So after over 6 months of shooting with my 67ii, I'm already
considering getting a 645 as a compliment to it, while I love my 67,
I'm thinking a 645 would pick up slack in some areas like portability
. After looking into getting a macro for my 67, and hearing how good
the 120 was on the 645, I
Matt, I agree the n would be a good choice. I do know a little about film
flatness issues when I had my 645. I believe I found the secret was to not
shoot too fast. On several occasions when I would shoot a fast sequence,
several, if not all, of the shots would be in varying degrees of
I don't know what you've been reading, but the P645's A35/3.5 and
A45/2.8 lenses seem very good performers in my experience. They're
all I've used with the P645 and I have no problems at all with the
quality they produce.
Godfrey
On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Matt Johnson wrote:
So after
Walter Hamler wrote:
I believe it was because with the reverse wind of the film
magazines the film would need time to stabilize once it had been
wound from the rolled position to the flattened position.
I would always try to keep that in the back of my mind but it would
invaribly end up
Matt,
I suggest you go out and buy a 645. Give it a try!
Ebay has them for under $300 with a 75mm lens and back.
That's what I'm doing now as a back-up for the 67.
The camera is lighter and lenses smaller than the 67ii.
Reputed to be indestructable...
Features are reduced but just fine with some
Mark Roberts wrote
Digital? Nah. What you want is to go to glass plates.
;-)
Hey Mark, been there, done that! Me and Mathew Brady were mates!!
In all truthfullness, I did some glass plate work, at Mt Palomar. They were
14 x 17 and 8x8 I believe. And believe it or not, they were very thin
6 matches
Mail list logo
