P3D "Cheap" new lenses VS. "Quality" new lenses

["Johnson, Stuart" <SLJ4@xxxxxxx>]

BobH writes:

>RE: Comment has been made that slr lenses beat the crap out of 1950 
>stereos and also "why don't people replace the lenses, if a source 
>can be found?"
> I disagree strongly that modern slr lenses are superior (for the 
>purpose) to the lenses in the 1950s stereo cameras.
--and---
>I have 11x14 Cibachromes made from half of a Realist slide than match 
>anything from my SLRs. BobH

	The above statements are assuming that the person buying a
camera system using lenses of the last twenty years will purchase the
cheap stuff. Almost every manufacture has varying qualities determined
by the price they charge.   An Olympus 24mm lens with a 2.4 aperture
is going to be better than the same at a 2.8 or a 3.5 aperture.  Sure,
most of us probably shoot between F8-F16 to assure depth of field, but
the "faster" the lens is, the BETTER the quality of glass, construction,
etc.
There is simply no comparison in my estimation between a modern lens
and an older (50's type or earlier) lens.  Simply put, if they were THAT
good,
they would still be manufacturing them.  I wish I could simply state all the
"technical" reasons WHY the newer -Quality- lenses are superior, but I
do not have the exact "facts".  However, years ago, I remember listening
to a guy that owned a large camera shop explaining those exact differences.
There are many reasons why the "current" lenses are better (as he said).
This was from a guy who spent his whole life involved in photography.  

	11x14's from "half" a realist slide is better than anything from
your current SLR's?...  I've got a 11x14 from a Mamiya SLR I used in
the '79 Pebble Beach Concours Car Show that I'm sure would correct
Bob's position on the "Old vs New".  There are a lot of factors that 
determine sharpness -Quality lenses, Clean Lenses, ASA film speed,
Camera Motion, Processing, Paper, Lighting, Etc.  But to just say that
the "Old" is better than the "New" is not entirely correct.  Some of those
REALLY old shots WERE great!  -Mainly because the silver content was
so much stronger, and the negatives larger, as well as long exposure times
through very small apertures (for better saturation on slower reacting
film).

	"Matched" lenses can be requested by modern manufactures.
However, they are supposed to be "identical" in the same runs anyway.
I think it's neat that people use the old camera's, as well as enhancing
them. In fact, I wish I HAD an old one to use on an upcoming Victorian
Wedding.... Now would'nt THAT be cool? 

	Also,  a unique problem occurs using two SEPERATE camera's
in that the shutter's should be "matched", or close to each other in there
operation to assure similar results.  I had this problem with two previous
OM2n cameras.  Getting them "matched" will cost about $150-$250.
My solution? I traded them in towards two of my four OM4n cameras...
The longer the exposure, the LESS effect "unmatched" shutters have. 

	Although I am aware of a few cameras being manufactured in
Europe and Japan, it would be great if Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Etc.
would provide a body to allow for stereo shots using there existing
(non-auto) lens inventories.  This would really be an asset to the world
of 3D.  If the price were to be less than $1,000 for the body, I believe
this would really open-up the access to the world of quality 3D. Especially
amongst those who already have the lenses to try this.

	Finally, is there someone out there that has substituted a 
large battery pack to supply there cameras by replacing the small
(costly) batteries?  The newer electronic ones really drain quickly.
I'd like to mount a battery on the tripod & run wires into simulated
batteries in the little battery compartments. Anyone done this?

					Sincerely, Stuart Johnson

	


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