Hi, Also another consideration is that the height to width ratio is diferent from the 645 to 6x7.
I think even though a 6x7 neg is bigger you have to descide which camera you'll use more? Great you have a huge neg, but will you use the camera :) I have a 645 system now and did consider the Pentax 6x7 and used to own 6x7 RF. I descided that the Pentax 6x7 was to big and cumbersome for me to use and i would get more use out of the 645. at a 12x16 print i cant tell the difference between my Pentax 645 and my Mamiya 7. Regards, Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: Re: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67. > On 17 Oct 2002 at 23:01, P�l Jensen wrote: > > > Apart from the obvious differences there is the DOF issue. Less DOF at the same > > image size. I can personally see that the 67 could be a problem for my shooting > > style. Also, I personally believe that 645 is more future proof as it will > > survive into the digital era (just look at the resources thrown at this format > > the last four years by Pentax, Mamiya, Contax and Hasselblad. Perhaps the > > largest investement in MF history. No doubt that another digital format standard > > is emerging with the 6X4,5 format). I'm not convinced the 6X7 will. > > I envisage quite the contrary. I expect that 67 film cameras will remain due to > the fact that 35mm DSLR bodies with 12MP+ resolution will be difficult to > differentiate in quality to 645 film. The only real advantage to go to medium > format film will be in the 67 or larger roll fill format range. I believe that > affordable digital image sensors will take a long time to become adopted in > this area if ever. > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
