Pål, Good food for thought. An example of a place where 35mm would have been just fine to use is recently I had to shoot a bunch of semi-formal portraits of some church kids that would be used as 4 X 6 prints. It was done much as a favor and cost was an issue. Also, candids at weddings.
But I can see how always wanting to shoot the bigger format would make sense. There have been many times when I didn't think the situation was "serious" and the end result photos have been real keepers. I suspect those would be times that you would kick yourself for using the smaller format. Bruce Dayton Friday, February 08, 2002, 7:08:47 AM, you wrote: PAJ> Bruce wrote: >>Her general reasoning >>has to do with the 645 almost being able to replace the 35mm and she >>feels that there is quite a bit of stuff I do that the 35mm is good >>enough. I would have to agree with that. PAJ> The problem is that as soon as you see the result from MF what was good PAJ> enough before suddenly isn't good enough anymore. Every time I have a shot PAJ> I'm happy with on 35mm I wish I'd shot it on MF. I believe most who shoot PAJ> both MF and 35mm have it this way. Also, it's very hard to sort of decide PAJ> beforehand how to divide shooting needs between the two systems. Eg. I've PAJ> decided that I will use 35mm for telephoto and super wide angle work. PAJ> Recently, however, I've figured out that adding a 35mm and a 300/5.6 + PAJ> 1,4X converter to my 645 kit, and leave both my 24mm, 200/macro and MZ-S at PAJ> home, the system will actually be no heavier. >> She argues that the cost of >>film/developing on the MF stuff is more and therefore, I should mostly >>be using it for serious stuff. PAJ> I frankly don't experience any real cost increase due to MF. When you have PAJ> 16 or 10 frames on a roll you won't waste film as much as most of us do PAJ> with 35mm and most of us are all better for it. PAJ> When you have invested serious money in MF you'll want to use it as much as PAJ> possible. PAJ> BTW Also remember that not only does the 67 + lenses weight more than the PAJ> 645 system, you'll also need a significantly heavier tripod for the 67 to PAJ> dampen its shutter vibrations. PAJ> Pål PAJ> - PAJ> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PAJ> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PAJ> 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 .
