Re: [photo-3d] MF vs. 35mm stereo

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

George A. Themelis wrote:
> I guess then the next question to ask is this:  "Since MF
> is so much better than 35mm, why doen't every one and
> they uncle jump into MF stereo?"
> 

As others have mentioned perceived convenience is probably the biggest
factor preventing most people from going to MF (mono or stereo).  I
can't speak of the details of any specific individual.

1) MF is considered to be more expensive than 35mm.  (Expense is just
another way of measuring convenience.  For example there are things
I'd rather spend the money to own than spend the time to make myself.)

My original Lubitel rig (two Lubitel 166U TLRs, a slide bar, two cable
releases, and strap) cost less than a Realist in good condition.
Sputniks can be gotten for cheap, but the quality (and how it is
reported) varies a lot.  I've been lucky.  My Lubitels and Sputnik are
actually pretty good quality.  A good Lubitel will produce sharper
prints (of the same print size) with better tonality than any 35mm
camera ever made (square inches beats everything).

New (mono) MF equipment isn't anymore expensive than similar quality
35mm equipment.  Compare the cost (and weight) of a Nikon F5 with a
Pentax, Mamiya or Bronica.  Robert Monaghan's "Medium Format Articles
Page" <URL:http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/> has some interesting
information on low cost MF equipment and 35mm vs. MF costs.  The
Pentax 67II (a manual focus, auto exposure (with the proper prism) 6x7
SLR), or the Pentax 645N (auto exposure/focus 6x4.5 SLR) and the Nikon
F5 (auto exposure/focus 35mm SLR) with normal focal length lenses are
all in the same ball park price wise.  If you go for the non-metering
prism the P67II is less expensive than the F5.  (With the waist level
finder it is considerably less expensive.)

My SaturnSlide MF viewer probably cost more than a Realist Red Button,
but I don't know if it costs more than a mint Red Button that has
received the full Dr. T treatment.  I think the SaturnSlide MF viewer
is a better viewer than the Red Button.

Film and processing at a good lab costs the same per square inch.  A
roll of 35mm film has the same area as a roll of 120 (or an 8x10
sheet).

2) MF is considered to be heavier than 35mm.

My Lubitel rig and my Sputnik are both lighter than a Realist.  My
Yashicamat may weight more than a Realist.  Two Yashicamats would
definitely weight much more than a Realist.  The upper end 35mm SLRs
are very heavy.

3) MF is considered bulkier than 35mm.

Look at the size of the Nikon F5 and compare it to some of the MF
cameras.  Modern 35mm cameras have gone away from slim and light
weight (e.g., the Olympus OM-1 or Pentax Super ME) towards bloated and
feature laden.

4) MF cameras tend to be manual.

There are new MF cameras that have autoexposure and autofocus, but the
price of twinning is probably not worth it (unless compared to the
price of twinning a new 35mm SLR).  Personally I prefer all manual
mechanical cameras, but others may not feel the same.

5) MF is harder to find.

Given that just about everyone has to use mail order to get stereo
supplies (e.g., slide mounts), I don't see using mail order to buy a
camera or film to be that big a deal.  Any town big enough to have a
wedding photography studio has a photo lab that can handle 120 film.

6) There are no new MF stereo cameras.

There are several new MF stereo cameras.  They tend to be expensive.
I haven't bothered comparing their price to that of the RBTs.

7) MF stereo is for tinkerers.

This is pretty much true.  Even the stereo cameras that have been
built in the past (Sputnik and Rollei) require fiddling with.  You
have to build a viewer (or at least upgrade the King Inn viewer).

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"