marisa mack writes: > I'd like for the > camera that I get to operate as close to 35mm as possible, for > comfort and convenience reasons (carting it around downtown, etc.)
Well the Pentax 67 resembles a 35mm in its basic handling except for its size. It is known throughout the industry as a "K1000 on steroids". A 645 would be more comfortable for carrying due to its compactness. The 67 is very uncomfortable to carry unless you use a strap or the wooden grip. Lenses for the 67 are bigger and heavier although a couple of days ago I realised that the 45mm lens for my 67 feels lighter than my FA*24/2 for 35mm. > I currently have absolutely no automatic functionality, though > I'd be interested in using it if it were available (primarily > autofocus, possibly flash on rare occasions) but this is not at > all a requirement. The 645n has quite a bit of automation (I have no idea about older models). The old 67 has none, unless you buy a metered viewfinder :) The newer 67II has TTL flash support but not AF. > I'm feeling > a little bit overwhelmed and would love to understand why those > that have the 67 chose it over the 645 and vice-versa, unless > it's purely a preference with regard to negative size, ack! I chose 67 for the sheer size of the neg. A mounted 6x7 slide is a joy to behold :) However, I mainly shoot landscapes so handling is secondary to my requirements. In fact, I'd probably shoot 4x5 if sheet film wasn't so darned expensive down here. You might want to wander down to the camera shop and try handling a 67II and a 645n to see which you prefer. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
