Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #10 · Medium Format--6x4.5 or 6x7 |
I never considered an SLR in medium format for the field - too bulky, heavy (2.5 kgs), hard to transport and carry, knobs sticking out everywhere. And it would just live on the tripod, oh, make that a very heavy tripod. And add a handheld meter.
Rangefinders are fabulous in all MF formats, akin to big Leicas, but most likely not heavy enough for the OP, as they are lighter than the Nikon F5!
A common misconception is that 645 ~= 35mm.
Could not be further from the truth, either in actual film real estate (see below) or in output quality/ print size/ detail rendition/ colour integrity/ tonality. Not even close.
(1) 35mm 24x36=864 sq mms; (2) 645 56x41=2296 sq mms.
Ratio (2)/(1): 2.66
As film is the same in both formats, given similar lens quality the results will be startlingly better.
FWIW, 67 is 56x68=3808 sq mm, so 3808/2296=1.66 the size of 645, for a 66% improvement over 645. Which improvement would you rather have?
So - It's ALL medium format from 645 on..and 645 rangefinder lenses are wicked sharp. I can see a difference in Mamiya 7 transparencies from Fuji 645 ones (60/4) but it's still close, and other factors influence, such as DOF/diffraction, and many MF lenses fall away from f8.
Some resolutions for various MF lenses here:
You might need to compare the film cameras to the APS-C digital D 3100 camera as that is what he is coming from. That would be much greater difference than 2.66x the area.