[photo-3d] Re: first XA twin K200

[Mark Shields <beamsplitter@xxxxxxxx>]

Gary,

Well, I do march to a different drummer!  :-)
But I'm not using "Mark's way" as a subject line because I'm
not trying to get anyone else to do it that way, just sharing.
I read lots of posts here that aren't really about doing what
I'm doing, but give me ideas. That's how I decided to do the
twin rig thing anyway, and I heard here that RMM had the twinning
bars for this camera.

I'm certainly in love with semi-auto exposure, aperture-preferred.
I really, really like it, and it's one of the reasons I prefer
the XA to the XA2. I shot many a picture with manual exposure
before I got the OM-10; the last was a pair of Olympus Pen-FT's
(alas, I wasn't using them for stereo!), and despite liking the
cameras and their superb lenses very, very much, I wasn't sorry
that I got the OM-10. There is the near impossibility of firing
both shutters at once, and the near impossibility of getting the
right exposure every time with a manual camera. For most of my
subjects, firing both shutters at exactly the same time doesn't
matter too much, but getting the right exposure with slide film
does--a lot. Even using aperture-priority for such a long time,
I was very, very impressed that each and every exposure out of
36 was right on (except for those few that I gave one stop more
just in case--bracketing). Maybe I'm just not good enough, but
I don't think I would have managed that with a manual camera! :-)

As for the Realist and the Kodak, even if they weren't strictly
manual, I just plain don't like the Realist. I picked one up,
held it up to my eye, and didn't like it at all. The Kodak I
do like, so much that I've been tempted to buy one--nice to
hold and to look through, and controls that fit for me. But
in addition to auto exposure, I also lose the rangefinder.
That's another reason I like the XA so much--the rangefinder.

As for cropping, cutting the XA shots down to a square format
would work very nicely. I did that with a lot of my flat slides.
That would take care of the light falloff in the corners. Then
I would need a viewer. In keeping with some views expressed here
recently, I would want one with less magnification. I like my
Pentax viewer for that reason. For years before I shot stereo
I would get close to my subject and keep out extraneous items;
this often involved cropping, including quite a few full-frame
shots down to half-frame, sometimes vertical and sometimes
horizontal. This works well with a long-FL viewer. It's the
opposite of the "classic" stereo approach, with view cards,
etc. where the whole scene is supposed to be in focus and you
can sit and look and look and look at all the detail.

So, it really isn't your fault for selling me the splitter!
I just adapted stereo to the shooting style I was always using!

I do love to experiment and have tried lots of different things,
including the FED Stereo, but so far I like what I'm still doing.
And I hope you continue to enjoy what you are doing.

Mark
-/\_/\-
( O O )
===^===


Mark, you truly do march to a different drummer! ;)  I still don't
understa=
nd=20
why you just don't use a stereo camera a la Realist or Kodak?  Is it
becaus=
e=20
you're so in love with semi-auto exposure?  Wouldn't setting the
exposure=20
yourself be much less of a hassle than the near impossibility of firing
you=
r=20
non-linked XAs simultaneously?  You certainly could crop 5p down to 4p if
y=
ou=20
must.  It seems to make more sense than cropping 8p to 4p!!
Your making me sorry I sold you that Pentax splitter in the first place! 
;=
)=20=20
Who knew you would become such a zealot!

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.