> -----Original Message----- > From: gfen [mailto:gfen@;infotainment.org] > > > I'm torn, I like everything about my 645 except teh fact > that its "only" > 645.. It feels underwhelming to see the negs, and I'm > wondering if I've > talked myself into something for the conviences it offers > me (autowinder, > higher flash, easier handholdability, more frames).
Negs aren't very interesting to look at. Make some prints. > > I'm torn, I'm not sure if I would really see any advantage > in 6x7 over > 6x45, or if I just tell myself this, so I turn to everyone to offer > insights. Not really. I shot several rolls through a 67II last summer. If I were to to show you the 8x10's, you couldn't tell them from 8x10's printed from 645 negs. > > Will I really see an apprechiable difference in small > prints (8x10, 5x7, > even 4x5 proof sizes) if I go from 645 to 67, or am I just confusing > myself? You won't see any difference at that size. You might see some at 16x20. > I know, no one can tell me what I want, nor would I want > them to (that's a > lie, I need people to tell me so I can stop being > wishywashy!), however, > my biggest question, and what I need to know: Is there > really a noticable > difference in the tonality of an 8x10 between 645 and 67. No. I was wondering the same thing last year: would 6x7 noticably improve my prints? I shot the 67, and found that it wouldn't (99% of my prints are 11x14 or smaller). I also found the thing to be too damned big and bulky. tv
