View Full Version : Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?
Hello.
I'm planning a back packing trip in S America for 6-12 months and want to take my time and a larger format than 35mm.
The little I know about LF suggests that I look at field cameras (?).
I'd typically travel with a 28, 85 and a 200 when using a 35mm, but appreciate lenses will not always correlate.
I've looked at Ebony and there are other alternatives too although I’ve only considered 5x4 field cameras thus far.
I'd appreciate your collective musings as I need to carry all this kit plus a rucksac, so it's got to be manageable, and a lighter tripod looks likely too.
Thanks.
Tim
BrianShaw
29-Sep-2010, 07:14
Pardon me for being a heretic but if I were doing what you are planning, I'd be trying out high-quality compact digital cameras to find one that will give the desired quality. If you said you'd also have a friendly alpaca to carry your gear I might suggest something else.
BrianShaw
29-Sep-2010, 07:15
Oh... and welcome to the forum!
Frank Petronio
29-Sep-2010, 07:26
I'd get a late, clean Graflex Crown Graphic with its 135mm lens ($400) and a couple-three Grafmatic film holders ($250) and a Harrision Pup Tent ($150). A Chinese-made 1" leg diameter Carbon Fiber tripod with a good ball head ($400). Take a lot of film ($1000) and concentrate on shooting, both hand-held and studied shots. Budget for processing too.
I'd learn how to use this kit handheld and on the fly before I left, testing everything with real-world practice.
While you may be able to afford to bring an Ebony and nicer gear ($3000 plus), there is little reason to, you won't miss any shots with Crown. And you won't have to baby it or worry as much if it gets rained upon or stolen, most repairs can be made in the field.
If you really want to gild the lily and be pro, then get a second identical outfit and hold it as a back-up to be sent if the need arises.
If you really want a luxury camera when you get back then by all means treat yourself, but I think taking too much valuable photo gear gets in the way as much as it benefits.
I don't know your style, but ask yourself whether you realistically want to be spending a couple to five minutes doing a shot or whether you want to be one of those fussy dicks who spends an hour under a darkcloth to shoot a postcard, of which you could buy a better version in the giftshop? ;-)
Gem Singer
29-Sep-2010, 07:26
I recommend a high-end digital camera, such as a Leica, with a few prime lenses.
Backpacking with a LF camera is highly impractical. It requires an excessive amount of gear. 4x5 film and film holders would be your primary problem.
BrianShaw
29-Sep-2010, 07:28
Ya, but Frank... let's face it... you'd have three or four girls with you to help carry all of that stuff. ;)
Welcome; I'd suggest you get your camera and accessories months in advance of your adventure so you can practice and learn with them. You'll find LF is good for certain things that 35 is mediocre with, and vice versa. This is all stuff you have to learn, in addition to basic operation and film handling before venturing off.
Budget and capabilities will dictate what you get. Low end is a used press camera, then midrange is the wooden field cameras like chamonix/shenhao, and higher end would be ebony/canham.
For rough traveling, you might want to get a canham plastic groundglass protector or make sure your camera has some sort of integrated protection for the groundglass.
Thanks.
It's either LF or take my 'Blads (film). I still think the LF route will suit me better, but as you say, it's partly the film stock that might swing the balance owards the 'Blads. I'm not decided yet.
I'll keep an eye out for the 3x listed cameras, though there are some Wista Zone 1V & Gandolfi cameras I've spied.
Some other good ideas here - thanks thus far.
Tim
David de Gruyl
29-Sep-2010, 08:14
Personally, I would choose a Chamonix because it is so light. If I were inclined to take a 4x5 camera. The trouble is not the camera itself, but the filmholders, tripod and the film. I would not pick a camera system that I had never worked with and go traipsing off on another continent.
I would definitely take only 3-5 standard filmholders and a changing bag. I might choose the harrison tent or I might go with an unstructured bag. I would not choose the "changing room" that just pops open. It works great, but it is the wrong choice for compactness.
What, precisely, do you mean by "backpacking"? If you mean "taking a bus up and down the continent" then this could work fine. If you mean walking for hours per day, this might be too much crap.
