----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same job in the new format context.
Okay, so we're talking AOV, then.
I'm comparing choices a users of the system typically would had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and cost less too last time I checked.
Okaaay?
So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in the 645 system?
The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system but I can afford a Pentax 645 system.
What's your real comparison here? Nikon or Canon? Not that it matters much, but I think your arguments are getting very hard to verify because of the new parameters brought in all the time.
My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses."
I'm sorry to say so, but your claim is still not any more substantiated. And now it suddenly applies to Nikon, not Canon?!?
I think I'm outa this thread now...:-(
Jostein
