On Friday, December 7, 2001, at 09:21 AM, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote: > Your post caught me by surprise in the 67 being smaller. > Hmmmmm, it doesn't seem that big now.
It really isn't a large camera, especially considering the size of the negative. The 67 has a bad rep for being beastly huge, when really it's only beastly huge compared to something like an ME Super. > I have access to a 645N and was > impressed with its size. I have resisted temptation to take it out > shooting > for a weekend. What would be worthy of a larger image? Once you have a medium format camera, you realize that EVERYTHING is worthy of the larger negative. I personally have been guilty of shooting party snapshots with my 67 on more than one occasion. > I will not give in to medium format! I will not give in to medium > format! > I will not give in to medium format! ... Look deep into my eyes...you are getting sleepy...you want bigger negatives...you want grainless prints...you want stunning SMC glass...you will succumb to the charms of the Pentax 67, you WILL succumb to the charms of the Pentax 67... -Aaron p.s. who's seen "Matinee"? I can see myself with the spinning circles from the "Eyes of Doctor Diablo" trailer superimposed on me... - 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 .
