Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?)

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Have you ever been in a studio? Most photographers already have their gear it's 2 1/4 square and says Hasselblad on the front. Why would they buy a 6x7 to replace it? They certainly aren't going to buy a Pentax 6x7, because it doesn't have a removable back. Regardless of what people here think the merits are of a removable back, every studio I've been in, that wasn't direct digital, shoots a Polaroid first.
Of course, Pal have never been in the US, let alone a NYC studio. He thinks all Hasselblad users, like Ansel Adams, are wasteful jerks, since the great Pal has never wasted a single mm of any film he has ever shot. After all the money he's spent on Pentax gear hs is an expert on waste.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

reread what I was saying. Since the 6X7 format contains the 6X6 format it is no easier to crop the 6X6 than the 6X7. You don't have rotate the latter either. You get a 6X6 regardless on how you rotate the 6X7. This is bogus argument promulgated for years but still don't make any sense. Why not just admit that one likes the square argument instead of creating irrational arguments?

Pål