6x7 or Square... which is better?

i should make a flow chart with the following list of preferences:

i like 6x7 rangefinders more than 6x7 slrs.
i like 6x7 rangefinders more than 6x6 and 6x4.5 rangefinders.
i like 6x9 rangefinders more than 6x7 rangefinders.
i like 6x6 tlrs more than 6x6 rangefinders.
i like 6x6 slrs more than 6x6 tlrs, but only for wides, macros, and teles.
i like 6x4.5 slrs more than 6x6, 6x7, and 6x8 slrs.

also, we should consider 6x4.5, which is a great format (especially when we compare 6x4.5 slrs to 6x7 slrs).

- smaller, lighter, generally cheaper cameras and lenses with better ergonomics. more modern cameras are also available.
- slightly longer aspect ratio, generally more pleasing than 56mm x 70mm
- tonality is marginally less smooth than 6x7 (~15%), which is just barely enough to see the difference in side-by-side comparisons. on their own, in the real world, you can't do better than 50/50. dubious loss.
- resolution depends on what lenses we're talking about specifically. mamiya 7? definitely sharper. pentax 67, rz67, 6x7 fujis? not necessarily. rb67 and press cameras? even iffier.
- tidy negative filing; a mess with 6x7
- more shots per roll
 
Spyro said:
Square is better when it works but 6X7 is easier to make work. 3:2 is easier even.
With square I find I am often forced to include things up and down I'd normally leave out of the photo because they dont add anything meaningful, things like more sky, the 2nd floor of a building, more asphalt, someones crotch :p
But if you find the right subject for square, it just...works.

IMHO of course :)
Click to expand...

Doesn't this argue for moving and/or reframing? or are you saying that everything else in the photo belongs or is essential and that one item needs to be out?
 
pagpow said:
Doesn't this argue for moving and/or reframing? or are you saying that everything else in the photo belongs or is essential and that one item needs to be out?
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my subjects are usually arranged from left to right. With such an arrangement and square format it doesnt matter how I move I will always end up with a lot of empty space up and/or down. That space is difficult to manage, fill the frame and get a composition that works. Other times I prefer square for example for portraits, stills, buildings and certain types of landscapes, but these are not my usual subjects.
 
Last edited:
Yes "Jan Normandale" is right....6x9 is the way to go. 6x7 is ok. I have shot 6x6 , 6x7 & 6x9 and in the end the real physical advantage is beyond 6x7!
 
larmarv916 said:
Yes "Jan Normandale" is right....6x9 is the way to go. 6x7 is ok. I have shot 6x6 , 6x7 & 6x9 and in the end the real physical advantage is beyond 6x7!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see this. What 'real physcal advantage'? I've shot 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17cm, as well as the Alpa-unique 44x66mm. I still have cameras or backs for all those formats except 6x17cm.

Although 645 gives a significant quality advantage over 35mm, this is at the expense of bigger, heavier, slower-handling cameras with significantly slower lenses: a trade-off I see as not worth it.

Then, 6x6 is effectively the same as 645 once you have cropped it to a rectangle, as most people do. Its raison d'etre was the Rolleiflex TLR, which you couldn't easily tip on its side. In the days when you sent trannies in to publishers for scanning, thereby relinquishing control of the crop, 6x6 was an invitation to disaster. That's why I sold my Hasselblad in the early-to-mid 80s.

A good-sized 6x7 (especially Linhof's 56x72mm) has a pleasing aspect ration when enlarged 'all in' and allows three set of brackets plus a spare on a roll of 120. The 6x8 format (which I use on my Graflex XL and Alpa) has much the same advantage, minus the 'spare' frame, but enlarging just about perfectly onto A-series paper sizes.

Then, for me, 6x9 is a bit too long and thin (though I'm used to this with 35mm): I just prefer the shape of 6x7 and 6x8. It's Frances's favourite roll-film format, though, on her Alpa 12 S/WA. After that, 6x12 and 6x17 are specialist panoramic formats and I've seen very few 6x24 images that I've liked, though I've never shot 6x24 myself. Nor have I particularly wanted to.

This is reminiscent of the Monty Python dialogue (from, as I recall, Monty Python and the Holy Grail) which goes, "What is your favourite colour?" -- "Blue" -- "WRONG!"

Cheers,

R.
 
Don't let the camera decide what YOU want to do! I for example like square format for portrait and architecture, so I choose a flex. On the other when I want street shooting or fast action, I better choose a non square one! The only limiting factor is YOUR mind, and not your little picture taking machine!
 
Fun Thread, though forgettable. Which is often the consequence of categoric questions where there are no categoric answers.

I agree with Keith and Roger. Each to their own, I shoot with whatever I have at hand, and may or may not crop later on, if I happen to see a picture within the picture. There is no such thing as a better format (meaning aspect ratio . size does count). All aspect ratios are good. Its what you make of it. that counts.
 
It's not about which one is better. It's about they're different. You have it or you don't... You can have rectangles and squares when you compose, or have one of them only. I find composing with a square very enjoyable: as there's no longer side, compositional relations between your elements and diagonals are more stable and intense... YMMV

Cheers,

Juan
 
In fact I would enjoy a lot an "adaptation" (if not a new line, which is harder) of Bessas to 24x24 and obviously square finders. I've seen some other people ask for it too on the new CV products thread.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Krzys said:
A 24x24 Bessa would be a very interesting and fun camera to use.
Click to expand...

I know it's not a film camera but my GF1 has, amongst it's viewfinder menu options, a square format. It's not far off the size of my Bessa RF's and with an adaptor it takes my CV lenses. Pretty much what you asked for.
 
Square. Duh? Why would anyone even ask?

/Yeah, I suppose most of you figure I'm going to have a /sarc tag here. But really it's not. Why would anyone use anything other than a square if it fits the composition? It's so much better than the usual double frame miniature format that it's hard to imagine anyone with a choice picking anything else...

:eek:

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom