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 so 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 .
