1. There is no answer to this question except the answer you come to yourself based on
your own experience. It is like
asking whether chocolate or vanilla milk shakes are better tasting . . . But I'll
offer a few answers anyway.
2. Read the MF article in the Feb Peterson Photographic. A good summary of pros and
cons.
3. I like the 645 because of its simplicity. It is more like an advanced ME Super or a
limited LX than it is like the
PZ-1p. So, as with the ME-Super or the LX I don't spend time fiddling with the
gadgetry, but rather I get on with picture
taking.
4. The lens choices are much more limited with the 645. OK by me, but may be an issue
for you. I personally just don't
much care for zooms and am happy with a few good primes. For the 645 I have the 45mm,
75mm, 120mm macro, 150mm, and 300mm.
On any given day I might carry two or three of these. It makes for a full load, but
not unmanagable.
5. The bulkiness of the 645 can be a problem. My wife was recently sworn in as a
representative in our legislature.
(Missouri) I was standing in the gallery on the side taking pictures. I left the 645
in the bag, instead used two LX (so
I didn't have to change lenses), one with a 24mm lens, the other with a 100mm lens.
Using the 645 would have just been too
hard in the midst of the crowd, even if I had stuck with one focal length . . .When I
went back down this weekend for the
Governor's inaugral I left the 645 and LX home, took my PZ-1p instead. Hadn't used it
since 4th of July. Different
situations call for different solutions . . .
6. Film choices are a bit more limited with the 645. In my first example above, I used
Kodak Gold 1000 which gave adequate
results, but was still too slow. With the 645 and its slower lenses, would have
definitiely needed a faster film, and I
don't know of one.
7. The 645 is addictive. Even at 8x10, and definitely larger, the quality difference
just jumps out at you.
8. I went through my collection of "best recent photos" (back about 2 years) with my
wife to select out ones to print to
hang in her new office. Mostly she choose wildflower macros. About 80% were 645 even
though I have 3 or 4 times as many
35mm negatives from this period. Some of the preference is due to the larger film
itself, some is due to the fact that I
tend to be more deliberate with the 645 and have a higher precentage of
printable/displayable shots.
9. I have no experience with the 645n. As a terrible note-taker, I like the notion of
data imprinting, but as a cheapskate
I like the idea of buying used 645 equipment rather than paying two or three times as
much for new 645n bodies and lenses.
10. Try either one, you'll like it. If I had to sell most of my gear and was able to
hold onto only one camera body and
one lens, I would go with the 645 and the 120mm macro. But then I would probably
start trying to buy another lens (the
45mm), and then maybe a 35mm body and the 85mm f1.8. . . and I would go on from
there. I just can't see how I could
limit myself to just one format. If I really really had to choose, 645 would win, but
35mm does have huge advantages for
certain situations.
Stan Halpin
[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.
