P3D prime equipment was primary

[John Toeppen <toeppen@xxxxxxxx>]

I have enjoyed reviewing the discussions on tech3d.  What fun.  There is
no single true answer on these points, but the interaction here helps us
determine the trade-offs.

I have always felt that there was no ultimate design for anything, but
yet we seek progressive improvements.  Sometimes it is desirable to
simply assemble on hand stuff and experiment.  If you like the results,
you may build a better version.  Sometimes special designs are required
for special applications.  Wood, hose clamps, plastic tubing, foam core,
fiberboard, and hot melt glue all have a place in prototyping.  Finished
products are injection molded, milled, and ruggedized for normal abuse.

A very good Realist f3.5 was my only camera at the EAA Fly In in Oshkosh
WI (a place where equipment is prime and primary)

http://www.airventure.org/

This camera was well tested before I ran a dozen rolls through it. I am
glad that I didn't need or carry a spare camera.  I will post some of
the shots in a few weeks (if they come out :)  :(  ???)   Ektachrome
100  f11-16 1/100th typical.  Electronic sync would have been required
for twins for dynamic subjects.  Most air show stunts are generally too
far too work really well without some near field subject cues. 
Portraits and close-ups of aircraft work very well with a Realist.

Since a good depth of field was desired, I would never need and aperture
much wider than f5.6 for full shade at 1/100.  I would rather drop to
1/50th and stop at f8 for shade anyway.  But little shade was to be
found, so some of my shots show people hiding from the sun beneath
aircraft wings..... 

So, someone please tell me again why a Realist f2.8 is a better camera
(for the money).  If I have to shoot that open I would rather use a
tripod or even faster film.  I would use the money that I save to buy a
second f3.5 Realist or another dozen rolls of film.

John Toeppen
http://members.home.com/holographics/


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