RE: Pentax medium formats
No, the 6x7 is closer to nearly square, isn't it? Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J and K Messervy Sendt: 4. oktober 2006 01:46 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/461 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On 10/08/06 10:12, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the 6x7 is closer to nearly square, isn't it? Not really, Jens... Sounds nearly square, but the designation only represents a nominal dimension expressed to the nearest whole centimetre. And further, it's converted from inch measurements, actually 2.25 x 2.75 inches, close to 57mm x 70mm. That can be printed on 4x5, 8x10, or 16x20 inch paper with very minimal cropping, thus termed ideal format. Doug -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
I have to agree about durability. MF version of 645 is like a piece of rock. 645 is great for portraits, because of handholdability and shallow DOF. And of course for landscapes. Gasha Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax medium formats Basically what your saying is if you don't look close you cant Tell the difference. Well there is a difference IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK. Its not something that's never seen either IMHO. What I am saying is if you don't stick the picture to your nose, then the difference (if any) doesn't matter, because it isn't visible. I have images shot on both 4x5 and 6x7 hanging on my wall. I need to take them out of the frames to be able to see any real quality difference between the two. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: I thought the 645 users were the junior brothers of the brotherhood, Ahem, that was the Little Brotherhood. ;) We were better than those Brotherhood types, if for no other reason than our backs were unbowed from lack of weight 'round our necks. I went through this a few years back, 6x7 versus 645. I opted for 645 as I had 4x5 cameras to cover the larger end of things, so the 645 was a nice compromise for weight and hand hold-ability, and more exposures per roll. I feel I made the right choice, at the time, although it wasn't much longer 'til DSLRs were infringing on the picture quality turf. I still use my 645 from time to time, with the 645-K adapter its a nice addition to a film kit. If I didn't have a view camera, or if I didn't love to use it, I'd probably have, and would, buy a 67. I can't think of any pitfalls with the 645 cameras, at least not model I had. I seem to remember something about the rollers or film curvature in the 645n when you enabled 16 exposures per 120 roll. There was a Tom who used to do wedding photography around here who had a handy list of differences between the two systems. He was a proponent of the 645nII, until he was lured away by the full frame Canon DSLRs. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
There is an inevitable trade off between image size, camera size and convenience. Each of us will have a point at which they feel comfortable in this continuum. For some who value image quality above all, they're willing to carry a 10x8 field camera around with them, for others it's a Minox 35mm or tiny digicam. Personally I find the image quality of 645 slides more than adequate. 6x7 would be better, but I can carry my 645 camera, a set of 5 lenses (45, 55, 75, 150, 200), 2x converter and a 35mm body with zoom comfortably in a backpack. If I tried to do that with a 6x7 I'd need the services of a chiropractor. 6x7 images would be better, but you need to ask yourself if you're willing to track around the countryside carrying the extra weight. With the onset of digital, both systems offer some great bargains. My 645 system probably cost me less than an upscale C***n digital SLR. Peter - Original Message - From: J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
re: Pentax medium formats
Peter Jordan wrote: There is an inevitable trade off between image size, camera size and convenience. Each of us will have a point at which they feel comfortable in this continuum. For some who value image quality above all, they're willing to carry a 10x8 field camera around with them, for others it's a Minox 35mm or tiny digicam. Personally I find the image quality of 645 slides more than adequate. 6x7 would be better, but I can carry my 645 camera, a set of 5 lenses (45, 55, 75, 150, 200), 2x converter and a 35mm body with zoom comfortably in a backpack. If I tried to do that with a 6x7 I'd need the services of a chiropractor. 6x7 images would be better, but you need to ask yourself if you're willing to track around the countryside carrying the extra weight. With the onset of digital, both systems offer some great bargains. My 645 system probably cost me less than an upscale C***n digital SLR. Peter Image quality is independent of format. But perhaps you mean something else? Doug -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax medium formats
