Big, Better, Best...Sometimes Smaller is Better
I don't (yet) have examples of cameras and viewers in every format. In a rare failure for Richard, his 7 x 13 format never really caught on. My guess is it was too close to the already well established 6 x 13. Similarly, the 5 x 12 format has faded into obscurity. Whether established before or after 45 x 107 I don't know, but the success of Richard's cameras probably doomed this format.
In order to gain a sense of scale, here are some sample cameras, viewer magazines and plates in various sizes from 8.5 x 17 to 45 x 107.
These image samples were chosen not for quality but because they fell readily to hand. The image details on the right are not representative of the achievable quality with each format. As has ever been the case, given comparable equipment, the biggest original will always be best simply because it contains the most data. In the real world, the smallest won out because of its practicality as part of an overall system. The cameras were small and light, the viewing equipment was small and light, it took less space to store all the stuff, etc. On a more subtle note, it should be said the larger formats were severely limited by their viewing equipment, Whether in a hand held viewer, a No 2 Taxiphote, or anything in between, viewer focal lengths were always too short, This was an issue even with 45 x 107, but the big plates were never able to stretch their legs. The actual viewing experience with a bigger plate was not particularly better. With proper viewing equipment, 8.5 x 17 could have blown the others away. Using modern optics, today one can enjoy a distinctly better viewing experience with medium format slides vs 35 mm.