Re: [photo-3d] Why not use a Realist?

["David Lee" <koganlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Harp <matmail2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 7:21 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] Why not use a Realist?


>
> ... Before this I used the twin XR-10Ms only for scenics
> >> and saved my Nimslo for shots involving people and distances less than
12
> >> feet.
> >
> >Why not use a Realist?
>
> Once you see those full-frame images, you never want to go back!  A
perfect
> addition to my collection would be a Realist modified for 7P or a
Belplasca,
> but those are a bit beyond my budget at the moment.  Jim Harp
>

Certainly bigger is better when the situation calls for it. That's why I use
4x5 and medium format for things that aren't moving. For things that are
moving (and reasonably close) it's hard to beat a stereo camera. Of course,
bigger is better then, too, but a Realist is markedly better than a Nimslo.
I have shot at least a hundred rolls of Realist negatives in the last year
and gotten many images that I am very excited about and would never have
attempted with a non-stereo camera (candid people shots).

David Lee


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3019/5/_/160438/_/956887412/
------------------------------------------------------------------------