Clyde Soles wrote:
>For an 8x10 print, 645 is 1.7 times
>larger neg than 35mm; 6x6 is 1.9x (and has shift built-in); 6x7 is
>2.3x.
I find it easier to calculate linear enlargement ratios for each format.
While I don't have one for 6x6cm, here are the others:
Format Print size
10x8"
35mm 8.5
645 4.7
6x7 3.8
6x9 3.6
5x4" 2.0
These are based on the actual rather than nominal dimensions (e.g 56mmx43mm
for 645). I have a PDF (5kb) of these figures and those for 12x16", plus the
outlines of the frames (for visual comparison). Contact me _offlist_ (yes, I
DID say offlist) for a copy.
Albert wrote:
>But the kicker was that there was this Leica nut standing next to me,
>telling me I should sell everything I own, and buy a Leica.
This bloke is talking the _biggest_ load of complete b*ll*cks. The old
phrase still applies: a good big'un will always beat a good little'un, it
doesn't matter whose name is on the front. Brand loyalty is the most
destructive force in photography and Leica nuts are the worst. Fortunately,
the members of this list are rather more enlightened... well, they would be
wouldn't they ;-)
Simon E.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|