Yeah, mine are 4x5's too. I don't really think this is a big issue, but for folks who like to print full frame, it might enter into the equation a little.
Personally, I like the ratio of 35mm the most. I've been thinking about a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, but I'd have to buy a large format enlarger. Argh. -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.thomasvanveen.com 301-758-3085 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:19 PM > To: gfen > Subject: Re: Seeking advise on medium format > > > gfen, > > My proofs come back as 4X5 from the lab. I would guess > that has to do > with lab issues, not format issues. > > > Bruce > > > > Monday, February 24, 2003, 11:53:52 AM, you wrote: > > g> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, tom wrote: > >> Pro 67 > >> - big neg > >> - built like a big old manual focus camera of yore > >> - interchangeable finders > > g> Mirror lock up. > > >> Pro 645 > >> - af > > g> Only on the newer models. > > >> - more shots per roll > >> - lighter as a system > >> - closer focusing (generally) > >> - takes film magazines > >> - takes Polaroid magazine (so does the 67, but you'd > have to dedicate > >> a body to it, I think) > >> - data imprinting > > g> Only on the newer models. > g> Pentax, and users, claime MLU not needed due to mirror brake. > g> Less shutter vibration/mirror slap than 67 (no matter > how overstated most > g> people may claim this is, it definatly has some bearing). > > >> - aspect ratio (67II is slightly squarer) > > g> I'm trying desperatly to remember what size my minilab > proofs come back > g> as, and I can't. All I know its not the 4x5 I expected > from a "ideal > g> format" camera, I think its 4x5.5...
