Yeah. When I looked at the 645N and the 67 at PDML UK, I thought the 67 would be a tad fiddly to change films in the field at times and under certain conditions, but having a couple of preloaded inserts for the 645 would be fine to get around that.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 August 2002 16:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera? > > > Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The battle in the MF market is of course important, but > unless Pentax > >> introduces interchangeable backs for the 645 and 67, it > will not be > >> able to win the battle with Contax and Mamiya. This is of > course but > >> a personal point of view:) > > > >But Pentax never wanted to. It's obvious that Pentax found a medium > >format niche; > >the MF camera that operates as a 35mm slr. They have stayed > at that niche ever since. > > When I first contemplated going into medium format, my > concern with the Pentax 645 was the lack of interchangable > backs. Now, not only do I *not* miss having interchangable > backs on my 645, I've come to view it as one of the most > overrated and unnecessary features of medium format cameras. > > -- > Mark Roberts > www.robertstech.com > - > 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 . - 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 .
