Surely there are two kinds of 'oddball' formats. On the one hand there are those that provide a more pleasing aspect ratio within the normal range of rectangles (whole plate, 5x7 inch, 13x18cm. etc), and those that go way outside this (6x17cm, 6x24cm, 4x10 inch, etc.)
The former are easy to use by anyone who likes a better shape within the usual range of shapes (not the squat, ugly 4x5/8x10 for example, OK for portraits but of limited use for anything else), while the latter appeal only to a few with a particular type of vision. The 'particular type of vision' is not one whit inferior: just rarer and harder to try. And, in all fairness, sometimes favoured by those who can't compose a decent picture in any format, and therefore try the bizarre in desperation.
I always thought 10x16 would be an interesting ULF format. Very close to 35mm dimensions and just cut a sheet of 16x20 in half for the film.
I'm shooting 5x7 the most now - I love the shape, and it is the smallest size that still makes a decent contact print. I'm getting into whole plate, as soon as the Fotoman holders are available. I'm also in the process of acquiring an 11x14 and a 5x12 camera. Part of my vision has always been panoramic, and again, 5x12 is the smallest size in that genre that makes a nice contact print. The oddball thing is that I traded my Xpan (which is a nifty little camera, but I'm not using it enough) for the 11x14, and I traded my Hasselblad lenses for the 5x12 (again, not using them enough). I'm keeping my 8x10, because I've got just too much tied up in it, and the 8x10 I do have is just so nice, it would be a real challenge to replace it if I wanted to get back into it later. I'm figuring the 11x14 will get mostly used in the studio, but the 5x7 and 5x12 will get used in the field a lot more.
I always though whole plate was one of those squarish formats -) 6x8?
4x10 is the more accessiable 5x12. Similar shape. You can just crop an 8x10. Or get a reducing back. Or go whole hog and buy a 4x10 camera.
Whole plate is more square than 5x7, less square than 4x5/8x10. It's a nice intermediate.
It appears that I have become a victim of my own post today...with a Universal, Rochester Optical Company Whoe plate (6.5x8.5) camera coming home with me from a local camera show.
Seems a little TLC will be needed to have it film worthy and to be honest when I decided to 'purchase' the camera the intent was to just pass it on to someone that was wanting a whole plate (or is it full plate) camera. BUT, after sitting down with the camera I have to say it is a really nice camera and with a few of the minor items corrected would make a nice shooter...and somehow that format starts to grow on you - it sure seems nicer than the square of 8x10, and the size of the rig is much smaller than the 8x10 Korona I have. Plus there is something about using another old camera and putting it back into use that seems to satisfy some interal voice within that I really can't explain.
So now to start to work on it, clean it up, maybe repair/replace what needs work and find a film holder (or 3 or 4) and some film to go in said holders....you Whole Plate guys .... would never have consider this if you had not been making all those post.
yeah that's it, it couldn't be some weakness in my own personality that caused this, need to blame everyone that mentioned....awwwwwww Heck!! Just a sucker for one of those 100 y/o plus cameras and I know it. Who needs standard formats anyhow...
My oddball formats are 6x17 and 4x10. I find the 6x17 format with a 90mm is the bomb for dramatic landscape, and it packs easy. The 4x10 is done with masks in my 2D- so two shots per 8x10 sheet. I've only goofed with it a bit, but I think it will be an interesting aspect ratio for certain still life shots that I want to contact print.