On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Francis Alviar wrote: > I am considering investing in a medium format system. > I'd like to ask owners of the Pentax 645 and Pentax 67 > cameras their opinion on which system to invest in and > why. Besides the difference in film size, what are > the advantages and disadvantages of a 645 camera > compared to a 67 camera and vice versa? Thank you.
Francis, You and I talked about this very shortly a few days ago.. I'll just reiterate my thoughts, though, in public for others to comment on. I went through the same thing. I wanted someting that would provide smoother tonality at the enlargment sizes I would mostly make: 8x10 through 16x20. I also shoot and adore using a 4x5 field camera, so anything I knew I'd make a massive enarlgment from could come from that camera, plus I didn't want anything to impact my usage of it from a mental standpoint. I opted for 645 over 67 at the last minute. I had quite a bit of second thoughts, and still go through them sometimes. I decided 645 would be better, I was happy with what my 6x6 negs from a TLR looked like, except I prefer rectangles, so 645 made perfect sense there. I also preferred the more automated style available via 645 than 67. The other big factor was handholdability, which I've been told isn't as bad as many people on the net would have you believe (I'm willing to agree with the people who say so, as well.. I find I can handhold my 645 much more successfully than my ZX-5n at slower speeds with a longer lens). 645 also had some extra benefits due to the possibility of a digital back coming out for it than a digital back for a 67 (well, non-changable backs make that a difficult proposition, but you know what I mean). While I have no intention of getting a digital back, if they did exist, nor could I afford one.. I figured they'd be cheaper for the 645 by the time that day did come. There's also, or was also, a better future for 645..with the 645n and 645nII in place, there was obviously a lineage to progress down. There was already AF and plenty of features I'd want in a 645nII (not that I could afford that, either), such as spot and matrix metering. I definatly viewed my 645 purchase as long term investment, and a long term addition to the system. Which brings me to my next selling point: Cross compatability. There are adapters for 645->K and 67->K. However, with lenses of 645A 35/2.8, 645A 75/2.8, and 645A 150/3.5 I had a pretty good carry kit.. add in an A50/1.4 and I now have a complete kit that can handle just about anything I've ever needed (well, considering I prefer just my A50/1.4 and no other K lenses when I go out....). That saves a whole lotta room and weight in a bag to carry around with me. I still wonder if 67 would be smoother in those sizes than 645, many assure me it would not. I will probably never REALLY be sure, but I do know that I love my 645. It handles well, its got a great compromise between capacity (15 or 30 shots versus 10 or 20), and its smaller and lighter. I think the biggest key was the size of prints I would prefer, which is why 645 fit a niche better between 35 and 4x5. I will say that using a 645 makes 35mm seem kind of pointless. I think the only times I will definatly opt for 35mm is when I'm trying to go as light as I can, or when I'm shooting colour print. For B&W? Its a no brainer, 645 is definatly the way. That's just my opinion, prepare to hear many more. The best advice I received was handle them both extensivly, try them out if you can, and decide where your shooting style takes you and what fits it. -gfen, little brotherhood since '02. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
