Yes, those are approximate sizes, but the comparison holds. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
