On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, William Robb wrote: > > Thinking about it a different way, you'll probably notice an > > improvement shooting MedF ISO 400 film at f2.8 over 35mm ISO 100 film > > at 1.4 (same exposure), but will it really be better enough to justify > > using both systems? > > In fact, the 645 negative is large enough to make a huge difference to > the technical quality of your pictures compared to 35mm.
I agree that it is when comparing films directly. However, the faster lenses available to 35mm cameras means that in some cases (like the low-light shooting I like to do) you can use two stops slower film than you could for MedF. For example, put my 35mm 50/1.4 against either of my two MedF lenses, both of which have a max ap of 2.8. With the 1.4 lens, I can use 100 film (35mm) instead of having to go with 400 (in MedF) to get the same shutter speed. I've never compared them, but I wonder how ISO 100 35mm film would do up against ISO 400 in 645 format. Any thoughts? > The jump from 645 to 6x7 has little effect on final print quality > unless you are into very large prints. As a point of interest, I have > many 11x14 prints on my wall, some shot with 4x5, some shot with 6x7. > Under normal viewing conditions, one is indistinguishable from the > other. I hate printing 645 negatives. No argument here, though I can't comment on printing MedF negs. chris - 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 .
