It has been mentioned in the past how one roll of film is actually used for any of the medium format cameras. You just go to a store selling this film and then buy a roll and use it in a camera that shoots with 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm or 6x7cm frames. Again, there are other, larger sizes but these three are the most common. To give yourself a good idea of just how much larger those frames are compared to the more usual size of the 35mm frame, six centimeters is around the length of a grown man’s pinky. The larger frame size lends itself to much bigger enlargements without sacrificing sharpness.

Medium format cameras can also be classified one more way: Those which accomodate interchangeable film backs and those that don’t. Those that don’t (like the Yashica 124) have to finish a roll of film before another can be used. Those with interchangeable backs like the RB67, the Bronica series and Hasselblads, can have color print film in one back, color slide film in another and black and white in yet another. All a user needs is to change the backs to use different film. Really convenient and before digital became the norm, pros used instant film like Polaroid or Fuji to check exposure. (We waited around a minute or two for the film to develop and it was common to see assistants massaging the film to heat things up.)

The three different sizes have their own adherents. The smallest of these, 6x4.5cmm, is closest to the 35mm experience and these cameras are also among the easiest to handle and handhold. It is this factor that most manufacturers have used to entice people to “trade up.” The idea is that you get a much bigger frame size without getting undue difficulty. Many of these cameras even look like their 35mm cousins and Mamiya and Pentax both have popular auto- focus cameras.

There’s also 6x7, the size of the Mamiya RB67 and RZ67, perhaps the most popular cameras for professionals in its heyday. The proof of this is that these two are still being sold brand new though people have “moved on” to digital. The RZ67, owing to its electronics, even allows the use of digital backs so users didn’t have to let go of their cameras and lenses. There was/is a big entry price into the digital derby though with backs normally costing around a million bucks. There are digital backs for rent now after some enterprising rich dudes saw the continuing need for medium format in the digital age. If you’re an RB67 user, you can rent an RZ67 with that digital back and then use your own lenses. Not such a bad deal.

What’s so special about 6x7cm though film cameras are actually still being sold? Printing large photos was and is usually done using 8x10 paper. The 35mm frame is actually better suited to 8x12 inches so to get 8x10, you’d have to crop of a sizeable chunk. The 6x7 frame is almost ideal for printing 8x10 with almost no wastage. Though you do get “just” 10 frames on each roll of film, the huge frame, that is already a photo that can be displayed in a wallet when it is printed, makes everything worthwhile especially when you consider that people can easily get enlargements of 30x40 inches with a very high level of sharpness.

Since the cameras are quite large, it’s hard to move from a landcape orientation to portrait. One of the RB67/RZ67’s main features is its revolving back. You actually just turn the back itself and not the camera to move to and from either orientation. The professional version of the RB, as it’s affectionally called, even has guide lines inside the frame to remind a user of what orientation is being presently used.

Now, why discuss 6x6cm last? This is a very special format that people either love or hate. Almost everybody is used to having a rectangular frame when it comes to photos. You either have things in landscape or portrait orientation and, for most mindsets, this is how things should be and when a square format comes in, it throws people off. Also, since we did mention that most photos get printed in something like 8x10 or some other rectangular format, it seems wasteful that you really do end up with the same “usable” frame that’s basically the same size as a 6x4.5cm. When the glossy magazines were still using film, those of us who used 6x6 had to always keep in mind that if a shot were to be used full page or even a spread (from one page to the other), it had to be composed in such a way that allowed cropping to the rectangular dimensions of the magazine being shot for. The same is true when you’re shooting for a client who wants to have a framed rectangular portrait. If it’s not going to be for a full page, then it was okay to compose with the square frame.

So why even have it? It seems to be a real case of knowing that you want it when you see it. There are certain photos that seem to lend itself to this format and when you do know when to use it, it can be a creative element all its own. Besides, the Yashicamat 124 we talked about in the last installment is such an inexpensive way to get into medium format as are the Holga lomography cameras that it seems such a shame to not even try it.

Me? I’ve been a fan of the Bronica SQ series (SQ for square) for around almost a decade. It was so cheap when I got it and now, things are getting even cheaper. Yes, you forego the revolving back of the RB (that’s something people really have to try) but it’s so light and handholdable that it’s such a joy to shoot with. Next week? The Bronica SQ.