stereo camera options

[kathryn_abercrombie]

I would like to try to take some 3D photos. For all you people out there with

the know how, what are the best options?

 

Should I go Realist, Kodak or with some other brand?

 

Or, should I look at some alternative, like a slider, such as this model

http://www.amazon....ting/dp/B00009R6H6 the thing I worry about with the slider

is conditions changing and I think it would be useless with people

 

Also, I was thinking about the Loreo 3D Lens-In-A-Cap for my Pentax K1000, but I

think it would be very crappy. Has anyone ever used one of these things? Here is

the link http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/lor-lick.html

 

Thanks

[mike_earussi1]

I started out with a stereo slide bar and made a lot of good pictures. It's certainty the easiest and cheapest way to start. Eventually though, I went to two cameras on a two foot long bar, as this gives you much more control regarding stereo separation, and it does enable you to shoot moving objects or people. Using a 3D camera with a fixed separation distance, usually around 2.5", severely limits your ability to control the 3D effect as 2.5" is optimised for around 25', but anything much beyond that starts looking flatter. And at longer distances of 100's of feet to infinity there's no 3D effect at all unless you can control the camera separation distances. The longest separation I ever used was around 100' photographing the Columbia Gorge, and the mountains stand out in 3D quite dramatically.

[randall ellis]

I started out with the Kodak Stereo 35, and really liked it, but I now use a Stereo Realist 3.5. The Realist has a sturdier build in my opinion, and offers a bit more flexibility as far as shutter speeds and accessories, but either on is a very good choice for starting out. As with any older camera, you may have to have the shutter cleaned if the slower speeds are off.

<BR><BR>

As for the Lens-in-a-cap, I have one and it works well, but I find that a true stereo camera works best for what I do. The quality is not as bad as it might appear at first though. you can see some examples on my page <A href="http://home.redisonellis.com/stereographs.htm">here</A> of both the lens-in-a-cap and Kodak and Realist stereo cameras.

<BR><BR>

The biggest problem with a slide bar is that you cannot photograph moving object (which includes clouds in the background). The upside is that they offer a virtually infinite stereo base, meaning that you can photograph things in extreme macro or very, very distant objects and be able to adjust the stereo effect accordingly.

<BR><BR>

There are some good stereo groups out there (Film3d and photo_3d on Yahoo! groups) as well as a stereo division of the PSA. Another good group is the NSA (National Stereoscopic Association).

<BR><BR>

Hope that helps a bit...

<BR><BR>

- Randy

[ken_jeanette1]

The stereo camera is the easiest, as most have said. Just about any of the 50s stereo cameras will take a decent pair. The loreo stuff isn't that good. Look at a site called Callipygian.com. They have a free program for making stereo images, anaglyph or stereo pair from digital images, in which case you might want to try your hand with a slide bar, or the left foot/right foot method. hold camera firmly in taking position, lean all your weight to your left foot. Holding as steady as you can, shift to your right foot, and snap second image. With some practice, you can get a decent stereo pair in not too long a time.

[Uncle Goose]

Yep, the left/right foot methode is actually used a lot by spies who had to photograph important buildings (they used the stereo's to predict how the inside of the buildings would look).

[vaantique]

If your looking for an inexpensive option buy two old brownie hawkeye cameras (120 film) and rig up a board to hold them on. The contact prints from the 120 negative are the perfect size for old stereo viewers and crosseyed viewing. This is my setup and I recently developed my first rolls and got remarkable results. I'll try to photograph my setup and scan in the prints so you can see the results.

[kathryn_abercrombie]

Thanks for all of your responses. I have a friend who is going to lend me her Realist. I am excited to try it out.

[a._t._burke]

The Kodak is the easiest to use for a first true stereo camera. The shutter cocks when the film is would. There is a spirit level on board. Trying to find one with the shutters having the correct exposure time is the trick. 1 out of 5 to 1 out 10 is about the ratio for Kodak Stereos bought of the auction site with shutters in reasonable shape (speeds within 25% of their marked speeds). Be sure to tension the film plate in the backing so that both sides are tight against the film plane. They get off and one side will be out of focus. The lenses are above average for resolution. You will need a cutter, mounts and a viewer also.

