[photo-3d] Re: Realist part II

["Chuck Holzner" <cfholzner@xxxxxxxx>]

--- In photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx, Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxx> wrote:
> I just like the Realist because it does what it is designed to do, 
and it
> does so very well. If you find a tool that works, and if it does
> everything it is designed for, that's all you need. 

I can't believe that Seton left out "Cock on wind" because he wanted 
it that way.  I can't believe he wanted unintensional double 
exposures or unexposed pairs or that he didn't want a DOF scale.

I think for the most
> part, those who do not like it either have never used one, or this
> example of high technology from the 1950's befuddles them.

How could you not like it if you never used it?  What High technology?

> 
> The Realist is simple to load, simple to fix, simple to focus and 
simple
> all around. What more do you need? Some will argue - and in fact 
have
> told me that the lack of telephoto lenses is a definite minus. 
Well, they
> really are not needed or David White would have offered them. 

I think they did, I saw some on ebay a while back..

> 
> But to each his own, the old lady said as she kissed the cow.

I agree...
> 
> As I have said before and will repeat here, much of what is made 
today
> lacks the quality of the past - not to mention the class. Much of 
what's
> available today is inferior to the past and much of the past 

I couldn't agree more...

> So for those of you that prefer cameras other than the 
Realist....fine by
> me. Those who hate the Realist....fine, but at least tell me / us 
why.
> 
> Bob

I am not into the Love/Hate thing, I an an engineer and so I can see 
the wart on the brides nose.

Chuck