P3D Re: Realist Critique - 3. Optical quality

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

In case you are still reading.... I am commenting on Tom
Deering's review of the Realist.   We are down to the last part,
the one that, for me, counts the most:

Results!!!

Tom calls the Realist stereo slides "lifeless" (that's an interesting
choice of words for a stereo picture).  Perhaps the lack of candid 
shots due to the difficulty in using the camera.... 

No one said that the Realist gives exceptionally sharp results.  I have
always said that with a Realist 3.5 you get the same results (give or
take) that you would with almost any other "Realist-format" stereo camera.
I belong to 4 different slide-sharing groups and I am an active member
in two stereo clubs.  I have seen stereo pictures from all different
cameras.  I shoot a lot of film.  I compete in local and international
level.  I have money to burn.  If there was anything better out there, 
I would be using it.  But, after having seen everything, I still use 3 
Realists, two of which have 3.5 lenses.

I shoot a lot of candid shots... as a matter of fact, with a family and
young kids, these snapshots are 90% of my photography.  A lot of it is 
done indoors with a flash in auto-exposure.  Outdoors, I use standard 
settings based on light conditions (and a fill-in flash usually.)  Yes, 
the Realist has been as close to a "point and shoot" camera as a manual 
camera like this can be.   I seriously doubt it if someone with a Kodak or 
Revere can shoot faster than I do with the Realist.

Seems to me that in Tom's review the Realist is not compared with other 
stereo cameras of the same era but with some ideal modern camera like 
the RBT S1.  No contest.  The RBT S1 is a better choice if candid stereo 
photography is your interest.  As I wrote in a review in Stereo World 
(The RBT S1A, A User's Report", Jan/Feb 1997 issue): "If you enjoy grab 
shots at close range, this camera is for you!"  But is it fair to compare
the Realist with the RBT S1?  Would you recommend that a beginner buys
an RBT S1 as their first stereo camera?

>If you are new to the hobby, start with another camera, not a Realist.

I'll say, if you are interested in "good looks", easy-to-use-from-day-one
controls, then don't get a Realist.  No one is buying Realists for these
reasons.  Why do people buy Realists?  Where else can they get these
features:

- Good quality 5p stereo images
- Wide rangefinder and centrally located viewfinder
- Full range of shutter speed settings, including "slow" 1-1/25 sec, B, T
- Continuously adjustable aperture from f3.5 to f22
- Reliable shutter, easy to maintain/repair (yourself or by others)
- Abuse resistant - doubles as self-protection device
- Flash synchronization in all speeds with a flash
- Reconditioned and sold with unconditional warranty

FOR UNDER $100?  

(Check my sell-3d for a $95 Realist and Radex viewer - a complete stereo 
system.  I still have one left!  Or check the 20 or so Realists that
I am bringing in Richmond VA, this Thursday!)

The Stereo Realist is the best camera for a beginner to use if that's
all they can afford.  I know beginners who know nothing about photography
and use the Realist successfully.  Some bought them for cheap.  Others
were given a free Realist.  Others paid good cold cash to get them.

True, the Realist is not for everyone.  But thousands of beginners started 
with a Realist.  Many of them are still using a Realist.  Can all these 
people be wrong???

-- George Themelis


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