Maybe you ought to look into lightweight 4x5 cameras And lenses. They are lighter than P67 and much higher Image quality than both P67 and P645. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Jordan Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:25 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats There is an inevitable trade off between image size, camera size and convenience. Each of us will have a point at which they feel comfortable in this continuum. For some who value image quality above all, they're willing to carry a 10x8 field camera around with them, for others it's a Minox 35mm or tiny digicam. Personally I find the image quality of 645 slides more than adequate. 6x7 would be better, but I can carry my 645 camera, a set of 5 lenses (45, 55, 75, 150, 200), 2x converter and a 35mm body with zoom comfortably in a backpack. If I tried to do that with a 6x7 I'd need the services of a chiropractor. 6x7 images would be better, but you need to ask yourself if you're willing to track around the countryside carrying the extra weight. With the onset of digital, both systems offer some great bargains. My 645 system probably cost me less than an upscale C***n digital SLR. Peter - Original Message - From: J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On 05/10/06, Peter Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I find the image quality of 645 slides more than adequate. 6x7 would be better, but I can carry my 645 camera, a set of 5 lenses (45, 55, 75, 150, 200), 2x converter and a 35mm body with zoom comfortably in a backpack. If I tried to do that with a 6x7 I'd need the services of a chiropractor. My Mamiya 67 bodies and three lenses are lighter than the equivalent P645 system, that why I opted out of the P67, I can carry more and achieve superior image quality to boot. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
First thing you need to know about is the Brotherhood, which is the unofficial PDML guild of 67 users. Then there is the smaller, but nonetheless defiant, Sisterhood of 645 users. :-) Seriously, the main trade-off is between weight of the gear and size of the negative. Figure out what kind of focal lenghts you would be likely to start with, and calculate the weight of the outfits in both formats. Then make your own decision on whether the 6x7 negative is worth the extra load. BH may have technical data on most of the stuff. To me this turned out in favour of 645. In addition, I was shooting mostly slides, so I needed a projector as well. Projectors for up to 6x6 were relatively easy to come by (give me a hint if you'd like to buy mine...g), at least compared to 6x7 projectors. Cheers, Jostein On 10/4/06, J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. James -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
I thought the 645 users were the junior brothers of the brotherhood, (kind of like most younger brothers annoying and always underfoot), ant the *ist-D[x] users were the *isterhood... Jostein Øksne wrote: First thing you need to know about is the Brotherhood, which is the unofficial PDML guild of 67 users. Then there is the smaller, but nonetheless defiant, Sisterhood of 645 users. :-) Seriously, the main trade-off is between weight of the gear and size of the negative. Figure out what kind of focal lenghts you would be likely to start with, and calculate the weight of the outfits in both formats. Then make your own decision on whether the 6x7 negative is worth the extra load. BH may have technical data on most of the stuff. To me this turned out in favour of 645. In addition, I was shooting mostly slides, so I needed a projector as well. Projectors for up to 6x6 were relatively easy to come by (give me a hint if you'd like to buy mine...g), at least compared to 6x7 projectors. Cheers, Jostein On 10/4/06, J and K Messervy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. James -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax medium formats
The problem with the 6x7 is not the camera and a lens, its When you want to carry a kit of lenses, ( I had 8 ) the bulk And weight goes thru the roof. I sold mine and bought a Super Ikona III which is 6x6 folding RF camera that is smaller/lighter Than a 35MM SLR!. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax medium formats
Bass Ackwards Dude, I think the 6x7 format is more squarish than the 645 format is. If I recall correctly the P67 image was 56mmX70mm, Anybody know what the 645 actual image dimensions are? JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J and K Messervy Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:46 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
You're correct on the sizes. More negative is always better, particularly for landscape photography where detail is critical. However, 645 is still a big step up from 35mm. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:46 PM, J and K Messervy wrote: Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
