Bolo wrote:
>I think the 645 is of interest to 67 shooters. If you have the 67
>to 645 adapter, which couples aperture and auto-stop-down, the 645
>makes a great backup body for the 67 system lenses. You add the
>ability to make quick film changes, more exposures per roll, poser
>film advanc
Thanks. Having had no exposure to either series, I was curious as to why one
would select one over the other.
Otis
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 11:46 AM, Otis Wright, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Now that you mention it. What requirements are served by the 645 family
> > better
On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 11:46 AM, Otis Wright, Jr. wrote:
> Now that you mention it. What requirements are served by the 645 family
> better
> than the 6x7 family and vice versa..?
Well, the 67 is better when you need or want a bigger negative, or when
you require different fi
This would appear to be the perfect landscape setup--similar in size and
weight to a 35mm setup, great zoom range, and oh, that big chrome!
I'm envious
--Mark
-Pål wrote-
The new 500g zoom lenses, the 33-55/4.5 and the 55-110/5.6, take the 645
system and medium format phot
Now that you mention it. What requirements are served by the 645 family better
than the 6x7 family and vice versa..?
Otis
Bill Owens wrote:
> All this malarkey about 6x7 makes us 645(n)(nII) owners feel like forgotten
> stepchildren :-(
>
> Bill KG4LOV
> [EMAIL PROTEC
Aaron wrote:
>The 645 is, I must admit, more flexible than my beloved 67.
The new 500g zoom lenses, the 33-55/4.5 and the 55-110/5.6, take the 645
system and medium format photography into a totally new territory.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go t
6 matches
Mail list logo
