----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, I took it for granted that most are aware that for long telephotos MF looses out just like full frame 35mm looses out compared for APS sized sensors. For lenses in the normal shooting range, that is apart from specialized optics, it does hold truth. Pentax 645 lenses are no larger than Canon high-end glass. In fact, usually smaller. And for the most part no more expensive; often less.
Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and comparable focal lengths.
Indeed, Herbert Keppler once compared the Pentax 67 system to high-end Nikon and concluded that Pentax MF was cheaper. Of course this doesn't hold if you compare 800mm lenses but that is really beside the point for 99% of us.
Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference to the comparison by Keppler, btw?
In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an oversimplification at best.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though. Please give your examples if you have them.
Jostein
