disc@homxb.UUCP (Scott J. Berry) (02/25/85)
Hi there! I'm beginning to look around at slide projectors (at long last), and am seeking advice on which kind to buy. The Kodak Carousel seems the most popular, and replacement "trays" will surely be available indefinately. However, the (Bell & Howell?) slide cube system seems more economical from a storage point of view, as well as being easier to load and handle. Can anybody recommend either one over the other? Is the slide delivery system better for one than the other? What about reliability considerations? Are prices competitive for comparably equipped models? Thanks in advance, Scott J. Berry ...!homxb!disc
hqb@gatech.UUCP (hqb) (02/27/85)
>.... > I'm beginning to look around at slide projectors (at long last), > and am seeking advice on which kind to buy..... > OK, I'll throw in my 2 cent's worth. I use the Bell&Howell, precisely because of the storage advantage. It works fine, feeds nicely, seems sharp enough to my nearsighted eyes, and I'm well satisfied with it. However, there *are* shortcomings you should be aware of -- they may or may not affect your decision. The Bell&Howell projectors lack some of the Kodak niceties, to wit: 1. There is nowhere near the lens selection available for them. Basically, you can get a fixed focal length or a zoom -- no other choices. I use the zoom & like it, but if you have some particular focal length requirements (or aperture requirements), the B&H offerings may not be suitable. 2. There is no provision for external control of the projector. There is a *basic* (slide advance & recall) remote control, but it's hardwired into the projector, and doesn't have the focus adjustments of the Kodak. This means you can't put dissolve units, etc. on the B&H (without hacking it yourself). 3. The B&H can only back up *one* slide, unlike the Kodak, which can back up indefinitely. This can be a killing disadvantage for presentation work -- I just use mine at home & could care less. In summary, if you need or want the AV features -- you'd better look at the Kodak offerings. If you just want it for home use, either will probably do nicely. Happy shopping! Henry Bibb -- Henry Bibb School of Information & Computer Science, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: hqb @ GATech ARPA: hqb.GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!hqb
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (02/28/85)
In article <528@homxb.UUCP> disc@homxb.UUCP (Scott J. Berry) writes: >I'm beginning to look around at slide projectors (at long last), >and am seeking advice on which kind to buy. A friend of mnine recently bought a Zeiss projector. I've played around with it a bit, and it looks like a very nice, solid projector with a VERY sharp picture. Not many gimmicks (it does have remote control) but very solid operating feel. It cost about $250 CDN which is on par with the El Cheapo Carousels. The projector uses 'normal' trays which take a lot less space than the round ones. If necessary, I can ask him for the model number and specs etc. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (02/28/85)
This was discussed on the net about a year ago. The consensus seemed to be
that the best projector was one of the Leitz RT-300 models (one is a
heavy-duty audio-visual type denoted -AV). Features are similar to top
Kodak models (and use same trays), and price not much more. But the
Leitz/Leica optics noticably better than anything else.
At times, the Bell and Howells have problems with jamming --they are not
very tolerant of beat up slides.
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPAsmith@umn-cs.UUCP (02/28/85)
I went through slide-projector buying several years ago, and here's what I found out both at the time and after some time to consider my decision. 1. I have heard from several sources that the Slide Cube projectors tend to jam up alot. I think a news article some time back said that the slides get heated up in the projector, warp, and get jammed deep in the innards. Even years ago I was warned against Slide Cubes. Too bad, because they really do provide a fine and flexible way to store lots of slides. 2. I bought a Sawyers (same as Sears and other off-brands) which worked pretty well and took several sizes of slide trays. It was a servicable projector that did the job. The only trouble I had was with the stack loader, which would jam after being used on 3 or 4 boxes of slides. Occasionally a slide would get folded while being unjammed. 3. For me, though, the WORST THING about the Sawyers is that NOBODY ELSE uses them. Whenever I put together slide shows I'd have to bring my own projector. So I finally traded my Sawyers for the industry standard - a Carousel. Just about every place that shows slides uses Carousel-compatible projectors. And the stack loader has never shredded one of my slides. Rick.
carls@ISM780.UUCP (03/01/85)
I think the way to go is with a Carousel projector and a Stack
Loader. The stack loader fits where the tray normally does and
holds about 40 slides at a time. The major disadvantage is not
being able to go backwards conveniently.
I keep my slides in cases that each hold about 600 slides in
about 2/3 the volume of a carousel box. The case is divided up
into 30 sections and each section holds about 20 slides. There
is provision in the lid of the case for identifing each section,
so particular slide groups are easy to locate. Last time I
bought cases they were about $8 each.
With the cases and stack loader, I get compact storage, and fast
access to any group of slides. If I ever want to put together a
formal slide show, the carousel option is always available.
