I'd disagree, just based on experience with numerous other negs of that and other sizes. Those are "nominal" sizes. The actual image area is most likely smaller, although sometimes larger in one dimension or another.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E9nk&tag= Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > You're correct on the sizes. More negative is always better, > particularly for landscape photography where detail is critical. > However, 645 is still a big step up from 35mm. > J and K Messervy wrote: > > > Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm > > while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 > > nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its > > size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
