Paul, While I agree with your statement, at 16 X 20, it was very simple to see the difference between 35mm and 645, but not very easy to see the difference between 645 and 67. But the weight and handling of the 645 were much nicer. I'm not saying that the 67II felt bad or overly clumsy, but the 645 didn't feel much more cumbersome than a big 35mm.
Bruce Saturday, January 26, 2002, 2:41:26 PM, you wrote: PS> 67II. Bigger is Better. PS> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> So, all you medium format users - I just got back from my local camera >> store who stocks and sells Pentax MF gear. I played around with the >> 67II and the 645n. Both very nice cameras. Took my AF360FGZ flash in >> and had it work just fine in TTL mode - no P-TTL (wonder if the 645nII >> would?). >> >> The owner was in and he is a Pentax MF user. He recommends the 645n >> as a general purpose camera and the 67II as more of a portrait, studio >> - work from the car kind of camera. On the wall were some 16 X 20's >> of different scenes shot with 35mm, 645, 67 and 6X6 Hassy. At least >> up to 16 X 20, the 67 didn't look much better than the 645. >> >> So, for the price difference, and mobility, any wisdom from the list >> as to considering one over the other? I can say that all MF shots had >> it all over the 35mm stuff. I really would like to go in that >> direction, just trying to figure it out. >> >> Comments, anyone? >> >> Bruce >> - >> 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 . PS> - PS> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PS> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PS> 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 .
