Re: [photo-3d] Not buying an RBT S1

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

>>Anyway, I've lost the point of this discussion... I give up!I give up!

I sort of wondered about the discussion as well. It was mentioned that a
cheap P&S Camera has a more friendly user interface. So what? Please do
not hint that simplicity equates with quality. User Interface means
nothing for the serious photographer. For example, try using a Cirkit
Camera, or a Graflex, Linhoff, Bessa Rangefinder, Leica Visioflex System,
and on and on. Millions of people use these cameras and they are much
harder to use than a cheap drugstore camera.

Compare quality of a cheap camera to that of a Realist and the Realist
wins hands down. I think we need to make sure that people understand that
quality needs effort and work. I truly believe that far too many people
think cheap, fast and easy to use means better quality. Balderdash.

As for the computer discussion, I am lost as to the point trying to be
made.

>>With all that said, if you offered a FREE RBT S-1
>>or a FREE realist to a million photographers, how many do you
>>think would pick the Realist. 

People will go with whatever is easiest to use (That's why Windows sells
and DOS does not. If you took away Windows, 99% of the computer users
would no longer be able to work. )However, it depends on the Realist
Model. Offer a free Macro Stereo Realist, or the Platinum Plated Realist
given to Mattie Sanford, and most would take those over an RBT -
providing they know their cameras. Most photographers do not care the
least bit for Stereo anything. If you can obtain these cameras, I will
purchase a brand new RBT, All Accessories and I will hand deliver them to
you in exchange for both.

Then, in 5 years when that RBT becomes less and less interesting and thr
price dips, I could sell the Macro Stereo camera.

>>I don't know anyone who'd rather use a Realist over an
>>RBT S1.  Do you?

Me, that's who. No offence to any of the RBT users on this list, for me,
the Realist is a better camera. Remember, my choice of cameras is not
based on what you or others say - I have to live with it.

I know enough about photography to eliminate the need for any type of
auto anything. I use Depth of Field scales to focus, and I do not require
any interchangeable lenses. For most situations normal focal length
lenses are perfectly good. You seem to be trying to say that the RBT is a
better camera than the Stereo Realist. For most, yes because they rely
upon auto this and that to get good pictures. In the hands of a competent
user, the Realist is very capable indeed.

As for the comments trying to persuade that an 8088 can be used these
days for what most users use a computer for, try finding a 8088 system
that will handle today's workload. Games? Forget those modern games. The
Internet? Certainly, but not very well. Large digital files? No possible
way because of the memory requirements. After all, can you honestly say
that I can put together an 8088 system and run my life with it? Yes, but
not with any degree of efficiency. Most of today's software will NOT run
on an 8088 system. Windows? Nope, will not run Windows. Sorry, the 8088
is NOT a computer with any usefulness, although you can still use it, not
very well.

>>> Well Mike, you made the BIG mistake to compare the
> Stereo Realist camera with an old computer in a stereo
> photography list!!!  You could have not picked a worse
> combination to make your (otherwise valid) point.

I think George is correct here. Computers are the only thing I can think
of that have no parallel in history. Cameras all work the same way and
regardless of the camera out there, if you can use one you can use them
all without compatibility issues. Same for cars, motorcycles and other
things. 

Now, can we move on to Stereo Photography? 

Bob