What! No Pentax zooms! I could see the weight go down if you carried a
zoom or two along with those primes.
Also, why own a 645? Didn't you question film flatness with the 645 when I
recommended that camera to someone who is interested in the 645 or the 67?
Jim A.
> From: P�l Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:10:09 +0200
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: 35mm vs. Medium Format
>
> As many among us I'm too overburdened by equipment. I have been using a
> LowePro Pro trekker backpack but as the saying goes, when you fill them up
> they are too heavy to lift. Since I'm using both medium format and 35mm format
> I have been struggling streamlining my equipment choices for various needs
> while maintaining low weight. I have even been toying with the idea of selling
> off my medium format equipment but a look at the MF chromes the 645n produce
> has made me forget the thought.
> I've more and less turned into a bird and mountain landscape (that is on top
> of the mountains; not below them) photographer and for my landscape use weigth
> is important. Common thinking says that MF gear is heavy but....Anyway, I've
> both a LowePro Orion AW trekker which is a revelation compared to the Pro
> trekker. I've been using the calculator to see what my equipment actually
> weight and how best take advantage of it.
>
> 1. My "complete" landscape 35mm outfit consist of the MZ-S or the LX, 18/3,5,
> A 24/2.8, FA 31/1.8 (not bought yet), FA 43/1.9, FA 77/1.8 and FA 200/4 Macro.
> This outfit weights 2870g (with the MZ-S).
>
> 2. My "complete" MF/35mm landscape set consist of the MZ-S, 645n, FA645
> 75/2.8, FA645 45/2.8, FA645 120/4 Macro, 18/3.5, and A 24/2.8. + converter for
> using the 120/4 on the MZ-S. This outfit weights 3620g.
>
> 3. A hypothetical "complete" 645n based system: A645 35/3,5, FA645 45/2.8,
> FA645 75/2.8, FA645 120/4 Macro, FA645 300/5.6. This outfit weights 3895g.
>
>
> I'm a bit surprised by the results. MF gear isn't as heavy as perceived.
> The weight difference between set 1. and 2. isn't really felt in the field so
> I could just as well use the 645n. The weight difference between 2. and 3. is
> certainly not major so a total MF set seems to be an ideal setup.
> Ok so the 18mm make you go slightly wider but not enough to compensate for the
> vastly better image quality of th 35mm (about 21mm in 35mm terms).
>
> It seems to me that in order to make a 35mm based system significantly lighter
> than a 645n based system, you really need to use those slow plastic zoom
> lenses. Again this illustrate the need for compact high quality zooms for
> quality work when weight is important. These lenses are mysteriously missing
> from the manufacturers line ups. However, the weight of my MF system really
> doesn't feel like a burden and question arises whether I have any need for
> something significantly lighter.
> I think om going to upgrade to that 645n II and perhaps further expand my 645
> system...
>
> P�l
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
