P3D Re: Realist Critique - 1. weight

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>At least one ardent supporter on the list actively stifles any
>opposing view.  

Ha, ha, ha!  I wonder who this is.... Anyone who has been reading my
postings on the relative merits of different stereo cameras, knows
that I do not "actively stifle" any opposing view regarding the
Realist... but for you Tom, I might make an exception. :-)  

I think by now I have a good understanding of the relative merits 
and weaknesses of the Realist so please allow me to make a few 
comments on your observations.

You went long ways to "prove" that the Realist is the heaviest
stereo system you have ever lifted.  But your table shows that
the Realist is as heavy as the Kodak (in kg - it is slightly
heavier in lb)  And I know for a fact that the Realist is as
heavy as the Revere and other cameras from the 50s at around
0.8 kg (not 3.7 kg! - you must recheck your conversion tables).

>    1.7lb   3.7Kg   Stereo Realist
>    1.5lb   3.7Kg   Twin-rig with bar
>    1.5lb   3.7Kg   Kodak Stereo

[...]
   
>Note that the Realist is heavier even than my twin rig, which is _two_
>cameras, four batteries, and a metal bar. 

Which cameras are these Tom?  I use lightweight Minolta X-700s (mostly
plastic, no winder built-in) and the lightest lenses Minolta ever
made (45 mm /2.0) and the lightest shortest aluminum bar... and I 
still get 3.5 lbs, or more than 2 times the weight of the Realist.

Also, my Minolta SRT-202 with a common 55 mm/1.4 lens weighs 2.3 lbs,
again heavier than the Realist.  And this is a single camera with
70s technology.

Also, the RBT-S1 (as compact as a stereo camera can be and still
maintain good qualities) weighs as much as the Realist.

More to come...

-- George Themelis


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