P3D Re: Snapshooting and Realist vs. SLRs

[Michael Watters <mwatters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>(Note: by "Realist" I mean the system
>based on stereo cameras, including Belplasca and FED, and slides mounted in
>the standard American stereo format)

That's a pretty loose defination.  That'd make RBTs "realists" too.  It also makes it easy to avoid  
what most would say were the drawbacks of the 50's American Format stereo cameras.  (image  
size, mechanical limitations, optical limitations) by defining any product that is manufactured or  
hacked that eventually gets mounted in a standard stereo mount as "Realist".

>Realist has succeeded, no matter what you guys say... Even Mike Watters
>(whose posting I have lost or I have a reply for him too) uses the Realist
>system! (note:  Not camera but system... these FED or twin Olympus users
>are mounting their slides in "Relist" mounts.... OK, American Stereo

I mount in Realist format (in terms of mount dimensions, not apetures) because I want to be able  
to use the viewers and projectors that are readily available.   The existing viewers and projectors  
are "good enough" for the job.  I don't feel that's the case with the cameras so I've replaced that  
element of the system.  I don't use realist-format viewers/mounts because I think they're great.   
They're just handy.  Building (or modifying or whatever) your own camera gives you a big  
change in your results and abilities.  Building your own viewers/projectors and manufacuring  
your own mounts offers less advantage for the effort and investment required.  That's my  
opinion, clearly the collection of medium format shooters on this list would dissagree.  


Regarding success, I'll repeat - Having the format in use among a very small group of diehards, I  
do not feel constitutes success.    


mike
watters


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