Roger Hicks
Veteran
Linhof 6x7 is close to 1:1.3, rather longer than the 1:1.25 of 5x4/10x8, and therefore (to me) better looking. But then, I prefer whole plate too: 6.5 x 8.5 inches. Which, as I say, is almost exactly 3x 56x72mm...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Dogman
Veteran
I've never really had an irrational dislike of any particular format. However, I never fully got along with the digital 4/3 (micro or standard) format. I loved the cameras but I kept cropping to 3:2 aspect ratio due to so many years seeing within a 35mm format framing.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Looks like Bisakok beat me to this revelation...
I think one could reasonably suggest that 8x10 = 4x5 is the most “classic” proportion, a standard in photography. And in this poll, so far, it shares a very modest 13% disfavor with four other formats. By contrast, the most disliked is 6x7 with 42% thinking it’s the pits! This is very curious, since 6x7 has the same 1.25:1 proportions as 4x5.
The poll listing shows 6x7 as 1.16:1 (70/60=1.16) while the actual framesize is 56mm x 70mm + /- a couple mm variation among different camera brands. And 70mm / 56mm = 1.25:1, same as 4x5 and 8x10.
Because of the way 56 x 70 is commonly rounded to 6x7 in our terminology, it deceptively seems more nearly square than it really is. We could call it 5.6x7 but that’s awkward. Perception and deception!
Because we're discussing formats. 6x7 is (usually) shot on roll film. 4x5 isn't. 4x5 also has benefits in use which are not shared with 6x7.
As far as roll film goes, one has to question what benefit 6x7 has over 6x9 or 6x6 or 6x4.5.
Bisakok
Established
Surely the benefits of 6x7 are obvious; it's not too long, and it's not too short!
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Surely the benefits of 6x7 are obvious; it's not too long, and it's not too short!
It's too square, but also not square enough.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Once you're used to 56x72, though, 56x68 seems far stubbier than the 5% difference in length would suggest.Surely the benefits of 6x7 are obvious; it's not too long, and it's not too short!
Cheers,
R.
Roger Vadim
Well-known
Well put! I think it was Linhof who branded their 6x7 backs, nominally 56 x 72 mm as "Idealformat", which translates into ideal format
. Usefull for magazine covers and ads, even useful as a spread. Simply perfect as opposed to the awkward 2:3 of 35mm.edit: just seeing that this whole topic is intensely covered here... should read the threads to the end...
Renato Tonelli
Member
At some point I took a strong dislike for the 'boxier' 6x7 and 4x5 formats and moved to 6x9 and 5x7.
Nowdays it seems that there isn't a format that I don't like; I'm even thinking of buying a Fuji 6x8 Rangefinder.
And I've always lked 6x6.
Go figure...
Nowdays it seems that there isn't a format that I don't like; I'm even thinking of buying a Fuji 6x8 Rangefinder.
And I've always lked 6x6.
Go figure...
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yeah, you left out 16:9 (1.78:1) as well. But that's OK, I wouldn't have clicked on it anyway, since I really like 16:9. I also like some of the cinematic wide screen formats, like 2.35:1 (Cinemascope); 2.21:1 (70mm Panavision); or 1.85:1 (VistaVision). And I at times crop to emulate those.
Actually, I'm not a fan of the square format. I use a Hasselblad, but I almost always crop to a non-square shape. OK, I'll click on "other."
benlees
Well-known
5x7 prints are great: a nice size to handle; 4x6 can be too small, 8x10 too big.
5x7 film; I wish I had shot some. Seems perfect.
Print poll!
5x7 film; I wish I had shot some. Seems perfect.
Print poll!
leicapixie
Well-known
It's strange the way so many hate 6x7!
I had a Pentax 6x7 for many. many years!
That doesn't mean used and exposed film.
It was heavy, getting heavier with each footstep.
One cannot make a single paper contact sheet.!
Same goes for filing negs! Next was processing.
Finding a lab that could and would print this format.
When i could not really see difference in color prints 8x12"
that was the final straw. Big prints, sure! Wonderful.
I sold it to get my M6TTL. I love a small camera.
