gjg@druxm.UUCP (12/12/83)
I have owned a Bell & Howell slide cube projector with zoom and autofocus for ten years or so. I have had no problems with it. I think it is probably the only practical projector for the serious photographer. I would not be surprized if the Kodak Carousels or Leitz projectors were better optically, although I've never seen a side by side comparison. But, serious photographers who are interested in sharpness, etc., also often have many thousands of slides, as I do. It is simply not practical (or economical) to store thousands of slides in Carousel trays, even in a large house. The other alternative of using the Carousel stack loader simply does not offer the slides adequate storage protection. Speaking of storage protection, I used to have a Sawyers with rototrays. During this period, I lost some slides because of fungus problems, I believe because air could circulate around the slides. Since I have used the Bell and Howell slide cubes I've had no more problems. Several of my friends and relatives have had problems with their Slide Cube projectors. In every case, the preview viewing screen was loose, allowing air from the fan to lift up the slide and cause the projector to jam. A little judiciously placed glue will solve this problem, without disassembling the projector. The only persistent problem is that the B & H will not reliably handle slides with crumpled mounts, but I don't know if the Kodaks will either. Gary Grimes AT&T Information Systems 303-538-4253 (Denver)
knudsen@ihnss.UUCP (12/12/83)
I already posted a favorable article on the Kodack Carousels, but now that someone else mentions it, the fact is that the Kodak lenses in these machines aren't all that hot. On mine I've noticed that you can focus the center of the slide, or focus the edges sharply -- take your pick. Nice to know that Leitz retrofit lenses may be available--after what I've spent on camera gear lately, maybe should treat the projector to something good--mike k.
porter@inuxd.UUCP (J Porter) (12/13/83)
Since everyone seems to be knocking Kodak Lenses, let me give you the straight poop on them. I sent mail to the original requestor, but for the rest of you here goes. A few years ago, I used to work for Kodak (KAD Hawkeye Works for those of you in the know), and I revamped the machine that tests all of Kodak's Carosel Lenses. The bad PR on Kodak's lenses is coming from "Curve field zoom lens owners". Compared to their other lenses, this one really sucks; however, this is the big runner. If you want a good lens, get a fixed focal length lens - they make two sizes. The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) of the fixed focal length lenses is great! (ie: the ability of the lens to resolve things in the corners (radially and tangentially) is the same as in the center, and the corners are in focus at the same time the center is.) The zoom lens however, has problem in getting the edges in focus, at the same time the center is. It is a much more complicated lens to design and manufacture. The same is true for zooms on your SLR. You are going to get a better picture from a fixed focal length lens. Now what about this "curved field stuff"? Well, everyone knows that slide will "buckel" from the heat of the light. Kodak had statistically studied the buckeling of slides and has compensated for this in their lens design. (ie: the film is curved, so lens was designed for a curved focal plane, so that the edges and center would be in focus at the same time.) For all you hard core slide enthusiasts that don't believe in buckeling film, Kodak still makes the old reliable flat field lenses, just like everyone else. Again the zoom model is not as good as the fixed focal length lenses. I can bet that most people show their slides in the very same location everytime, and really don't need the zoom feature. Unless you regularily have to adapt to different projector to screen distances, don't get the zoom. Stick with a fixed focal length, curved field lens, you'll be amazed at the difference. Jeff Porter (inuxd!porter) AT&T Consumer Products Indianapolis
smith@umn-cs.UUCP (12/15/83)
#R:druxm:-73000:umn-cs:9000012:000:562 umn-cs!smith Dec 14 13:38:00 1983 Re: Problem with Sawyer's circular trays Aside from the problem I mentioned previously (they don't fit Carousel projectors that every AV department has) they DO have a mechanical problem compared to Carousels. The Sawyer trays use little springs to hold the slides in place. If the springs loosen enough (or you push a slide 'just right') slides can fall out of the trays. Not so with Carousel trays which have a retaining ring that clamps the slides in place. In practice, though, I've had almost no trouble with slides falling out of my trays... Rick.
len10@ihuxw.UUCP (L. C. Dombrowski) (09/05/84)
Last winter there was a discussion on this net regarding
slide projectors. I remember some glowing comments on a
Leica 300RT. I want to upgrade from my Sawyer which tends
to nick cardboard slides, gives mediocre image sharpness at
the edges of the projection, and frequently jams slides from
the stack loader.
My questions are:
1. Does the 300RT have autofocus?
2. Is it compatible with Kodak slide trays and the Kodak
stack loader?
3. How does it compare to the Kodak Carousel for image
sharpness, image brightness, and quiteness of opera-
tion?
4. Is it worth the extra $200 over the Carousel?
Thanks in advance.ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (09/07/84)
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!