Pros:
- The top viewfinder is natural. Almost every camera on Earth has a viewfinder on top of the camera, except the Stereo Realist, which has a bottom viewfinder which is awkward to use.
- While the viewfinder is small by today's standards, it's acceptable. There isn't much difference from one 50s era stereo camera to the other, regarding the size of the viewfinder
- The focus, shutter speed and aperature are in logical places. I can focus the camera easily when holding it up to take photo.
- Focusing is easy because the RF patch is big and visible.
- It has a standard hot shoe, which allows for easy use of flash
- The camera has 35mm f/3.5 Rodenstock Trinar lenses. It produces very sharp results stopped down and good results at wider apertures. However the benefits of stereo come into play with a when the whole image is in focus, so performance at wider apertures is less relevant.
Cons:
- The body seems combersome to hold, because of its thickness.
- You need to have film in the camera (or manually wind the sprockets to the left of the takeup spool) in order to wind the shutter.
Results:
I've only taken two rolls so far, but I've been pleased with the results. It's hard to review the combined results of a stereo image on the net.
The biggest challenge is managing depth of field, but this will be consistent across all stereo cameras. Stereo pictures look best when objects are in focus, and objects are at different depths. If you purely use the rangefinder, it can be hard to have both someone close and background in focus. You can use the rangefinder to determine distance to your subject but then use depth of field scales to increase your total dof. For example, if with the 35mm lens at f/8, if you focus on your subject 7 feet away, you have dof between 5 and 12 feet. If you then change your focus to 12 feet away, your depth of field will be between 7 feet at 40 feet, allowing for greater background sharpness.
Elite Chrome 200:
Both photos at f/16
Below photos are Kodachrome 64.
At f/11 or f/16. Ignore the movement of the baby's head, there is a lot of sharp detail:
Probably around f/8:
Probably around f/5.6, with fill flash:
Wow, I just inherited one of these.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the like of it before.
Is it supposed to take a more 3-D looking picture?
The second to the last picture shows how a picture will look in 3D. The left and right eye has been reversed to allow you to see the 3D without a viewer by crossing your eyes. Once you see three images, the one in the center will be in 3D.
Delete