewind crank.  No
thanks, I have better things to do with the limited time I have to shoot
stereos.

> 12. They are into camera repairs or live across the street from Jess
>     Powell.
Kodaks do not need constant repair.  I had mine tuned in 1994 when I
bought it, and haven't needed a repair since.  You could just as easily
say that Realist users are either into camera repairs or live across the
street from Zak.

John, as far as shutter problems go, I suspect that any 50s stereo camera
that hasn't been cleaned and adjusted in the last 30 years will need a
cleaning.  I don't think that Kodaks are more of a problem on this score.

The general consensus on Kodaks v. Realists is that the cameras are
roughly equal; there are features on each that are absent from the other,
each has drawbacks.  Either one will take as good of a stereo photo as the
user can create.
 --
Mark Josephson  | "[US Atty] Jim Burns is putting aldermen in jail so fast, 
icebox          |  we're gonna have to go to Wisconsin to get a quorum." 
@               |   --Chicago Alderman Ed Smith (28th), 7/30/97
mcs.com         |   Note: Wisconsin is the location of "Club Fed" 
----------Icebox in effect on WHPK 88.5 FM Chicago, Wednesdays 9PM-Midnite 




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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2519
***************************