On 10/03/06 17:54, "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Like most all 120/220 film cameras these measure about 56mm cross-wise on the film, and the length along the film is what differs. The nominally 6x4.5cm is 56x41 (one of mine is 41.5 and there might be some 42mm). And the nominally 6x7 is 56x70 though some may vary from 69mm to 72mm. Nominally 6x9 is 56x86mm or so. So the 645 proportions are on a 1.37 ratio and 6x7 is 1.25 length/width. So the 6x7 is closer to square but not nearly as much as might be thought from the nominal designation. Note that 1.25 gives an 8x10 without cropping, thus leading to the old "ideal format" descriptor for 6x7. I have 10 lenses for the 6x7 system but would never carry all with me, or all four bodies either. I'll be out and about with just one body and lens, or if on more of an expedition I'll take the LowePro Photo Trekker backpack containing body and three/four lenses and other minor stuff. Mi Doug -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