 

Yes, the Stereo Realist is the better built camera but more trouble to use. The harder to find and more expensive Realist unit having the F:2.8 lenses is truly superior the the Kodak in resolution. The F:3.5 lenses just a tad better than the Kodak. You will not see any difference between either Realist or the Kodak when using the viewers. You can tell a small difference if you enlarge 10x or project with a sharp projector lens.

 

Tom

 

P.S. Not all models/makes of viewers or their lenses are equal either.

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

I have been trying to shoot stereo slides with a double camera setup. An important aspect to me is the quality of the images, so I only tried with the better objectives / cameras. Therefore, the cameras were mounted on an aluminium bar, 225 x 25 x 7 mm, with threaded holes at the centre (for mounting on a tripod) and two at its both ends with 15 mm distance in-between. So, the cameras could be mounted with distances of 145, 160 or 175 mm.

 

The cameras I tried were synchronized electronically. The 'master' camera connected to the X-contact and the slave to the release contact. I have tried different cameras. Here are my experiences:

 

-Two Leica's R7 with a 35-70 mm zoom. The cameras were mounted on a motor drive with distance of 175 mm to allow film loading and changing batteries of the motordrive. Synchronization worked quite well up to 1/60 s. At higher shutter speeds the X-contact is closed too short in order to trigger the slave camera. I also tried to connect the release cable to the release button of the motordrive of the master instead of the X-contact. This worked better for all shutterspeeds, but often the electronics failed resulting into a missing stereo pair or the slave camera continued on firing until the film was finished or the motor was shut off by pulling out the manual transport handle. At exposure times longer than 0.5 s the slave camera will have to be activated by pressing its release button half way. When after some time the meter shuts off, the slave camera will not work.

I left this setup as it seemed to be unreliable and gave many missing stereo pairs. Besides, this combination is a heavy load and not a pleasure to take when hiking in mountains or sightseeing towns.

 

-Two Contax G2 with 45 mm objectives. The cameras are mounted with distance of 160 mm. This allows all handling, including film loading, (except changing batteries). Synchronization works very well at all shutter speeds (up to 1/6000 s!). The slave camera will have to be activated before shooting as well. As this camera has autofocus that will be activated just before the shutter goes off, there is quite some delay between master and slave (about 0.5 s). This delay is reduced to about 0.1 s by first pointing the slave camera and activating its autofocus and autoexposure (by pressing AND holding its release button halfway) and than pointing and releasing the master camera. This also gives an optimum control of focussing and exposure time for both cameras. The delay between the firing of both cameras is acceptable when photographing an object which is not moving too fast. With this setup I did not miss any photos: the electroncs work fine. Its weight is acceptable and the setup is easy to work with. I think this is a good way to go for getting high-quality 35 mm stereo slides. I am considering a pair of 28 mm (and maybe later also 35 mm) objectives as the 45 mm are slightly too long under many circumstances.

 

-Two Rolleiflex 6008i systems mounted with an 80 mm objective. Syncronization works very well at all shutter speeds if the mirror of the slave camera has been locked up shortly before exposure. (Which you should do anyway for both cameras to get sharp photos.) This setup allows to mount the cameras at only (surprise!) 145 mm from each other when the lateral grip of the left (slave) camera is removed. The use is surprisingly uncomplicated with this setup. I don't have used this combination much yet, but it looks very promising if you don't have to carry it with you all the day. Though this setup is slightly heavier than the Leica R7, you get astonishing MF 6x6 stereo pairs.

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

What I forgot to tell is how I started with a cheaper setup some years ago. My first attempt was with a pair of Olympus OM2n cameras that were mounted on a winder-2. Both winders were connected electrically (the winder has a simple 3 mm 2-pole female contact aside the release button). Trigerring went excellent and the slave camera did not have to be activated or so. Just adjusting exposure time / diaphragm and focussing. Sometimes the line was connected too loose resulting into spontanic firing of both cameras. After renewing the connectors, the problem was solved. I mainly left this setup as the cameras grew old and I preferred better optics. This might be a good, cheaper suggestion, especially as these cameras are now available for reasonable prices at the second hand market.