P3D Re: FED reliability

[SHIELDS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>OK, Mark, now tell us the truth.  What is going on?  You like everything
>except for stereo cameras from the 50s.  Why?  You are going from 4p
>(beamsplitter, Nimslo) to 7p.  Why are you avoiding the 5p?  What is it
>in your subjects that makes auto exposure an attractive option?  What
>is the big deal with auto exposure?  Why have you ruled out a $100
>Realist?  Why this gap in your stereo preferences?

>-- George Themelis

Auto exposure:

It may not be right 100% of the time, but in my experience it is right more
often than "Sunny 16." The last main camera that I had without it was an
Olympus Pen-FT (4-perf!). (It has a through-the-lens meter, but even at that
metering was slow compared to using an auto-exposure camera.) I needed a case
for the Pen-FT, and the best thing I could come up with was an Olympus OM 
case. The Pen-FT fit it almost exactly. Right away I had to ask myself if
I really shouldn't have an OM. I was bracketing too much and even with 72
frames on a roll using too much film. I decided that if I got an OM-10, the
exposure automation would save enough film by itself to negate the advantage
of twice as many pictures on a roll. After I got the OM-10, I was well
satisfied that this was true, at least for me. If I bracketed, it was around
a central exposure determined by that wonderful through-lens meter that
reads exposure _right off the film_. As for the amount of film to use, most
of my friends are aghast that I shoot about 10-20 rolls a _year_. A really
intense vacation (like the one I just took) might mean 4 rolls. I don't
want to start a flame war, but parochial school teachers don't make a lot
of money.

Auto exposure means being able to shoot fast. It's not just what I shoot,
but how. 

What: people pictures--kids at school and friends. Even if it's
a "planned portrait session," nobody wants to sit still very long. My best
friend, who is just starting to dabble in photography, followed some of
my suggestions for a photo shoot--but when the pictures didn't turn out as
planned, instead of "let's change things and try again," it was "weep and 
wail and give up." That was _one_ 24-exposure roll, and there was absolutely
no question of shooting another one to get it right. I'm considered 
profligate for sitting for even a couple of hours and staring at little
chips of film through a viewer. (It was a departure for me to shoot a
few rolls of Kodachrome 64 lately [used to all the time]--like auto
exposure, Kodachrome 200 is better when things have to happen faster.)

How: I have 'way too many irons in the fire.
If you are committed to teaching, you don't just teach 9 to 5. There is 
lesson planning and hours spent with the kids away from school. I run a
bicycle club and that takes a _lot_ of time! (And when I take pictures on
the trail, the riders don't want to hold still longer than 15 seconds!)
I'm also very interested in trains, love to do all sorts of computer and
desktop publishing things, including creative writing, and spend a lot 
longer than I should working on the school computers (which are
mostly about 15 years old), maintaining our Web site (URL below--I write
straight HTML code--I also love to write raw PostScript code to feed 
into a printer instead of using an application program). So even if I'm 
taking a picture of something purely artistic, or a railroad shot (and 
moving trains don't wait while you bracket or read your meter!), I have to
do it quickly and keep moving. If I'm squeezing some shots in ona trip home
to see mom and dad, I want to do it as fast as possible and get back in 
the car! Speaking of which, I do most of my own work on that--costs less and
usually more reliable than taking it to a mechanic.

I say all of this, and look longingly at slower-paced life, wishing to
be living in some of the picturesqe small towns that I travel through
when I run my beloved "blue roads." I remember adjusting the f-stops
and shutter speeds on my Minolta-16, shooting movie film that I reloaded
and developed myself. But life isn't that way anymore.

I would love to have the time to shoot 5-perf or 7-perf, and the money.
(That's an incremental thing that must be figured closely--time, number
of pictures, format, mounting--the eternal balancing act that is always 
delicate!) The FED seems to hold out the possibility of fitting 7-perf 
shooting into the equation (it would require that I mount every single
shot--two chips per mount), but it would seem that after the latest
findings (and the only way to find out is to ask!), it just isn't going
to for me. I said if I ever got one I probably wouldn't give it up, and
not only because of the big 7-perf images, but also because I am eternally
fascinated with anything that is different, off the beaten path.

I'm sorry this is so long, and I hope I have done more than just pile up
words. If all I have is a beamsplitter and a Nimslo, I've loved researching
all the other possibilities and corresponding with everyone on the list.
(The archives also proved an invaluable resource.) I have no quarrel with
those who shoot 5-perf with Realists and Kodaks (and Reveres and 
TDC's and Wollensaks!)--there's a lot to be said for it.

I'll just add that I think the Kodak is a really cool-looking camera,
and if I ever decide to go 5-perf, that will probably be the one!
(I also recognize it as being easier to operate and lighter than the
Realist, and I think the bubble level in the viewfinder is great!)

Mark

   |\      _,,,---,,_
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
  |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
shields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netcom.com/~northws1/stmatt.htm
"Let the little children come to Me," Jesus said, "and don't keep
 them away. The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
  -Matthew 19:14



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