My 6x7 kit is four lenses -- 55mm, 105mm, 165mm and 300mm. It's lighter than my thirteen lens, two body DSLR kit by quite a bit. However, I only take the whole kit on critical shoots. Generally, I carry two lenses and a camera with 6x7. Three lenses and a camera with the DSLR. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:50 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The problem with the 6x7 is not the camera and a lens, its When you want to carry a kit of lenses, ( I had 8 ) the bulk And weight goes thru the roof. I sold mine and bought a Super Ikona III which is 6x6 folding RF camera that is smaller/lighter Than a 35MM SLR!. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:14:46 +1000, you wrote: I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? Somewhere I have a list of the advantages and disadvantages of each system. I'll see if I can dig it up. The short version: 67 - Larger image size, interchangable finders 645 - More compact, portable system, newer technology (AF, etc.) Both are amongst the most durable cameras ever made. I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Stay away from the pre-MLU (mirror lock-up) 67 cameras. Not much else to beware of, as far as I know. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Both cameras can be had for very low prices these days. BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On 10/03/06 16:31, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I went for the 6x7. I figured if I was going to shoot medium format, I'd want the substantially larger negative. I also like the 6x7 configuration. The camera is the same shape as a giant 35mm SLR. It feels right in my hands. I have no problem with its size and weight, but I'm a fairly big guy who pumps iron several times a week. Dittos, except that I'm a rather sedentary medium-size guy... Still absolutely no trouble or pain packing a 6x7 over my shoulder as a walk-around rig, with a wide strap of course. It's lighter than it looks. ;-) I still have and use the non-MLU 6x7 I bought in 1976. Four bodies now that prices are so attractive, the latter two are 67II models but I've never used the mirror lockup feature; I suppose my photos must suffer as a result in some as-yet unnoticed way. But then my longest lens is a 300 that I seldom use; mostly the 90 and wider. The size and ker-clack sound do draw some attention. Certainly not what one would choose for shots during a string-quartet performance, or live theatre... I do like the built-in grip on the 67II body, helping to maintain a secure hold on the rig. Never have gotten fond of the Pentax left-side accessory handgrip, but inoyoon on eBay occasionally offers hand-made wood+aluminum grips that clip to the right side strap lugs, and these are a great addition, even featuring a bubble level on top. A bit of a drawback is 10 exposures on a roll of 120 vs 16 for the 645. I have RF cams in 645 and prefer 220 roll-film for both to get 20/21 and 32 exposures. The early 6x7 had 21 exposures on 220, then my late 6x7 just prior to the 67 name change does only 20, and then the 67II is back to 21 but with narrower frame spacing. I can't offer a blow-by-blow comparo between the 6x7 and the 645 as I've never even held a P645, but I'm very fond of the 6x7/67/67II. Mi Doug -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
I'd disagree, just based on experience with numerous other negs of that and other sizes. Those are nominal sizes. The actual image area is most likely smaller, although sometimes larger in one dimension or another. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E9nktag= Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist You're correct on the sizes. More negative is always better, particularly for landscape photography where detail is critical. However, 645 is still a big step up from 35mm. J and K Messervy wrote: Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
Yes, those are approximate sizes, but the comparison holds. Paul On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I'd disagree, just based on experience with numerous other negs of that and other sizes. Those are nominal sizes. The actual image area is most likely smaller, although sometimes larger in one dimension or another. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E9nktag= Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist You're correct on the sizes. More negative is always better, particularly for landscape photography where detail is critical. However, 645 is still a big step up from 35mm. J and K Messervy wrote: Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: J and K Messervy Subject: Pentax medium formats I really want to get a medium format at some point for landscape and maybe even macro shots. I keep an eye on Pentax 67 and to a lesser extent Pentax 645 gear on Ebay. 645 appears to be cheaper on average. Being a complete medium format ignoramus, can someone please explain the main differences between the two systems and the pros and cons of the two? I am no professional, just a hobbyist but would love to have a medium format for large prints, etc. I would probably use a mixture of negative and slide film and use it fairly sparingly. What should I go for? What should I look out for? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. My first medium format was a 645. What I didn't like about it was that because of the orientation of the negative on the film, the image goes through the neg carrier vertically. Fine for portraits, not so good for landscapes. For some reason, I can deal better with sideways portraits than sideways landscapes. Anyway, this will only be a bug if you print your film in a darkroom. 