Another question for the Brotherhood :-)
As you might know, I have been looking into the 67 system the last few months
mainly to improve image quality for my landscape and nature photography.
I more or less came to the conclusion that a 67 (or 67II) with a 45 and 90 (or 105)
would be a very good kit for landscapes, and with a longer lens added also
quite usable for other nature subjects.
However, reading the excellent stories on:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pentax67ii.htm
These make me a bit unsure, it seems the 67 and 67II would have serious problems
with mirror and shutter vibrations, making sharp handheld shots nearly impossible!
On the other hand, the 645N would have a very good damping of vibrations, so
much that using mirror-lockup does not even make a difference ...
Question:
Is it really true that the 67 with standard lens (say 2.4 105mm) must be used
on a tripod all the time to get sharp images ?
More in general, what do YOU see as strong points for the 67 versus 645 for
landscape/nature ? How about future developments (digital back) ?
About image quality, I feel the step from 35mm to 645 is much larger (3x in image area)
than 645 to 67 (1.6x in image area).
The ideal would be to have both of course, and use the 67 lenses on the 645 too, but
that would not fit by budget at the moment :-)
TIA, Jan van Wijk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
-
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 .
