On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: > I thought the 645 users were the junior brothers of the brotherhood,
Ahem, that was the "Little Brotherhood." ;) We were better than those Brotherhood types, if for no other reason than our backs were unbowed from lack of weight 'round our necks. I went through this a few years back, 6x7 versus 645. I opted for 645 as I had 4x5 cameras to cover the larger end of things, so the 645 was a nice compromise for weight and hand hold-ability, and more exposures per roll. I feel I made the right choice, at the time, although it wasn't much longer 'til DSLRs were infringing on the picture quality turf. I still use my 645 from time to time, with the 645-K adapter its a nice addition to a film kit. If I didn't have a view camera, or if I didn't love to use it, I'd probably have, and would, buy a 67. I can't think of any pitfalls with the 645 cameras, at least not model I had. I seem to remember something about the rollers or film curvature in the 645n when you enabled 16 exposures per 120 roll. There was a Tom who used to do wedding photography around here who had a handy list of differences between the two systems. He was a proponent of the 645nII, until he was lured away by the full frame Canon DSLRs. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
