 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hot Shoe
editThe old style hot shoe with the raised bump, was standard for that era and most of the 1950s era stereo cameras came equipped with it. See the article about the Stereo Realist, for example, which came out in 1947, 7 years before the Kodak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Elson (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Tone of article
editThe article seems like an enthusiast's or blog review of the historical camera, rather than an encyclopedia article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You like this version better? John Elson (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Popularity
editIt should be noted that the popularity of the Kodak camera is not a matter of opinion or speculation, it is a historical fact. 100,000 Kodak Stereo cameras sold over a period of 5 years, vs 130,000 Realists over a period of 24 years. It is not unreasonable, then, to think that if it had been introduced during the height of the stereo photography fad rather than on the down slide, it might have eclipsed the all time sales of the Realist by a considerable margin.
The fact that the Kodak was cheaper and easier to use, and made by Kodak, does not make it a better camera. After all, it lacked a range finder and at least some models of the Realist had better lenses. Having used both, and the Realist 45, I would choose the Realist 45 in most situations, though a range finder would come in handy sometimes (though not as often as you might think, given the small f stops used with today's film). The Rewind crank sported by the Kodak would make a nice addition to the standard Realist, as would the self cocking shutter.
Price, brand recognition and ease of use aren't everything, but the stereo photography market, what was left of it from the end of 1954 to 1959 anyway, definitely seemed to favor these characteristics of the Kodak Stereo camera over the alleged higher quality of the Realist. John Elson (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
inexplicable Template
editThe template the was placed on this article is truly bizarre. The user's manual is cited for simple facts such as shutter speed, F stops, etc. There could not be better source for this information and for a camera which has not been manufactured for 56 years it might be difficult to find another source which would be verifiable. Also, it is talking about simple facts, not opinions or even relative merits, so neutrality is a complete non sequitur. The other source cited is a third party publication published decades after production ceased which has no connection to Kodak whatsoever. Furthermore, this template was inserted without discussion either before or after the insertion and no effort has been made to justify it since then. Accordingly, it will be deleted. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Image size?
editWhat are the dimensions of each image on the film (i. e. one of the two stereoscopic images on the film roll). Height must be 24 mm I presume? Maikel (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- 23 mm wide, 24 mm high, am I correct? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Kodak 335
editA Kodak type 335 film (cartridge) for a stereoscopic Kodak camera is often mentioned in literature, could you please enlighten me on this issue? Was it used for the Kodak Stereo Camera? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)