P3D Re: the best stereo camera.

[Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> > Photo magazines & NGs are often filled by endless teasing discussions about
> > "is Nikon better than Canon?", comparing particular hidden, seldom used,
> > fancy features. Yes, some amateur photographers want to own "the best", but
> > perhaps they forget the "user interface": I mean if one wants to "use", not
> > only to "own" a camera, I think it's the camera that must comply with the
> > potographer, not forcedly vice-versa.
> > Sergio
> >
>
> Amen!

Although I agree with the principle in general, I suspect that there's a lot
bigger difference between  an RBT camera and an any-50's-stereo-camera
than between modern Canon and Nikon 35mm SLR's.  The difference is
substantial with differences in used-every-shot features, not "seldom
used fancy features".  The recent arguments were more like arguing which
point-and-shoot camera is the very best.  Neither any Iloca nor Kodak
are anywhere near the "very best" stereo camera, even in practical everyday
use terms.  They both are mild pains to use, even if very well worth it
(and I speak as someone who has nothing better than that unless one
wants to argue format where my Sputniks or slide-bar'd Digital camera
might get talked about).

Arguments between different 50's cameras or between different RBT
models might be nit-picking, but between the two I think can be
validly substantial.

Mike K.

P.S. - Having the U.I. of a camera "match the photographer" rather than vice-versa
          means to me "be like the cameras I used before". A company I once worked
          for a couple companies ago drove me crazy with the notion that their terrible
          user interface had to be kept intact because the customer base was used to it.
          There is an ounce of truth in that notion, but no more than an ounce IMO.  :-)