----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:23 PM Subject: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Pål Jensen wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > > I'm still on the hunt for a Medium Format setup. I > > > would like to hear suggestions from the group. Which > > > format is best-645, 67? > > > > Best? Well, the 6X7 yields larger negative/positive. Thats the extents > > of it's plusses. > > Not true. Besides, the whole point of moving up to MedF is to get larger > negs. Huh? Isn't true that 6X7 yields a larger negative? I'll be damned..... > > > The 645 is smaller and lighter. > > As is 35mm. ..and what has that to do with it? This was question about differences between MF systems > > > Has more features, more automation like motor drive. > > So does 35mm. So what? > > > And don't forget the DOF issue. For the same image you get less DOF > > with larger format. If you like to shoot those landscapes where > > everything from you toes to infinity is in focus you may run into > > problems with larger formats. > > Or even with the 645. ...and? Did say anything else? > > > >What about 6x6 (I don't think > > > Pentax makes one, but they're probably the least > > > expensive to start with). > > > > They are a waste of space... > > So much for Hasselblad, eh? > > > > But, in terms of Pentax, > > > which format do you prefer and why? Is one better > > > than the other? > > > > I pefer the 645 because I can carry it up mountain tops. > > I prefer the 67 because it takes a better picture. > > Geez, Paal, why so dismissive of things you don't like? What did I dismiss except for 6X6? Are you having a bad day? Pål
