Re: [photo-3d] Re: Nishika Vs. Nimslo

["Don Lopp" <dlopp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To be fair  when comparing a Nimslo with a Nishika you should talk about
some thing you know  something about DON
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Nygren" <lnygren@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Nishika Vs. Nimslo


> To be fair, despite the "scam" component of the Nishika, I have heard
> that its plastic lenses aren't actually all that bad. Although I
> personally only have experience with a Nimslo which has the better glass
> lenses, and I would agree that a Nimslo is well worth the $40-50 price
> tag (approximate ebay prices, with flash) and a much better investment
> IMO than a Nishika, or a Loreo/Argus for that matter, as inexpensive
> stereo cameras go. If you buy a Nimslo on ebay make sure to verify that
> it is working, or get a return option since there are many dead Nimslos
> out there masquarading as "new in box" and you need batteries in it
> (three 386's from the watch battery department, which most sellers do
> not have) to determine whether it is working. -Linda
>
> King3ddd@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 00-12-28 09:33:50 EST, Danny Vint writes
> >
> > << This will probably start a bit of a war, but which of these 2 cameras
are
> >  considered the "better" camera - reader to supply their definition of
> >  better. Note I just got a new Nishika with flash off of eBay already -
is
> >  $30 a good price?>>
> >
> > The two should not even be compared, as it is an insult to the Nimslo to
even
> > be in the company of a Nishika.  The Nishika is a fake, phony, fraud!!
It
> > has a lead weight to make it feel substantial, a fake LCD readout, fake
flash
> > contacts, and I could go on and on.  The camera is a scam and is a
blight to
> > the good name of 3D. > Sheldon Aronowitz
>
>
>
>