Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 6x7???

Subject: Re: [OM] 35mm vs. 6x7???
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <voop@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:06:07 +0100 (CET)
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Olympus wrote:

> > > Given the difference.. WOW!  I'm curious, I understand field work,
> action
> > > shots, etc..  BUT, why would someone use a 35mm in the studio then??
> 6x4.5,
> > > 6x6 or 6x7, just has such HUGE advantages it's not funny..  Ok, I'm
> doing
> > > the math here..
> >
> > Well...price, for one thing.
> 
> Not true.  Mamiya RZ Pro kit's on evilbay are floating below $1500.  That's
> cheaper than a N*kon F* and one or two lenses..  So I don't think that is
> true.  Maybe the preception of price...
> 

Sorry. Was thinking "new" prices. Last I checked (which is also a while
ago), it was possible to get a new Wunderbrick + 2 lenses for the same
price as a new (admittedly high-end, but so was the wunderbrick) MF body.

I dunno if the prices have changed since I bought MF and was up to speed
with the prices and all. Quite possibly. Although I still suspect that
glass for MF (almost by definition) is more expensive than for 35mm....

(Of course, I can come up with a 35mm kit that will outcost a
 MF-kit...think Leica vs. (I think they're called) Kiev. Then again,
 that wouldn't be a usefull comparison).

> >
> > A decent pro MF camera body has about the same price as a Wunderbrick
> > Fxx with high-quality glass. With the reasonable fine-grained,
> > slow films available, plenty of light in the studio and the (usually very
> > limited) requirements from studio fotos), it's a reasonable compromize to
> > use 35mm. Fact is, that most studio prints probably do not go into very
> > high enlargements, and most customers are satisfied with what they get
> > from the 35mm (colored brochures are limited by the printing quality,
> > and family portraits rarely go into wall-size anyways).
> >
> 
> Probably.  Most consumers never seen things from an MF film, and so they
> probably have no idea the quality differences..  But now that I do, I'm
> going to ask for MF for my studio portraits..
> 

Absolutely. If one doesn't know that better exists, one is happy with what
one gets ;)

> > More "dynamic" studio-types that I've known also tend to move about with
> > the camera in the studio (not on a tripod). That's easier with 35mm.
> >
> > That said, though, I agree on your notion that MF clearly is better for
> > big enlargements. However I think that MF complements the 35mm format well
> > - they both have their uses.
> 
> Agreed.  If I'm running around, a RZ is probably not a choice.  (An OM1n
> would be!)  :-)
> 

Heh. Actually, I can from time to time be seen running around with a
Mamiya 645...

--thomas



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz