Jan, Hopefully I can give you some good thoughts as I went through this very dilemma a while back when I got my MF camera. The store that I bought from carried both 67 and 645 and I must have gone in there a dozen times trying out both bodies.
Heres how I looked at it. Why am I considering MF? For me, it was image quality. So on that front, the 67 is the better choice do to negative size. It also had available a SMC fisheye lens that I knew I would want to get. The second point for me was whether I was considering giving up my 35mm gear and going totally MF. I believe, that with the 645n one could actually quit 35mm altogether. The body handles very similar and the lens selection is good and the weight is not that different. But the image quality is much better. For me, I did not intend to get rid of my 35mm gear and so the temptation of using the 645 was, I felt, going to constantly be in my face. 645 or 35mm? 645 or 35mm? 645 or 35mm? With the 67 I feel that there is a clearer distinction about which to use for a given situation. Long telephoto, fast shooting or snap shooting is clearly 35mm, everything else is 67. So, I handled them and tried them over and over and finally came to the conclusion that the 67 route was more what I was looking for. As has been said earlier, the 67 is very handholdable. I do it all the time. I use a tripod when I feel that I can, but I have also done the same with 35mm. I feel a tripod provides more than just vibration free pictures. It gives you the freedom to look around the viewfinder and really notice the whole picture. Handheld, you tend to move around a bit as you look. To be fair to yourself you should really compare the new 645nII to the 67II. Think carefully about how you intend to use it and I believe you will arrive at a decision that will be right for you. Trying them both out multiple times was invaluable in helping me decide. Rest assured that whichever one you choose, both are great systems and will provide you with the image improvements that you seek. Bruce Sunday, May 26, 2002, 4:06:10 AM, you wrote: JvW> Another question for the Brotherhood :-) JvW> As you might know, I have been looking into the 67 system the last few months JvW> mainly to improve image quality for my landscape and nature photography. JvW> I more or less came to the conclusion that a 67 (or 67II) with a 45 and 90 (or 105) JvW> would be a very good kit for landscapes, and with a longer lens added also JvW> quite usable for other nature subjects. JvW> However, reading the excellent stories on: JvW> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pentax67ii.htm JvW> These make me a bit unsure, it seems the 67 and 67II would have serious problems JvW> with mirror and shutter vibrations, making sharp handheld shots nearly impossible! JvW> On the other hand, the 645N would have a very good damping of vibrations, so JvW> much that using mirror-lockup does not even make a difference ... JvW> Question: JvW> Is it really true that the 67 with standard lens (say 2.4 105mm) must be used JvW> on a tripod all the time to get sharp images ? JvW> More in general, what do YOU see as strong points for the 67 versus 645 for JvW> landscape/nature ? How about future developments (digital back) ? JvW> About image quality, I feel the step from 35mm to 645 is much larger (3x in image area) JvW> than 645 to 67 (1.6x in image area). JvW> The ideal would be to have both of course, and use the 67 lenses on the 645 too, but JvW> that would not fit by budget at the moment :-) JvW> TIA, Jan van Wijk JvW> ------------------------------------------------------------------ JvW> Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery JvW> - JvW> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, JvW> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to JvW> 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 .
