6x7 or Square... which is better?

Square, 6x7, 3x2, Xpan for wide if you like ... what's the difference?

If the person using whatever format they choose is happy with their results ... what does it matter ... there is no 'which is better' issue here IMO!
 
My only problem is that 6x7 cameras aren't practical. A Hasselblad is light and small enough to easily handhold. An Rb67 is not. A Mamiya 7 is amazingly sharp but will explode if you drop it onto anything hard. A Fuji G670 seems like a good choice...but it is rare and can be expensive. It is also a bit cumbersome to use.

So in the end I would choose a 6x6 Hasselblad...I print upto 11x14 and like grain so the lesser negative space when cropped to rectangle doesn't bother me :)
 
Krzys said:
Look straight ahead and pay attention to what you see directly and in your peripherals. Your will see more to your sides than above and below....if you don't agree tilt your head fully sideways and do it again.
Click to expand...

That's simply because the two circles of vision formed by your two eyes are overlapping like a Venn diagram. In the central overlap you get binocular vision and perception of depth. So the total field is wider than it is high. Nothing special about that - you could do exactly the same thing with two torch beams in a darkened room or on a dark night.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
That's simply because the two circles of vision formed by your two eyes are overlapping like a Venn diagram. In the central overlap you get binocular vision and perception of depth. So the total field is wider than it is high. Nothing special about that - you could do exactly the same thing with two torch beams in a darkened room or on a dark night.
Click to expand...
So?

All I'm saying is that you don't see the world as a square or vertical rectangle unless you are looking through a window. So shooting only squares or vertical rectangles for the sake of sticking to the ratio, rather than having a compositional value seems silly to me as I will get distracted and see crops which would work for me.
 
Krzys said:
My only problem is that 6x7 cameras aren't practical. A Hasselblad is light and small enough to easily handhold. An Rb67 is not. A Mamiya 7 is amazingly sharp but will explode if you drop it onto anything hard. A Fuji G670 seems like a good choice...but it is rare and can be expensive. It is also a bit cumbersome to use.
Click to expand...

What you're actually saying is that your preferences for format and ergonomics is different to others. The rest of your comments about "not practical" is negated by the hundred or even thousands of photographers who have happily used 6x7 format cameras of various makes and models. The bit about a Mamiya 7 "exploding" if you drop it is silly and irrelevant. So will many cameras and this has nothing at all to do with the format of the camera.
 
If we talk formats then I expect to talk about the relevant cameras. Either way I completely forgot about the Pentax 67. I've held one but never shot a roll personally...though it looks like a sweet beast to use.

The Mamiya 7 has an amazingly sharp lens but is fragile...so you wont find me using it. A valid point as to why I am not shooting 67 right now.

If I said 'which is better, 4x5 or 35mm?' you couldn't tell me that the camera has nothing to do with the format.
 
Last edited:
I like the variety of formats that are available, not one more than the others. I enjoy 6x6 but find it refreshing to switch to 6x7, 36mm or 24x80 panoramic depending on the setting.
 
I love 6x7 and square, but I never crop from square, so that format has its limitations to me. Not that I don't have to crop a fair bit from 6x7 for stuff like wallpapers.
 
The new Voigtlander Bessa III folding mf camera gives you a choice of both. So far have just used the 6X7 which I like a lot. Will have to explore 6X6 soon.
 
Square is better.

Amen.

p.s. 6x7 is a "wannabe" format. Wannabe square. Wannabe a rectangle but does not have the cojones. Worst format ever.
 
Last edited:
Krzys said:
So?

All I'm saying is that you don't see the world as a square or vertical rectangle unless you are looking through a window.
Click to expand...

The point is that you don't see the world as a horizontal rectangle either. It just doesn't make much sense to compare human visual perception with a camera. Just as it makes little sense to compare the human brain with a computer. It might be a good analogy to explain something to a child but in the end it's just highly inaccurate and misleading.

As for cameras I can't say much about the Mamiya 7 but I will say that the Hasselblad isn't as sturdy as you might think. I've owned an expansive Hasselblad kit for quite some time and while I found it a joy to use, I also found that it is a somewhat capricious system. I wouldn't have wanted to drop my Hasselblad on the ground when I still had it.

FWIW I now own a Bessa III so I can choose 6x6 or 6x7 whenever I want :)
 
Last edited:
jvan01 said:
Can you switch back and forth between formats midroll on a Bessa III, a la the Xpan?
Click to expand...

No, you can't. You need to open the camera in order to switch. Switching mid roll sounds nice but I imagine one would run into quite a few troubles. Firstly, if you get overlapping frames when switching (as I hear can happen with the xpan) that's 2 out of 10 shots ruined. Secondly, you'd never be quite sure how many more shots you have left on a roll. Thirdly, it'd be a pain to archive these mixed frame negs and I wouldn't know what to tell the lab as far as cutting the roll is concerned :)
 
In an attempt to answer a simply impossible question:

6x6 is the most efficient use of the image circle and would indeed be best if you plan to print square. However, if you plan to print rectangular which most folks do, the effective negative size would be a nominal 4.5x6cm.

With 6x7, you can use (almost) all of the 6x7cm negative if you plan to print rectangular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom