P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 2721

[Watters <mdwatters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Allen French writes:
> 
> >Let's see, we have 3-D hobbyists, shooters, and collectors.
> > would like to add another category: sellers, or wannabe 3D
> >retailers.  I am not saying that is bad, but I think retailer ideas
> >on pricing (and perhaps goals for 3D) are far different from mine,
> >as a hobbyist.

George Themelis takes it personally and defends himself:

> I understand exactly what you are saying and 5 years ago I would have
> agreed with you 100%.  Back then I was a pure hobbyist (read sucker)

OK, so that means that someone who helps distribute and support stereo 
for the love of it and NOT for profit is a sucker...  Guess we know 
where you stand now George.  We're the suckers, you're the smart one.

> There is always a risk when buying and selling.  There are hidden

Of course there are.  No body is gonna deny that.  Those risks are 
pretty minimal though.  Anyone who's opened 2 or 3 cameras already knows 
what's gonna be wrong with 90% of the cameras you're gonna find out 
there.  You'll know if it's fixable or not.  You'll also know how to 
test the darn thing while it's still sitting on the fella's table.  
Anything with worse problems is gonna be cheaper. If it's fixable, 
that's great.  If not, it's spare parts to fix the other ones.  

> Again, I understand your point but I am convinced that "3d retailers"
> offer a good service to hobbyist like yourself.  Have you looked at

The majority of camera dealers (stereo or not) offer no "service" other 
than buying working cameras at the shows and trying to sell them again 
at a later date.  BFD.  If someone is buying distressed cameras, fixing 
them up so they're decent again and selling, that's another matter of 
course.  I've done some of that in the past myself.  That's adding 
value.  Simply shuttling the cameras around and marking them up adds 
nothing but cost.  

Want proof?  Next time you go to a camera show, spring for the early 
entry admission.  Just browse around and see what's going on.  What 
you'll see are all the dealers at the show browsing around to each 
other's tables looking to snatch up anything they seem to think is 
underpriced.  That item will then appear on THEIR table at a "corrected" 
price.  I've even heard one dealer boasting to another about buying up 
every example of a particular camera at a show so that he'd have the 
only one offered for sale. (at twice the price of the others)


ron labbe ads:
>I don't know where you come from, but the price for a Realist 3.5 in >1953
>was $159.
>Where I come from, the price has been extremely reasonable (cheap, >even!).
 
Well, the ads I'm looking at (mid 50's) have a price of $180 or so for a 
camera AND viewer.  But that's of course irrelevant.  Viewmaster film 
cutters were more like $12.  Does that mean that's what they are worth?  
no.  Argus C3's were on the order of $50-100 (can't find an ad on short 
notice) but nobody's gonna pay that for one now.

IMHO $140 is too much for a Realist.  Certainly it is compared to 
similar quality flat cameras.  (Which tend to cost anywhere from $5-$15, 
yeah, Leica's are much more but the Leica dusts the Realist in terms of 
quality).  That's ONE of my reasons for abandoning traditional stereo 
cameras.  They're overpriced.  You can build a MUCH better camera for 
the same or less.

mike


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