6x7 or Square... which is better?

I've been looking at hundreds of square and 6x7 images. I've also been cropping some of my stuff square and really, really, really like the portraiture created. But 6x7 is so very beautiful for landscape.

Really torn. I guess the best bet is 6x7 and just crop when a portrait presents itself to me.

Please any example images would be appreciated as well.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I'm interested too. It's just that the more answers I see, the more like religion it looks, so it was an attempt at an answer.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


No offense taken. Thanks for contributing to the string.

The more data I have, the better. I'm just really on the fence as to the 6 or 7 Mamiya.

(Now's a really good time for someone to put a Mamiya up in the classifieds. Hint, hint.) ;)
 
Last edited:
Most personal preference on the format. The argument for square was always no need to change camera orientation. Although with film in such limited supply, one could argue that 645 is best since you get the most shots per roll.

Whichever format you're getting 2-3X the negative size of 35mm. another big advantage of MF is the much lower base density of the negatives. I always found MF much easier to print and generally producing more "luminous" prints.

645s were almost all very easy to handle systems.
Same for most 6x6. If I had to choose I would go Hassy or 2 Rollei TLRs. I had a Mamiya 6 for a while and enjoyed it very much, but the optics were not Hassy.
Most of of the 67 formats are pretty big cameras and a pain to lug around.

I've owned or used all 3 over the years. I would say pick the system with the best glass that is also within your budget and go shoot some film.
 
When I check out polaroids, I know in my heart "it's hip to be square."
 
Both, I've started MF with 6x6 and now I am looking for a Mamiya 7, I found 6x7 very natural point of view.

In digital, I came back to 4:3 with the GF1 and I do not miss 3:2 from mi DSLR.
 
I have never understood the 6x7 format, nor the 4/3 either. If you're going to shoot rectangular, then 6x9 (same as the standard 35mm format I believe) is great. And if you're not going to shoot rectangular, then there's 6x6. So that pretty much covers it. But a great shot is a great shot, and the format is not particularly important.
 
The answer is so INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS....

The answer is so INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS....

If you change a 6X7 to a square format, you lose a lot less film, not to mention image quality, than if you change a 6X6 to any of the standard rectangles. End of discussion.

This is consistent with an understanding that Square is not perfect and does not fit every need.

This is the most obvious response to the OP's original question about 6X6 vs 6X7.

Personally, my preference is the biggest relative 3:2 MF size... 6X9.
 
Last edited:
For acreage discussions....

For acreage discussions....

sprokitt said:
Whichever format you're getting 2-3X the negative size of 35mm. another big advantage of MF is the much lower base density of the negatives. I always found MF much easier to print and generally producing more "luminous" prints.
Click to expand...

6X9 is 4.7 times the area of 35mm. The only real shortcoming of 6X9 is that the photo processing and print industry is not very well equipped for it on a walkin basis. It's better to DIY any 6X9 negs/transparencies, or do custom processing.

I've heard it said that 6X7 was developed for the magazine cover industry.
 
Last edited:
I love 6x7. Its my favorite of all formats. So much so that I just sold my Hasselblad kit in favor of an RZ67 to work alongside my Mamiya 7.

My personal opinion is that 6x7 format is more credible than 6x6 as an "art photo", and it suits editorial/ layout work better. 6x6 looks claustrophobic to me.
 
Carterofmars said:
6x7 or Square... which is better?
Click to expand...

It depends!

If you define better as bigger then a square bigger than 6x7cm is better.

Therefore, if all else is equal (film type, ISO, lens quality, etc.), a 4x4 inch square image cropped from a 4x5 inch sheet of film is better than a 6x7cm rectangular image produced on a roll of 120 or 220 film.
 
The best one is the one that you think is best for you. Take in account what you want to shoot and what you want the end result to be. Do you prefer looking down onto a screen or do you want to look through a viewfinder? Do you want to shoot wide angle or longer focal length lenses. What are the lens choices with square or rectangular format? What can you afford?
- Jim
 
Better for my eye is the way I would look at it. I love the symetry of 6x6 square. Gotta get my head around the quirks of the meter on my Mamiya 6 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom