On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Mark Roberts wrote: > No way. At those sized they'll be pretty much indistinguishable.
The only reason I'd feel different is I see there is a difference, to my eyes, in 8x10 enlargements made from a 4x5 neg.. Then, that's also biased eyes.. > Film data imprinting (I *love* this feature on my MZ-S) > Auto bracketing. > Digital backs coming. Not for my lowly 645 (the original series).. :) > Interchangable finders. (May not be an advantage for you, but then, at 8 x 10 > print sizes, neither is the bigger negative...) Again, when I know I'm going to go bigger, I can go 4x5, which is why I'm not overly concerned about giant enlargments.. If its something where I'm out tramping around, and suddenly the scene of a lifetime opens up before me, at least I'll have a 645 instead of "just" a 35mm. > It really sounds as if you need the 645 and your ego is trying to get > you to buy the 67. I faced the same dilemma as you and went with the I don't know to call it ego, or what, but just the feeling that it was the 67 I wanted all along, then I read up on the specs, and decided that in almost all categories, the 645 was a better camera for general use than the 67 The problem is now I look back and wonder if I cheated myself.