Film supply and processing is going to be a problem. You may have to bring all of it with you. You might be able to get it shipped in. I'd try to figure that out before I started anything else.
Bob McCarthy
29-Sep-2010, 08:20
If you said "traveling" I'd be all for a sheet film camera. But "backpacking" is better accomplished with a roll film camera, like the Mamaya 7 or even a Pentax 67 though the Mamaya would clearly be lighter, stow smaller.
The Blad' would work too, but unless you print and display "square" the "post crop" film area is significantly larger with a 6x7 or 6x8 medium format rig.
bob
Brian C. Miller
29-Sep-2010, 08:22
If I were doing that, I would go with a Toyo 45AX, or Toyo 45CF, or Graflex Super Graphic, or other good press camera. (I have a 45AX and Super Graphic.) Both the 45CF and Super Graphic will fold with a lens mounted. The 135mm Graflex Wollensack lens is a really good lens. You can photograph with a press camera quite easily.
The real thing to watch is film. Since Fuji color Quickloads are still in stock, I would buy a Quickload holder and plenty of boxes of Quickloads. Otherwise, buy a Harrison changing tent, an antistatic brush, and be very patient loading the holders.
Brian Ellis
29-Sep-2010, 08:30
Unless you're going to periodically be in areas where you can restock film and have exposed film processed, I don't think a LF system is suitable for a "backpacking" trip of that length (at least not what I think of as "backpacking"). It could be done but the advantages of a good digital camera and a system to download and save your photographs and/or lots of flash cards, are pretty overwhelming compared to any film system under those circumstances. I also wouldn't make a trip of that length my first foray into LF photography.
Vick Vickery
29-Sep-2010, 08:38
Welcome to group therepy, Tim. :) As you can see, there are many opinions represented on this site and we aren't afraid to express them! If I were making your journey, I would tend to go with something smaller and more portable than 4x5, such as my Minolta 35mm outfit, or my Hasselblad outfit (most likely), though if you go with digital, you can store one heck of a lot of photos on a tiny little memory card, which is a BIG advantage when on an extended trip!
While I have done similar things with a 4x5 camera -- none have been extensive as your plans. Three months living out of a backpack while hitch-hiking around New Zealand, then again several years later for 6 months, but this time on a bicycle (but with a backpack for hikes into the bush for several nights.) The bike was a much easier way to move the equipment around!
How big and fit are you? At the time I was 6"4, 220 pounds and spent all summer (5 or 6 months) hiking in the wilderness building and maintaining trails with hand tools. I could carry 85 pound packs -- your size determines how much you are willing to carry all day. Even now, some 23 yrs later, I can carry my 60 pounds of 8x10 around all day...not that I am not bone tired at the end of the day!
The type of photographs you want to make helps determine the camera. I do primarily landscapes, so a Speed/Crown Graphic would not do (otherwise a nice choice of travel 4x5). I wanted more movements. I used a Gowland PocketView -- 2.5 pounds with the 150mm/5.6 lens on it. No back shift or back rise/fall, but I never missed them. A very light wood camera such as the Horseman Woodman would also be good.
A possibility -- take just one lens -- and get a very a high quality pinhole set-up on a board as an emergency spare lens.
Taking public busses around Costa Rica for a month with my 4x5, my camera pack and tripod all fit inside my backpack -- no camera gear showing.
Vaughn
Ron Marshall
29-Sep-2010, 09:11
Even with an ultra-light kit, such as a Toho, once you add in tripod, film, holders, etc., it will be at least 20lbs. If that is feasable, then I would go for it.
I enjoy travelling with my Mamiya 7, but I often miss having movements.
Have a look at the Toho, only 3 lbs, and it packs very small.
John Bowen
29-Sep-2010, 09:38
..... I could carry 85 pound packs -- your size determines how much you are willing to carry all day. Even now, some 23 yrs later, I can carry my 60 pounds of 8x10 around all day...
