Gordon Moat wrote:

Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop.

So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?

This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a
difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.

Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
;-)

If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would
be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.

Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
people use long lenses that *are* available???

Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be
better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired
compositions.

Yes...
And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)
You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
questionable practice.

"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by
an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something
less
than 35 mm format.

Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF
100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image
(more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape
(horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,
gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image
to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be
cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,
but
it is hardly 35 mm.

No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.
Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
unrealistic, is it?

[...]

It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller
than
35 mm format???

Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of
you.

Ah, but i wasn't asking a question. I was expressing my lasting surprise
about the thing you put forward.

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only
answer. [...]

Is it about SLR vs RF now?
I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
got cropped anyway.

Anyway. ;-)