One more Good thing about chistmas is that i get time to read more of the posts on the PDML. Hope this hasn't all been said before by now...
Having shot nature photos with 645 and 35mm, I think the larger negative of 645 is fantastic. Sometimes, however, I miss the larger DOF I can get with the 35mm. Many motifs in nature calls for large DOF, eg. landscapes and macros. On a few occasions, I have been able to get the desired result with 35mm where 645 couldn't produce the necessary DOF. So, if the original poster plans to do nature photo, my suggestion is a 6x9 or 4x5'' field camera with a roll film back option to the shoot landscapes. I'd also keep a 35mm Pentax :-) system with a long tele, an extreme wide-angle and maybe a macro lens to do the animal portraits and other stuff that the field camera can't do. If keeping two systems is not an option, I'd put in a warm recommendation for the Pentax 645 as a good all-round trade-off. It gives the benefits of a compact system not _very_ much heavier but with a much larger negative than a 35mm system, and with a moderate loss of DOF compared to 6x7 systems. Jostein On 24 Dec 2002 at 18:22, Butch Black wrote: > Hi; > > I thought I would add my 2 cents worth in. [...] > I owned a Pentax 645 (mf) with 55, 75, and 150mm lenses, which I > bought to shoot weddings, but for personal use I also tended to use > that instead of 35mm. If I still had it I would only need a 300mm lens > and maybe a 1.4 TC to complete a very useable kit for me. I have > wanted a Pentax 6x7 for years, but I see that as less of a replacement > for 35mm for me (and, unfortunately, not in my budget in the near > future) I no longer shoot wedding and would like the extra neg size. >
