----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Brogden Subject: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?
> > What did I dismiss except for 6X6? Are you having a bad day? Dismissing 6x6 is a fools game. It's hard to think that Hasselblad and it's users has had it wrong for the past half century, with no one catching on, other than one Norwegian. > > I was referring to your statement that the larger neg was the only good > thing about the 67. I'm feeling better today, but I was pretty irritable > when I wrote that last night, yeah. Lets look at that only advantage on it's own merit. The 6x7 gives close to 50% more usable negative than 645 (based on the presumption that 6x7 is, in fact 6x7, and 645 is, in fact 645. The actual numbers will differ somewhat). I suppose that this would mean 50% better enlargability, or 50% better apparent quality on the print, all else being equal. This also means that any dust specks get magnified 50% less, making spotting less of a chore. It does also mean there is more negative to keep clean, which is somewhat of a downside. I can definitely see the attraction of the 645 as compared to 35mm, but I don't see the attraction as compared to 6x7, other than the weight, which isn't really as great as some would have us believe. William Robb
