Just a short comment on your mentioning of print sizes with the 645/n
We sell 16 x 20s regularly, 20 x 24 & 24 x 30 quite often and for the
right person....30 x 40 from these cameras without any hesitation or
problem whatsoever...Just wanted others to know that "an occasional 16 x
20" is not a restriction of the format.
Larry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <<<Hi team,
> I'm seriously considering going to medium format. I
> was thinking about the 645 because it handles like a
> 35mm and produce big 6x4.5 negs. Could some of you
> comment on the differences of 645 and 645N as well the
> advantages/disadvantages of the system over 35mm,
> besides the larger negative?
> Thanks,
> Herbet.>>>
>
> To put it simply, as did you, the larger negative. This allows you to get
> 11x14s with ease as well as the occassional 16x20 (as opposed to the 8x10
> with ease and the occassional 11x14 that I get with 35mm). To go along with
> the larger negative, you get more weight. My P645 backpack with 6 lens weighs
> 22 lbs (along with all accessories, film, etc). My Olympus 7 lens system with
> 2 bodies fits into a fanny pack. So portatability is a big distinction.
>
> To me the main distinctions between the 645N which I don't have, aside from
> autofocus, and the MF P645 is the spotmeter and data imprinting. The AF
> versions of the 120 macro, 150 (3.5 or 2.8), and 200.4 may be sharper than
> their manual counterparts.
>
> Warren
>
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
>http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
> Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