-- Carl Switzky, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.fritz@hpfclp.UUCP (fritz) (03/10/85)
Here's some recommendations for the Leitz slide projectors which I saved a while ago. (Apologies to the posters for re-posting without permission.) No, I don't own one, but likely will in the future. Gary Fritz Hewlett Packard Ft Collins, CO ihnp4!hpfcla!fritz /***** hpfclk:net.rec.photo / rabbit!ark / 10:46 pm Sep 6, 1984*/ Answers to questions about the Leitz RT-300 projector: 1. Does it have autofocus? Yes. 2. Is it compatible with Kodak slide trays and the Kodak stack loader? Yes. Lenses too, mostly. 3. How does it compare to the Kodak Carousel for image sharpness, image brightness, and quietness of operation? Noise level is about the same. The difference in brightness and sharpness is immediately apparent to the most casual observer. It's so bright, it looks like it should burn a hole through the screen, not to mention your slides, but it doesn't. In fact, a review I read says that it is unusally gentle to slides, heat-wise. 4. Is it worth the extra $200 over the Carousel. Yes, except that the difference is MUCH less than $200. For instance, the September 1984 issue of Modern Photography has an ad from Olden Camera offering the Leitz projector for $349. (This is the new model that will synch to audio-visual doodads; I expect you can find the older one for less). Kodak projectors are offered in the same ad for $104 to $279. It is probably most reasonable to compare the Leitz with the $279 model, for a difference of $50. I don't know exactly what features the Kodaks have, but I'll bet the difference between the Leitz and the cheapest Kodak with autofocus, remote control, and timer (all of which the Leitz has) is still well under $200. I would pay $500 for the Leitz projector (if I couldn't get it for less). I have compared the Leitz with a top-of-the-line Kodak, side by side, on the same slides. They were simply not in the same league. Then, just for fun, I swapped lenses. The result was a dramatic improvement in the Kodak's image and a dramatic deterioration in the Leitz's image, but the Leitz projector with the Kodak lens was still better than the Kodak projector with the Leitz lens! /* ---------- */ /***** hpfclk:net.rec.photo / rabbit!jj / 8:01 am Sep 6, 1984*/ I have to second the comments on the Leitz slide projector. The combination of greatly superior optics and the use of dichroic mirrors for heat control lead to a projector that is 1) Much sharper 2) Much easier on slides, as far as heat 3) Much brighter, while maintaining 2) I think that it's unfair to compare the price of the Leitz with anything other than the highest models of Kodak, because the physical construction, features, and optics are all superior. My Leitz, in fact, is the only projector I've ever been able to use a Kodak stack loader on with success. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SOFT AND CUDDLY. TRY ONE YOURSELF! "Maybe I've been hoping too hard, ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj /* ---------- */
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (03/12/85)
> > I went through slide-projector buying several years ago, and here's what > I found out both at the time and after some time to consider my decision. > and so on.... A couple of years ago I bought a Rollei projector for about $65, and it has given me good service ever since. This is a European-standard model, with straight trays that hold 36 or 50 slides. It does not have any of the bells and whistles that some Kodaks do, but it does have (sometimes erratic) auto focusing. It's been quite adequate for casual travel slides. In fact I was so pleased with it that I recommended it to my sister, who bought a similar model without the Autofocus, which actually turns out to be better. I believe the prices were so low because Rollei America went out of business, but I have been able to buy Sylvania replacement bulbs; many NYC stores carry the trays and other accessories. As a simple, cheap projector, I think this is a pretty good buy. The model number is P350. -- ...ihnp4!btlunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!btlunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (03/13/85)
> > > > I went through slide-projector buying several years ago, and here's what > > I found out both at the time and after some time to consider my decision. > > > and so on.... > A couple of years ago I bought a Rollei projector for about $65, and it has > given me good service ever since. ... > ... As a simple, cheap projector, I think this is > a pretty good buy. The model number is P350. > -- > ...ihnp4!btlunix!rajeev -- usenet I bought one of these projectors about 5 years ago. I really like it - it jams less often than my SO's Kodak carousel and I believe that the trays are a lot cheaper than the Kodak 140's (we don't have a problem with these as others seem to have). It has more features than my SO's Kodak, and cost (new) about half as much as the Kodak. In addition, when the P350 jams, it is a lot easier to unjam than the carousel. In fact, since my SO and I are splicing households, we have decided to sell the P350. This may sound to be a contradiction, but the Kodak is handier now that we have bought one of those tray-less feed gizmos (it jams frequently, but is trivial to unjam) for the Kodak, and that the Kodak is more standard. So, for anyone in the Toronto area: 1 P350 for sale in factory box along with 12 50-slide trays. Includes cable remote slide advance/backup and autofocus. All in perfect condition. (along with my signature, this is my home phone: (416)-493-6968) -- Chris Lewis, Motorola New Enterprises SNail: 560 Dennison, Unit 9, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L3R 2M8 UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321