Bruce Dayton wrote: > After having experienced 67 compared to 35mm, I can clearly vouch for > the quality difference that you talk about. My 35mm gear is almost > never being used anymore.
I still use 35mm when I need the compact size, lighter weight and wider variety of lenses. Oh and auto focus :) I am starting to covet the 67II because it supports centre-weighted metering and aperture priority... I'm finding the old 67 TTL prism to be "difficult" in scenes which aren't evenly lit. Yesterday I had to resort to guessing exposure for one photo. then William Robb wrote: > I would like to make a few addendums. > I was not harsh enough towards 35mm. > I didn't mention large format. > > A 4x5 transperency is like looking through a window. So is 35mm, but the window is a bit smaller ;) I'd love to try 4x5 but its not economical for me in this country. When I worked out the dollars per square inch of film it was a lot worse than 6x7 (which is 50% cheaper than 35mm on that basis). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
