P3D Re: prime equipment was primary

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

>From: toeppen@xxxxxxxx (John Toeppen)

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

I'd say go for the second 3.5 and the film.  Most people will not 
see a difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 under the usual shooting
conditions.  There are only 3 areas where the 2.8 has an advantage, 
IMO:

- Vignetting:  The 3.5 vignettes (darkening of picture corners) at
  small apertures (f16, f22) while the 2.8 does not.

- Performance with attachments like the Steinheil wide angle
  attachment.  It is reported that the 2.8 performs significantly
  better.

- 7p Modification:  Only the 2.8 can handle the wider frame.

I see hundreds of stereo pictures from many different cameras every
year through my participation in the SSA folios.  My conclusion is
that the Realist 3.5 is as good as any other stereo camera.  The
only reasons to go away from the Realist, Kodak, Revere, TDC, etc.
are these:

- Wider film areas
- Automation

For some people these two factors are important.

George Themelis


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