View Single Post
  #4  
Old 9th March 2016, 04:54 PM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,426
Default

Chris, it is easy to get bogged down and confused with this. I think you need to ask yourself what size prints you would like to do. If the answer is "20 x 16" then , yes, you probably could benefit from the bigger negative. But with 12 x 16 or smaller I would have thought you would be fine with the cameras you have.
I have generally found in photography that changing gear may solve one problem, but often creates others. I had used 6x6 format cameras for years, but, in pursuit of the bigger negative, bought a Pentax 67. I never got a sharp picture with it. at slow shutter speeds on a tripod, for landscape photography. ( Because of shutter vibration) So I swapped it for an RB67. This camera gives wonderful looking prints, I've done 20 x 16s with it that look really nice. But it has its drawbacks. It is very heavy to carry around. And if you like to use the hyperfocal settings on a lens to get max. depth of field, then you can't with this camera, as it focusses with bellows...But RBs are cheap, and a delight to use, being all mechanical. The Bronica 67 may be a better bet, but I can't say because I have never used one.
You are probably more confused than ever now! But keep your intended print size in mind.

Alan
Reply With Quote