Bolo, Well put. One thing to always consider is whether the shots that you couldn't/didn't capture with the 67 - would they really be that good on 35mm. For me what happens is that I think of the end result. 67 negs are sooooo much better that I find myself wanting to shoot with it rather than 35mm. As you have said, there are cases where 35 is really the way to go, I just work hard to make 67 the choice as much as possible.
Bruce Wednesday, May 01, 2002, 11:29:44 AM, you wrote: >> > [ Bolo mentions that he is using 35mm on his trip ] B> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> I have always found the plain matte better for focusing even on 35mm. >> But I'll go one step further than you, now with the 67II, I'm pretty >> much ignoring my 35mm gear altogether. It is now used when I want a >> snapshot or really fast focus or some such. B> I was thinking hard of taking the 67 with me, but it came down to B> selection of lenses. I don't have the choice of glass available B> in 67 that I do in 35mm. A macro lens, extension tubes, a shift B> lens, nor a really long lens or a really wide lens. I was planning B> on using most of that glass, so the 67 didn't make the cut, as much B> as I wanted to take it. B> The 67 has some other lens considerations too -- for example, using B> long glass. I often shoot (w/ 35mm) @ 400mm, (200 + 2x) and think B> about a dedicated 300 or 400 to get out to 600 or 800. And/or a B> faster 200 to make the 400 more usable. 67 Lenses of comparable field B> of view are big, heavy, and even more expensive than the 35mm gear. B> Fast glass is also a problem in 67. Admittedly the increase in negative B> size can make up for the larger grain size of a faster emulsion B> somewhat. However, sometimes you just run out of light for what you want B> to do. B> There are also some styles, subjects or events that the 67 doesn't work B> well with. Shutter speed considerations and motor drive availability B> are on example which can make the difference in some venues. Another B> factor is the availability of additional exposures per roll so you B> can change film less. Car races are one example; Candids in a fluid B> situation are another. And of course, if you want to experiment B> with a subject and try many different things, 35mm allows you to do B> it with a more reasonable cost. You spend less time changing film, B> and more time experimenting. B> Of course there are many subjects which the 67 is suited for, or which B> there is no downside to. And, I have to admit, I do enjoy shooting B> with it. I load up the 67ii for things (usually slower paced) which B> I think it will be good for. I drag the 35mm around for when I want B> to do a variety of things, or will be in a fast-changing situation. B> I've tried the 67 in some moderate-paced scenarios, and have missed B> photographs that I wish I hadn't. At the same time, I've found B> the occasional slower paced time in those faster moving scenarios, B> and was able to use the 67ii to good advantage in those moments. B> At least, that is how it works out for me at the moment. B> Bolo -- Josef T. Burger B> - B> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, B> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to B> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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 .