645 is certainly a big enough format to do good quality display prints up to at least 11x14 with reasonable cropping. After my 645 suffered a horrid fate, I decided to go for the Pentax 6x7. It's a nice format, but for the type of landscape that I tend to shoot, it is sometimes difficult to impossible to get sufficient depth of field. 645 is better for this, as it uses shorter lenses to get the same field of view. Whether sufficient, to say would be to know. I do not know, so I cannot say. If you truly want to get excellent pictures from film, and don't mind a bit of extra work, then a view camera may be a choice to consider. The movements allow for better depth of field control, as well as giving the photographer the ability to correct geometric distortion, though if you are planning on scanning instead of printing, there is fixing it in Photoshop as an option. You can shoot roll film with a view camera, which can be the best of both worlds. The 6x7 is not such a good camera for macro, though good macro is certainly possible. The bellows is very bulky, the extension tubes allow for little adjustment, and in all situations, the combination of having to stop a slow lens down, and the amount of extension that is required to do real macro work make for a dim, hard to focus viewfinder and long exposure times. Again, I think 4x5 is a better option for macro than 6x7. This will take you to a macro I shot with the 6x7. This is pretty close to full frame. http://pug.komkon.org/02mar/dime.html I expect 645 would be nicer for macro, though I haven't first hand experience with it. 6x7 is heavy compared to 645, it would be good to figure out how many lenses you want to carry, and see if the weight is acceptable. My 6x7 bag, when full, is close to 30 pounds. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. I have two of them, but one has a Nikon mount on it. I am sure that a clever person could put a K mount onto it though. Ask Boris how successful I am about sending stuff out before you think this is an offer. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: J and K Messervy Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. 6x7 is closer to square than 645. When proofing, we printed 6x7 to a 4x5 inch print with little cropping, 6x4.5 is a 2:3 aspect, and so prints to a more familiar 4x6. Other than my own prediliction about negative orientation in the enlarger, no, 645 is fine. I expect that with modern films and reasonable print size expectations, the two formats will be pretty close to indistinguishable in print. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax medium formats
No, you can make a print roughly 55% larger in area with The P67 while maintaining same dpi/resolution in the print. P67 Is bigger, is better, in that regard. With dinky prints maybe No visible difference, but then might as well shoot 35mm/DSLR. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:31 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats - Original Message - From: J and K Messervy Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. 6x7 is closer to square than 645. When proofing, we printed 6x7 to a 4x5 inch print with little cropping, 6x4.5 is a 2:3 aspect, and so prints to a more familiar 4x6. Other than my own prediliction about negative orientation in the enlarger, no, 645 is fine. I expect that with modern films and reasonable print size expectations, the two formats will be pretty close to indistinguishable in print. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On 10/03/06 17:54, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd disagree, just based on experience with numerous other negs of that and other sizes. Those are nominal sizes. The actual image area is most likely smaller, although sometimes larger in one dimension or another. Like most all 120/220 film cameras these measure about 56mm cross-wise on the film, and the length along the film is what differs. The nominally 6x4.5cm is 56x41 (one of mine is 41.5 and there might be some 42mm). And the nominally 6x7 is 56x70 though some may vary from 69mm to 72mm. Nominally 6x9 is 56x86mm or so. So the 645 proportions are on a 1.37 ratio and 6x7 is 1.25 length/width. So the 6x7 is closer to square but not nearly as much as might be thought from the nominal designation. Note that 1.25 gives an 8x10 without cropping, thus leading to the old ideal format descriptor for 6x7. I have 10 lenses for the 6x7 system but would never carry all with me, or all four bodies either. I'll be out and about with just one body and lens, or if on more of an expedition I'll take the LowePro Photo Trekker backpack containing body and three/four lenses and other minor stuff. Mi Doug -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: J and K Messervy Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Am I right in assuming the 645 frame is 6cm x 4.5 cm while the 67 is 6 cm x 7 cm? That makes the 645 nearly square. Is the 645 inferior due to its size? I'm mainly thinking of landscape shots. 6x7 is closer to square than 645. When proofing, we printed 6x7 to a 4x5 inch print with little cropping, 6x4.5 is a 2:3 aspect, and so prints to a more familiar 4x6. Other than my own prediliction about negative orientation in the enlarger, no, 645 is fine. I expect that with modern films and reasonable print size expectations, the two formats will be pretty close to indistinguishable in print. William Robb Last I checked, 645 was 4:3 aspect, it's halfframe 6x9, which is 2:3. