format: 6x7 is weird isn't it?

[danielheller]

<p>To All: The OP did not indicate he would have a problem with either storing or printing the 6x7<br>

JD: It appears the consensus is 6x8.<br>

Fuji GX680III. Amazing glass. Can do 6x8,6x7,6x6,645 with insertion of proper mask. Ten pounds.<br>

<em> </em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>JD, you might try the Japanese market and one of the more reputable Japanese sellers on the Bay to find a mint or near mint Fujifilm GW 680 III rangefinder with 6x8 frame size. Apparently this variant of the 670 and 690 models was sold mainly in Japan. The optics are very fine, if you don't mind fixed lens and absence of in built light meter. I use my 690 for most of my 120 film work.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If you can live with 6x6 consider the Mamiya 6. Looks like a slightly smaller Mamiya 7, but I think with the 6 the lenses can partially collapse into the camera body for transport. Sharp lenses. I've never heard any bad press about the sharpness of Mamiya C330 lenses, but with that system it's either waist level or optional porrofinder which IIRC, reduces brightness quite a bit. If interchangeable lenses are not needed consider the various Rolleiflex and Rolleicord models.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>The issue is that 6x7, as far as I understand, isn't really 6x7, but more like '60x77', the average frame size being closer to 56x72 than to the 56x65 that the name would imply. The ratio is really close to the 1.25x of 8x10/4x5. Otherwise, 6x7 would hardly be better than 6x6 for anything.</p>