>>3141403>A normal lens would be a 70-80mm since this is almost 6x6. 95mm is almost a 105mm.This is slightly bigger than 6x6, not slightly smaller ("6x6" is actually 56x56mm. This is 62x62mm).
The easy way to calculate a normal angle lens on a given format is to take the diagonal. E.g., on 6x6, an 80mm lens is considered a normal, because 6x6 has a ~79mm diagonal.
Since this is 62x62mm, the diagonal is 87mm. That's within spitting distance of 95mm, to about the same extent that a 50mm isn't the "true" normal on 135.
At worst, this is a slightly long normal. It's definitely not a portrait length.
>Also comparing square formats to 3x4 formats is stupid.Well, we're actually comparing square formats to 2x3 formats. Either way, though, the concepts of wide/normal/telephoto still apply. Yeah, it's not quite a perfect match, but it's not an apples-to-oranges comparison so much as a honeycrisp-to-braeburn comparison. That's why we also just say that Four Thirds has a 2x crop factor instead of dicking around and always qualifying it as "Well, KIND OF a 2x crop factor, but it's a 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 3:2, so it's not QUITE the same" every single time we talk about it.
