There are various reasons for moving up from 35mm to medium format, but I think many photographer's look for an improvement in image quality. With the 6 x 4.5 cm and the 6 x 6 formats, you really only realize about a 2x difference in enlargement ratio when moving up from 35mm. That is certainly an improvement but it's not the huge improvement that might be expected. This argues that a 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 format might be a better choice if image quality is your main driver.
Some choose 6x6 because they prefer that aspect ratio--and the square format can be very powerful.
I've owned various medium format cameras and note the following:
1) I naturally see the world in a more horizontal image than vertical--I suspect due in part to having two eyes arranged horizontally and wearing glasses which frames my vision; perhaps the movie industry reinforces that vision with the wide screen formats. I find 6 x 9 to be a fairly natural vision format for me, and I like the relatively huge negative area. I owned a Fuji 6 x 4.5 RF folder for a while, but got rid of it because of reliability problems--now I have a GW690-III.
2) The Mamiya RB67 is a heavy beast, and I don't consider it "hand holdable"; it is a relatively complete system so accessory items are mostly available. I couldn't find a tripod quick release that fit it well except for Mamiya's own brand--it might have been the rotating back that was the limiting factor if you want to rotate the back with the camera on tripod--or it might have been the surface space on the camera for the tripod mount--something or other made it awkward to use another brand QR (quick release) plate. I own this camera, but I think a 4x5 field camera with lenses makes a lighter and more compact kit if I want to do tripod mounted work.
3) The Pentax 67II is a lovely camera, with a reputation for keeping the film flat for ultra sharp images--reportedly used in astronomic photos for this reason. But it is also a heavy beast, and really best used on a tripod because of the vibrations induced by the mirror and shutter. Use mirror lockup for the sharpest photos. I own one of these.
4) Bronica SQ series: I like these cameras, and own an SQ-B and SQ-Ai; they can be hand held, and are quite nice. Note that on the SQ-Am (motorized drive) the motor drive cannot be removed, so it is heavier and needs the batteries. Better to get the simpler version (SQ-B and SQ-Ai are the more recent versions) and a speed grip (if that is wanted). Waist level finders have become scarce and expensive. Don't forget the Bronica GS-1 and ETR-Si which are the 6x7 and 6 x 4.5 versions respectively; they orient the long dimension horizontally, but realize that without the pentaprism, the image is upside down if you flip the camera for vertical format. Note that the WLF (waist level finder) makes these cameras much lighter and more hand-holdable.
5) TLR's--I cut my photographic teeth on a Yashica Mat-124; but later in life I found I really had a hard time focusing it; that's my eyes, and not a problem with it; I also have a little trouble keeping the camera stable (left-right wobble) and prefer an eye-level viewfinder. Again, that's me, not the camera.
So there's lots of choices, and really it would be best if your son could handle the individual cameras and see how they feel to him.
For me, the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is probably my favorite. But I meter manually so the lack of a meter in the Fuji doesn't bother me. The Bronica SQ family, my second favorite.
Finally, if he has a strong interest in architectural photography, a 4x5 view camera will be better and cheaper.
Some choose 6x6 because they prefer that aspect ratio--and the square format can be very powerful.
I've owned various medium format cameras and note the following:
1) I naturally see the world in a more horizontal image than vertical--I suspect due in part to having two eyes arranged horizontally and wearing glasses which frames my vision; perhaps the movie industry reinforces that vision with the wide screen formats. I find 6 x 9 to be a fairly natural vision format for me, and I like the relatively huge negative area. I owned a Fuji 6 x 4.5 RF folder for a while, but got rid of it because of reliability problems--now I have a GW690-III.
2) The Mamiya RB67 is a heavy beast, and I don't consider it "hand holdable"; it is a relatively complete system so accessory items are mostly available. I couldn't find a tripod quick release that fit it well except for Mamiya's own brand--it might have been the rotating back that was the limiting factor if you want to rotate the back with the camera on tripod--or it might have been the surface space on the camera for the tripod mount--something or other made it awkward to use another brand QR (quick release) plate. I own this camera, but I think a 4x5 field camera with lenses makes a lighter and more compact kit if I want to do tripod mounted work.
3) The Pentax 67II is a lovely camera, with a reputation for keeping the film flat for ultra sharp images--reportedly used in astronomic photos for this reason. But it is also a heavy beast, and really best used on a tripod because of the vibrations induced by the mirror and shutter. Use mirror lockup for the sharpest photos. I own one of these.
4) Bronica SQ series: I like these cameras, and own an SQ-B and SQ-Ai; they can be hand held, and are quite nice. Note that on the SQ-Am (motorized drive) the motor drive cannot be removed, so it is heavier and needs the batteries. Better to get the simpler version (SQ-B and SQ-Ai are the more recent versions) and a speed grip (if that is wanted). Waist level finders have become scarce and expensive. Don't forget the Bronica GS-1 and ETR-Si which are the 6x7 and 6 x 4.5 versions respectively; they orient the long dimension horizontally, but realize that without the pentaprism, the image is upside down if you flip the camera for vertical format. Note that the WLF (waist level finder) makes these cameras much lighter and more hand-holdable.
5) TLR's--I cut my photographic teeth on a Yashica Mat-124; but later in life I found I really had a hard time focusing it; that's my eyes, and not a problem with it; I also have a little trouble keeping the camera stable (left-right wobble) and prefer an eye-level viewfinder. Again, that's me, not the camera.
So there's lots of choices, and really it would be best if your son could handle the individual cameras and see how they feel to him.
For me, the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder is probably my favorite. But I meter manually so the lack of a meter in the Fuji doesn't bother me. The Bronica SQ family, my second favorite.
Finally, if he has a strong interest in architectural photography, a 4x5 view camera will be better and cheaper.
Last edited: