Re: [photo-3d] Next Step From A Realist?

["don lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I dont understand how people are able to discuss MF when they apparently
have not actually viewed it . When properly done, it is a bit different.
Like the first time I showed MF to my wife she said every thing looked
smooth as reguards to the transition from near to far where as 35mm looks
like little models on a stage. As I have said before, my (flat) photo
friends have in the past shown little interest in looking atmy 35mm  stereo
but this has all changed since I am now shooting MF though they feel
helpless because the cannot go out and buy  MF equipment.DON
----- Original Message -----
From: <markaren@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 5:06 PM
Subject: [photo-3d] Next Step From A Realist?


> My "step-up" from a Realist was an RBT X4. But I have not forsaken my
> Realist! Combined, both cameras helped me win first place, slide of the
> year, and 3 honorable mentions in the OSPS ( Cleveland ) club this
> season! Is MF better? And how is this defined? Resolution / sharpness is
> only one variable ( and an important one) in a successful stereo image.
> But there is something to be said for the art of capturing the moment.
> The S1 is king, followed by XA2's or Realists, then the RBT X4, MF and
> twinned cameras etc...It would be a boring world if all of us shot MF.
> Equipment diversity lends itself to stereo very well.
>                                              Mark Dottle
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/markaren/USVIEWSExchangeFolio
>
>
>
>
>