More film exposed in a few months than 25 years with Fat Albert.
Maybe "Ko-Fe" is dead right! Plowing with a fat pig.
However it the Pentax was a great camera, perhaps simply too big for me.
I had a Pentax 6x7 for many. many years!
That doesn't mean used and exposed film.
It was heavy, getting heavier with each footstep.
One cannot make a single paper contact sheet.!
Same goes for filing negs! Next was processing.
Finding a lab that could and would print this format.
When i could not really see difference in color prints 8x12"
that was the final straw. Big prints, sure! Wonderful.
I sold it to get my M6TTL. I love a small camera.
More film exposed in a few months than 25 years with Fat Albert.
Maybe "Ko-Fe" is dead right! Plowing with a fat pig.
However it the Pentax was a great camera, perhaps simply too big for me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've never 'hated' any format, that would be irrational. :angel:
But 35mm often does seem a little more oblong than I prefer. I started photography with square format cameras and find I really love making square photos still.
My standard in 35mm format photography for many years was enlargement and crop to 11x14 inch prints, which is never-you-mind close to 4:3 format (the closest match to standard US Letter size paper, FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds digital cameras, 6x7 format, and the pre-wide-screen standard for computer displays). I've had a couple of 6x7 cameras but only rarely used the full 6x7 format; and I've had a couple of 6x9 cameras and even less frequently used their full format.
I used FourThirds format digital for a long while because it is relatively low loss to crop to 3:2 or 1:1. Since I moved to FF 35mm format digital cameras, I find myself cropping square still (since that now nets me a 16 Mpixel image, I can tolerate the losses) or 16:10 (the now-almost-standard wide-screen computer display format, and just about equal loss to 1:1 crop). I am very likely to buy a Hasselblad X1D or CFV-50c at some point in the future, which are also 4:3 format (44x33mm sensor). With 50 Mpixel total to work with, cropping to 1:1 or 3:2 or 16:10 will be no sweat at all.
In film, I still prefer 120 film cameras with 6x6cm negative format. I doubt that will ever change.
G
But 35mm often does seem a little more oblong than I prefer. I started photography with square format cameras and find I really love making square photos still.
My standard in 35mm format photography for many years was enlargement and crop to 11x14 inch prints, which is never-you-mind close to 4:3 format (the closest match to standard US Letter size paper, FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds digital cameras, 6x7 format, and the pre-wide-screen standard for computer displays). I've had a couple of 6x7 cameras but only rarely used the full 6x7 format; and I've had a couple of 6x9 cameras and even less frequently used their full format.
I used FourThirds format digital for a long while because it is relatively low loss to crop to 3:2 or 1:1. Since I moved to FF 35mm format digital cameras, I find myself cropping square still (since that now nets me a 16 Mpixel image, I can tolerate the losses) or 16:10 (the now-almost-standard wide-screen computer display format, and just about equal loss to 1:1 crop). I am very likely to buy a Hasselblad X1D or CFV-50c at some point in the future, which are also 4:3 format (44x33mm sensor). With 50 Mpixel total to work with, cropping to 1:1 or 3:2 or 16:10 will be no sweat at all.
In film, I still prefer 120 film cameras with 6x6cm negative format. I doubt that will ever change.
G
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It's strange the way so many hate 6x7!
I had a Pentax 6x7 for many. many years!
That doesn't mean used and exposed film.
It was heavy, getting heavier with each footstep.
One cannot make a single paper contact sheet.!
Same goes for filing negs! Next was processing.
Finding a lab that could and would print this format.
When i could not really see difference in color prints 8x12"
that was the final straw. Big prints, sure! Wonderful.
I sold it to get my M6TTL. I love a small camera.
More film exposed in a few months than 25 years with Fat Albert.
Maybe "Ko-Fe" is dead right! Plowing with a fat pig.
However it the Pentax was a great camera, perhaps simply too big for me.
The Pentax 67 is a little like a blue blazer: you need three of each. With the blazer, you need to have one to wear, one at the cleaners, and one in the closet. With the Pentax 67, you need one to shoot with; one in repair; and a third one as a spare for when the current shooter breaks.