[photo-3d] Re: Realist- Revere

["Chuck Holzner" <cfholzner@xxxxxxxx>]

--- In photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx, "John Goodman" <jgood@xxxx> wrote:
> Despite the number and length of recent expressions of Realist 
> love and loyalty, I wonder why the Revere is so seldom 
> mentioned as a basic stereo camera offering excellent 
> performance at a minimal cost. Not much more expensive than 
> a 3.5 Realist, it has fine 3-element lenses, an easy-to-use 
> rangefinder, spirit level, auto shutter cock, is user-friendly and 
> well-constructed. While I know that the mind and heart behind 
> the camera are more important than the machinery, are there 
> agreed upon limitations or deficiencies that put Reveres below 
> 3.5 Realists in the pantheon? If so, what are they? With less 
> than 25,000 made, a clean Revere still goes for around $175. 
> Are they harder to repair? Less reliable? Vignette badly when 
> stopped way down?     
> 
> John Goodman


  I too wonder why the revere seems to be ignored on this list.  As 
you say, it does take nice pictures and it is well-constructed and 
easy to use.  I am now using one that I put Wollensak 2.7s on almost 
all the time and carry a Realist, Vivid, FED or something else as 
alternate.  The only drawbacks in operation I have found from the 
beloved Realist is that the viewfinder is not on the bottom and you 
can forget to take off the lens caps and it won't tell you about it. 
I also don't like the case because the top cover doesn't come off.
That doesn't mean I hate the Revere, only that I can see where I 
would improve it if I could.  I did modernize the flash shoe and that 
is not as easy as on the Realist because the ball is a rivet and not 
a screw.
Some people don't like the spline screws that are in it because the 
wrenches for them are hard to find.  I don't have any but don't feel 
a need for them since I was able to file down a couple of 
screwdrivers to fit quite well.

Another + for the Revere is that NOS lenses and shutters are easy to 
find.


Chuck