OTOH, I just took the following quote from
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/formats.html.
It doesn't change my mind, 645 vs. 67, but is still interesting.
"Quality Factors - 6x4.5 vs. 6x6 vs. 6x7
Ernst Wildi in his Medium Format Advantage book notes (on p.28) that
the
6x4.5cm vs. 6x6cm cropped rectangular images printed at 8x10" both
have to
be enlarged by a factor of 4.6X. Using a 6x7cm (56mm x 68mm) image,
the
rectangle has to be enlarged only 3.8X, a difference of only 20%. By
comparison, the area of the 6x7cm image is 60% greater than the
6x4.5cm
(or cropped 6x6cm) rectangle. It is the longest side length which
determines enlargement factors, rather than the relative area of the
two
images. This result is counter-intuitive; the much (60%+) larger area
6x7cm image only provides circa 20%+ extra enlargement overhead or
quality. This factor helps explain why there is such a large
improvement
in quality in going from 35mm to medium format, but relatively modest
differences between quality of different medium format sizes."
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: Re[2]: P67II or P645n
> 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
-
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 .
