William, Great information. I really appreciate you sharing it with me. I'm getting that itch to do something about it. Got to talk with the EPO...thinking that examples would work wonders.
Another question: can you see the difference between 6X7 and 35mm at 8X10 or do you need to go larger? Thanks for your help and info! Bruce Dayton Monday, January 14, 2002, 10:28:36 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: Bruce Dayton WR> Subject: Re[4]: call for enablers! BRUCE DAYTON NEEDS A 67II! >> Aaron, >> >> Great! Look forward to viewing them. On a different vein, WR> how does >> the 67 fare for shooting portraits? Groups I would assume the WR> 75mm, >> individuals maybe the 165? WR> I know, I'm not Aaron. WR> I love the 6x7 as a portrait camera. While I bought it primarily WR> for landscapes, I quickly found that the ergonomics of the WR> camera lend itself to being used handheld at eye level. For me, WR> this is the preferred camera placement for portraits, as it puts WR> the viewers perspective at a reasonable height. WR> This has always been my gripe with waist level finders. The WR> camera is too low to give a comfortable perspective to the WR> viewer. This is also why I laugh at the big move photographers WR> who do the knee drop to shoot wedding processions. All of a WR> sudden, the camera is looking up at the subject. Bad camera WR> placement. WR> The traditional box shaped MF SLR cameras (Hassy, Bronica, WR> Mamiya, etc) all share what for me is a basic ergonomic flaw: WR> they are designed to be used as a waist level, so they are not WR> comfortable to use with an eye level finder. Tripod mounting WR> helps, but I like to shoot studio portraits hand held. WR> The 6x7 is great for this sort of fun. WR> I have the "Other Bow-Wow Takumar"� 75mm f/4.5 lens. It is a WR> good group portrait lens, but it is just not really a great WR> lens. If you can back up far enough, the 90mm is good. WR> For individual portraits, the 165 or 200 are both nice lenses. WR> The old 200 is not a stellar lens, but it is more than adequate, WR> considering the degree of enlargement the 2 1/4 x2 3/4 negative WR> usually gets. WR> Remember, a 20 x 24 is the same amount of enlargement in this WR> format as 8x10 is in 35mm. WR> Bruce, your pictures really do deserve a Pentax 6x7. WR> I may make that into a sig file. WR> William Robb WR> - WR> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, WR> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to WR> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
