Real of 3d? in 3d ist offcourse simple as hell rendeor out a a orthographic view. EReal ias another thing.
No real camera i know of can do the feat. Simply becasue that woudl require a system thats very very hard to build. (well the cell would have to bo of the same size as the subject, a huge array or then the subjects would need tp be veeeery still)
You can come close tough by using a telephoto lesne for very far away. Usualy id say 10-40 meters id faar enough but ive used images wich were captured with slightly better optics tahn your avarage camera is form 100 meters away wich are for all intentsa purposes all allmost ortograpphc (at 50 meters the deefect is about 2 degrees and at 100 meters makes a angular deefect of about one degre, every doubling in meters after that about halves the defect, the change is very slow tough so beyond 1 degree it becomes unpractical to go furteher)
Also its possible to correct ths with soem 3d progs, but ista bit tedious and not realy normal tachnology yet vecause it takes a bit work to do, wich the disnace does better anyway.
Note even 20 meters is much better than the normal close shoty camera wich has a angular deefect of about 30-20 angles. Tough its totaly possible to use orghographic cameras as reference. As they do in the ultrarealistic modelling dvd.
On the otherhand a satalite picture is to all intent as close to orthoghaphic a cameras become.