P3D Realist Critique for New Users

[Tom Deering <tmd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>In a nutshell what do you guys absolutly
>>love about shooting with the Realist and
>>what is not so great about it?

It seems like we have a wave of new users on the list.  I recently
purchased my first Realist, and I'd like to share my experience for the
benefit of the newcomers who have not used one.  There are three or four on
eBay every week, so it's possible that a person might buy a Realist without
having ever seen one, as I did.

Based on what I read on this forum and other places, I had been led to
believe that the Stereo Realist was the ultimate stereo camera. Since my
experience so far has been at such odds with my expectations, I decided to
share my experience with the other beginners in the group.

I freely admit my remarks are based on my personal experience with one
camera. I do not speak for all photographers or all cameras.  There are a
large number of stereo photographers that have embraced the Realist and its
quirks.  At least one ardent supporter on the list actively stifles any
opposing view.  Some get a feeling of deep satisfaction from coaxing
beautiful images from this device.  Make your own decisions.

--

Upon first meeting a Realist, the first thing you will notice is its sheer
weight. I guarantee you will exclaim -- out loud -- when you first heft
one. Below is a chart of other stereo cameras I own, plus two non-stereo
cameras for comparison.

1.7lb   3.7Kg   Stereo Realist
1.5lb   3.7Kg   Twin-rig with bar
1.5lb   3.7Kg   Kodak Stereo
1.3lb   2.9Kg   Non-stereo SLR with lens
1.3lb   2.9Kg   Stere-All
1.0lb   2.2Kg   Homebrew macro
0.7lb   1.5Kg   Modified Nimslo
0.7lb   1.5Kg   Non-stereo point and shoot

Note that the Realist is heavier even than my twin rig, which is _two_
cameras, four batteries, and a metal bar.  But sheer weight on your
neckstrap tells only part of the story.

The Realist is not only heavy, it is also sharp.  That is to say, when it
hits you, it hurts.  The thing is all sharp angles and solid metal. While
all my other cameras have sculpted plastic or light aluminum parts, the
Realist seems crudely cut out of a block of iron, without the benefit of
rounded corners.

Over the weekend, I pulled up my shirt several times to check for bruises
on my hips--no lie.  If you have plenty of padding there, then be aware
that the Realist has an affinity for elbows.  My sweet, loving wife openly
cursed me the first time my Realist bonked her.

But physical abuse was not the end of my pain.  I've successfully shot
10,000 frames using different cameras without ever seeing a manual,
including the stereo cameras above.  But there is zero chance you will take
a single a photo with a Realist without a personal tutorial or several
visits to the manual.  It makes those indecipherable Soviet cameras seem
self-explanatory in comparison.

I'm a huge fan of 50's era mechanical design.  While many items from the
'50s are exquisitely devised, it appears that the designers of the Realist
had never before seen a camera.  The shutter release is on the wrong side.
It winds backward.  The focusing mechanism is totally, er, unique.  There's
a rather long list of peculiarities.  Every phase of the picture taking
process is hampered by some odd additional step or engineering quirk.

For me, the cumulative effect of all these design errors was missed shots.
Instead of focusing on my subject, I found myself focusing on the mental
checklist required to operate my camera. For me, the creative process of
taking photos was overshadowed by the mechanical demands of this camera.

When I told my Realist tutor that the camera seemed oddly designed, he said
"Yes, but wait until you see the pictures."  Four rolls later, I must admit
I am disappointed. The photos are sharp, but not remarkably so.  I have not
done a serious optical analysis, but my slide-viewing friends won't conduct
one, either.  When you see my slides, you will pick the five best photos,
not necessarily the five sharpest photos.

Case in point: a performer spontaneously chose my wife to hold six or seven
large, colorful parrots.  The moment didn't last long.  I snapped one photo
with the Realist, then abandoned it.  Instead, I took a string of photos
with another camera.  Under pressure, I doubt I could snap four photos in a
row with a Realist without botching something.

As I look through the slides I've shot with this camera so far, the first
thing I notice is how lifeless they are, not how sharp they are.  Too many
candid or spontaneous pictures were missed.  Using sharpness as the only
criteria in judging a camera is like using horsepower as the only measure
of an automobile.  Engineering and handling are important, too.

In summary, I found the Stereo Realist to be a sharp, heavy weapon that is
likely wound you and those near you. The photos my Realist took were of
good quality, but not stunningly better than I am able to obtain with other
less torturous cameras. Newcomers to the Realist are bound to be frustrated
with it's backward controls and backward design.

I understand the Realist has its supporters who either ignore its faults or
embrace them.  Steam engines and flintlock rifles also have their
proponents. But they wouldn't be the first choice of a professional at
work. And you certainly wouldn't give these devices to a beginner.  If you
are new to the hobby, start with another camera, not a Realist.

Cordially,

Tom



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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2872
***************************