On 10 Mar 2002 at 20:59, Chris Brogden wrote: > On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, William Robb wrote: > > > > Thinking about it a different way, you'll probably notice an > > > improvement shooting MedF ISO 400 film at f2.8 over 35mm ISO 100 > > > film at 1.4 (same exposure), but will it really be better enough > > > to justify using both systems? > > > > In fact, the 645 negative is large enough to make a huge difference > > to the technical quality of your pictures compared to 35mm. > > I agree that it is when comparing films directly. However, the faster > lenses available to 35mm cameras means that in some cases (like the > low-light shooting I like to do) you can use two stops slower film > than you could for MedF. For example, put my 35mm 50/1.4 against > either of my two MedF lenses, both of which have a max ap of 2.8. > With the 1.4 lens, I can use 100 film (35mm) instead of having to go > with 400 (in MedF) to get the same shutter speed. I've never compared > them, but I wonder how ISO 100 35mm film would do up against ISO 400 > in 645 format. Any thoughts?
It sounded to me as if you were asking if the jump from 35mm to 645 was really worth the cost. The answer is an emphatic "yes". Yes, ISO 400 645 negs look better than ISO 100 35mm negs. The jump from 35mm to 645 is big. The jump from 35mm to 67 is a bit bigger. The jump from 645 to 67 isn't much of a jump. > > > The jump from 645 to 6x7 has little effect on final print quality > > unless you are into very large prints. As a point of interest, I > > have many 11x14 prints on my wall, some shot with 4x5, some shot > > with 6x7. Under normal viewing conditions, one is indistinguishable > > from the other. I hate printing 645 negatives. > > No argument here, though I can't comment on printing MedF negs. I'll agree that 645 negs are a bit of a pain. tv - 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 .
