Hello,
I am new to this group although I am not at all new to stereo. As a 35mm
shooter I've been thinking of going the extra step to MF for a long time.

I am considering pairing two Flexarets (legendary Czechoslovak TLRs).
They are excellent cameras and are pretty plentiful here, there is no
problem getting a decent pair. Another option would be to get a Sputnik
and tune it up, there is currently one for sale for about 220 USD for
example.

I wonder whether the extra labour of searching for a matched pair of
Flexarets, modifying the bodies to gain natural base, linking the
controlos etc. - and carrying the extra weight of the two robust bodies
during my backpacking trips(!) - was worth getting the optical quality
and shutter reliability in comparison to a tuned Sputnik?

Thanks for your comments,

regards

Matej Bohac
Prague, Czechia

Matej Bohac wrote:

> Hello, I am new to this group although I am not at all new to
> stereo. As a 35mm shooter I've been thinking of going the
> extra step to MF for a long time.
>
> I am considering pairing two Flexarets (legendary Czechoslovak
> TLRs). They are excellent cameras and are pretty plentiful
> here, there is no problem getting a decent pair. Another
> option would be to get a Sputnik and tune it up, there is
> currently one for sale for about 220 USD for example.
>
> I wonder whether the extra labour of searching for a matched
> pair of Flexarets, modifying the bodies to gain natural base,
> linking the controlos etc. - and carrying the extra weight of
> the two robust bodies during my backpacking trips(!) - was
> worth getting the optical quality and shutter reliability in
> comparison to a tuned Sputnik?

I would go for the Sputnik.

You can check with others here, but I suspect you will find
linking the shutters on a pair of Flexarets to be difficult.
_________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska

Matej Bohac wrote:

>
> I wonder whether the extra labour of searching for a matched pair of
> Flexarets, modifying the bodies to gain natural base, linking the
> controlos etc. - and carrying the extra weight of the two robust bodies
> during my backpacking trips(!) - was worth getting the optical quality
> and shutter reliability in comparison to a tuned Sputnik?

After a few LF cha-cha experiments I did my first MF stereo photos
with a pair of Lubitel 166Us on a flash bracket. Eventually I got a
Sputnik, and I have also used a pair of Yashica Mat-124Gs.

Pairing separate cameras allows changing stereo base. I have done a
lot of landscape style stereo pairs where using a hyperfocal distance
was useful.

If the goal is to have a camera with a "natural" stereo base I don't
see the advantage of siamesing separate cameras over a Sputnik or the
3D World camera. When properly tuned and used within its capabilities
a Sputnik can produce very nice stereo pairs. A siamesed camera would
require a lot of work, and I think would be more delicate than a
Sputnik.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

> Matej Bohac wrote:
>I wonder whether the extra labour of searching for a matched pair of
>Flexarets, modifying the bodies to gain natural base, linking the
>controlos etc. - and carrying the extra weight of the two robust
>bodies during my backpacking trips(!) - was worth getting the optical
>quality and shutter reliability in comparison to a tuned Sputnik?

I agree with previous posters that it is very difficult to use a
twinned arrangement to obtain a "natural" base. There is a tremendous
difference between a Sputnik and two TLRs. The Sputnik is lighter
than most single TLRs out there.
Having said that though, the Flexarets look to be well suited to
twinning in that they have their focus knob/lever on the front of the
camera - at least in the examples I've seen. This should in my
opinion make them easier to operate when on a twin bar. I believe
that the eBay seller Cupog handles a fair amount of Flexarets - maybe
he could check the focal length out for you and supply a matched pair.
There are cases where a twinned arrangement is the only way you're
going to obtain depth in a scene. In my case it's around 1 in 10.
The unfortunate thing is that you have to blow two rolls of film in a
twinned arrangement yielding 12 images, while the Sputnik will yield
six images on a single roll. Most stereo photographers look to grab a
foreground object in order to add depth to an otherwise flat scene.
Again, in some cases even this method won't work.

Brian Reynolds wrote:

> When properly tuned and used within its capabilities
> a Sputnik can produce very nice stereo pairs.

My Sputnik worked great out of the box, but then it fell out of sync.
I sent it to Ted Baskin who re-calibrated it and added flocking.
Since then it's been a great performer for me.

Steve Sawyer