David, I still use 35mm also. I'm just finding it rarer than I expected. Certainly AF usage is one issue. Most of the time, compact size isn't that critical. The two other issues are macro (DOF problems) and long telephotos. I don't really do much in the way of macro (tried it, not my cup of tea), so that isn't a real issue. I do have occasion to need a longer lens than I have for the 67. So, yes, it is used, but not much. In fact, I suspect that a new DSLR will eventually replace my 35mm film camera. The reason is that the things I would use 35mm film for can already be handled by a Nikon D100 level camera. So if Pentax releases a decent one, I'll probably bite.
Most of my work is now being done on the 67. I bit the bullet and purchased a 67II because I felt that the extra features (new metering prism, TTL) would be quite useful to me. It functions much like a big LX - except for the low light meter (but it has spot metering). I suppose at some point, I'll have to investigate 4X5 - speed of operation could be an issue there. I can operate my 67II about as fast as my MZ-S except for AF. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 10:30:31 PM, you wrote: DAM> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> After having experienced 67 compared to 35mm, I can clearly vouch for >> the quality difference that you talk about. My 35mm gear is almost >> never being used anymore. DAM> I still use 35mm when I need the compact size, lighter weight and wider DAM> variety of lenses. Oh and auto focus :) DAM> I am starting to covet the 67II because it supports centre-weighted DAM> metering and aperture priority... I'm finding the old 67 TTL prism to be DAM> "difficult" in scenes which aren't evenly lit. Yesterday I had to resort DAM> to guessing exposure for one photo. DAM> then William Robb wrote: >> I would like to make a few addendums. >> I was not harsh enough towards 35mm. >> I didn't mention large format. >> >> A 4x5 transperency is like looking through a window. DAM> So is 35mm, but the window is a bit smaller ;) DAM> I'd love to try 4x5 but its not economical for me in this country. When DAM> I worked out the dollars per square inch of film it was a lot worse than DAM> 6x7 (which is 50% cheaper than 35mm on that basis). DAM> Cheers, DAM> - Dave DAM> http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
