David Bliss wrote: >I like the larger negative area of the Pentax 67 -- after all, isn't >neg area the name of the game? But I HATE the look of the >camera.
You won't be able to see it when your eye's at the viewfinder ;-) >It sounds like it requires a tripod bigger than God and MLU for >every shot. Pretty much. SOme people report success with hand-holding, but I wouldn't if I were going to make critically-shatp, big enlargements (and isn't that the major reason for going to MF?) >Flash sync sucks at only 1/30. You can get leaf shutter lenses for both the 67 and 645. > No hotshoe for my level. >Pluses: waist-level finder (apparently not a great one). > > >645: less neg., fixed prism -- no WL finder > >looks more like a hassy :) >data imprinting (a must) >less need for mlu/tripods/etc >focus confirm on manual lenses >uses 67 lenses >Maybe a 645D in the future -- yeah right. > >So: > >Which should I get? Is the cost in image size worth all the other >benefits of the 645? You'd have to be making *really* huge enlargements to see any difference due to the negative size, IMO. This shouldn't be a major consideration. >Or should i skip MF and go straight to a 4x5 view camera? They're really different animals, I think. (Get both!) Seriously, I love my Pentax 645. You can get one quite inexpensively. And if the 645D does appear (and it looks like it's likely), all your 645 lenses will instantly double in value! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