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats BTW: Anyone know where I can get a 67-645 lens adaptor? I'm thinking I might want to get some 67 lenses to try on my 645. I have two of them, but one has a Nikon mount on it. I am sure that a clever person could put a K mount onto it though. Ask Boris how successful I am about sending stuff out before you think this is an offer. William Robb William, I think he's loooking for the adaptor to 645 mount, not a 35mm mount. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax medium formats No, you can make a print roughly 55% larger in area with The P67 while maintaining same dpi/resolution in the print. P67 Is bigger, is better, in that regard. With dinky prints maybe No visible difference, but then might as well shoot 35mm/DSLR. Reasonable print size would be 11x14. By 16x20, or if a substantial crop is needed, then yes, 6x7 may give a technically better photograph, providing other considerations, such as depth of field and carryability are also met. I suspect if you stick your nose to the print for viewing, a difference might be visible, from a more normal viewing distance, I wouldn't expect to see much if any advantage with 6x7. They are both more than up to the task of making an 11x14. DSLRs give a remarkably good looking print, since the digital capture and processing doesn't show grain, but fine detail isn't there. 35mm shows grain at any print size bigger than 5x7. Disagree if you like, but I did custom printing of negatives from 35mm to 4x5 for a very long time for gallery displays. I am pretty familiar with the what can be expected from various formats when the prints are on the wall. Esoteric percentages are all very well and good, but they don't really tell much in the real world of display photographs. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I think he's loooking for the adaptor to 645 mount, not a 35mm mount. Wow, three in one night. I either need to drink more, or less. I'm not sure which... William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats Last I checked, 645 was 4:3 aspect, it's halfframe 6x9, which is 2:3. Duh. Brain fart. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I think he's loooking for the adaptor to 645 mount, not a 35mm mount. Wow, three in one night. I either need to drink more, or less. I'm not sure which... William Robb More, It's always more ;-) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
I vote for more. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I think he's loooking for the adaptor to 645 mount, not a 35mm mount. Wow, three in one night. I either need to drink more, or less. I'm not sure which... William Robb -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
At 11:01 AM 4/10/2006, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Maas Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats I think he's loooking for the adaptor to 645 mount, not a 35mm mount. Wow, three in one night. I either need to drink more, or less. I'm not sure which... William Robb If you don't need to take a leak, your not drinking enough. That's the advice for avoiding heat stroke / dehydration. I think it applies in this situation as well. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
- Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats If you don't need to take a leak, your not drinking enough. Well, then, I think after I go pee, I'll pour myself another whiskey. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax medium formats
Basically what your saying is if you don't look close you cant Tell the difference. Well there is a difference IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK. Its not something that's never seen either IMHO. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax medium formats No, you can make a print roughly 55% larger in area with The P67 while maintaining same dpi/resolution in the print. P67 Is bigger, is better, in that regard. With dinky prints maybe No visible difference, but then might as well shoot 35mm/DSLR. Reasonable print size would be 11x14. By 16x20, or if a substantial crop is needed, then yes, 6x7 may give a technically better photograph, providing other considerations, such as depth of field and carryability are also met. I suspect if you stick your nose to the print for viewing, a difference might be visible, from a more normal viewing distance, I wouldn't expect to see much if any advantage with 6x7. They are both more than up to the task of making an 11x14. DSLRs give a remarkably good looking print, since the digital capture and processing doesn't show grain, but fine detail isn't there. 35mm shows grain at any print size bigger than 5x7. Disagree if you like, but I did custom printing of negatives from 35mm to 4x5 for a very long time for gallery displays. I am pretty familiar with the what can be expected from various formats when the prints are on the wall. Esoteric percentages are all very well and good, but they don't really tell much in the real world of display photographs. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
