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

[Bruce Rubenstein]

It is obvious that you can understand nothing outside of the perspective of an amateur nature photographer. Professional studio/commercial/wedding photographers are the market for MF cameras, including 2 1/4. Companies that make these cameras don't care about hobbyists.
In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the frame. The vast majority of photographers using this format never give a though to what Pal is obsessing over.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Nonsense. The 6X7 format contain the 6X6 and is therefore just as easy to crop in any direction. In fact, it is easier as it has more real estate. The idea of having a format that depends on cropping is unsatisfactory for most photographer who prefer to compose and crop in the finder. In addition, constant cropping is a waste of space, which was my point; not whether the square format is aestatically pleasing or not. You won't see a digital format that rely on cropping for the final result as this would be too much of a waste of resources.