[photo-3d] Loreo vs. Nimslo

["Jim Harp" <matmail2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> This experience let me to believe that the Loreo is
> a fine way to get started in stereo.  Low price and
> convenience make this product very attractive (price
> has dropped as low as $30 in some Discovery stores).

I'll agree that a $30 Loreo is a good value, but used Nimslos can be 
had for $60, in my opinion a better bang for the buck.

> Unquestionably, the Nimslo (also Nishika)...

Let's not muddy the waters - the Nishika isn't really comparable to 
the Nimslo (although it's heavier!)

> other 50s stereo camera will give better
> results.  But at the expense of convenience.  How do 
> you make prints from Nimslo or Realist?  Not as easy
> as getting prints back from the Loreo

I haven't had any trouble getting Nimslo prints done at Moto-Foto and 
other similar labs.  These prints do have to be trimmed and mounted 
before viewing - something that Q-VU mounts simplify greatly.  I used 
my Loreo for over a year; this was before I was aware of the P3D list 
and all the other options.  If I had it to do over again I'd prefer 
to have all those soft shots I took on the Loreo benefit from the 
Nimslo's superior optics and exposure.  It can certainly be argued 
that the Loreo is ideal for a beginner, but that beginner should be 
aware of how much they're trading for convenience.
Jim Harp