Vaughn
Perhaps you should consider an 8x10 and take Vaughn along :D
evan clarke
29-Sep-2010, 09:44
You could encounter extreme humidity/rain situations, don't buy anything with wooden frames or leather bellows..it'll rot, swell up, stick and mold...Evan Clarke
Even with an ultra-light kit, such as a Toho, once you add in tripod, film, holders, etc., it will be at least 20lbs...
Yes, 20 lbs would be the minimum -- when I use to solo backpack for 7 to 11 days, my 4x5 set up was 20 - 25 pounds (carried 5 film holders, but just one lens). But I was a little tripod-heavy...seven to 7.5 pounds with the ball head. Way before carbon fiber.
John B. -- nope, I'd have to carry two 8x10's (his and mine) -- and my body can't take that no more! Funny how my major project this Fall/Winter/Spring involves a 4x5 (the Gowland) and a 5x7. I'll just carry these tiny cameras over my shoulder on the pod (one at a time!) and work out of a shoulder bag. Perhaps a daypack for longer hikes.
But I have loan of a 7"x17" for a couple months, so I'll have to still stay in shape!
sanchi heuser
29-Sep-2010, 09:59
Tim,
is it really necessary to backpack? If the main reason for the journey
is to make photos than take a car,
a station wagon or something where you have enough space for the equipment
(incl. a small fridge for the film) and could sleep in for some nights.
If the main reason is the travelling and meeting other people,
than take a compact digital.
sanchi
John Bowen
29-Sep-2010, 11:28
But I have loan of a 7"x17" for a couple months, so I'll have to still stay in shape!
Have FUN with the 7x17. I've had my Ritter 7x17 for about 4 years now and just love it. The camera is light weight, but the film holders are a killer!!!
I also have a Ritter 8x10. The camera weighs less than my Zone VI 4x5, but once again the film holders....ouch!
Tony Flora
29-Sep-2010, 13:24
What exactly do you like to shoot? If portraits take the hasselblad, if landscapes buy a Mamiya 7II and a couple of lenses. In my opinion, learning large format while on the road for a year is extremely problematic for several reasons. If you are dead set on it I would seriously consider quickloads, but better buy them fast.
Some good & valid comments there.
Humping the kit is not such an issue, but as you say, the film holders might be an obstacle making a Blad set up more realistic.
Not sure quite which way to jump yet, but I'll sort it by Jan / Feb.
Any more thoughs, please keep them coming.
Thanks
Tim
I'd do like the others and forego the LF kit in favour of MF in which case it'd be either a Mamiya 6 or 7II. The Hasselblad would offer closer focusing and probably able to take hard knocks better than the Mamiyas (no rf to knock out of alignment) though. If you do go MF, I think it'd be a good idea to buy a enough of the Adox type film cannisters for storing exposed film.
The next question would black and white or colour...;)
Brian Ellis
29-Sep-2010, 15:57
I don't see any good reason for taking a medium format system. A good digital camera (and I don't mean a Leica, I mean a good Canon or Nikon with top-of-the-line lenses) will equal or surpass anything you can do with 645, 6x6, or 6x7 film and the advantages of being able to take thousands of photographs on a handful of flash cards IMHO outweigh the practical problem of carrying around the literally hundreds of rolls of medium format film you'd have to somehow carry to take an equivalent number of medium format photographs. Of course if you'll be in places where you can periodically restock film and store your exposed film that might change things, assuming you just like medium format and feel more comfortable with it rather than a digital camera. But having used both a 6x7 system for many years and a good digital system for about six, I just don't see a good reason for medium format especially not on a trip of that length.
Ben Syverson
29-Sep-2010, 16:25
Find a Gowland 4x5. It'll be lighter than any MF or DSLR setup.
sanking
29-Sep-2010, 16:26
I don't see any good reason for taking a medium format system. A good digital camera (and I don't mean a Leica, I mean a good Canon or Nikon with top-of-the-line lenses) will equal or surpass anything you can do with 645, 6x6, or 6x7 film and the advantages of being able to take thousands of photographs on a handful of flash cards IMHO outweigh the practical problem of carrying around the literally hundreds of rolls of medium format film you'd have to somehow carry to take an equivalent number of medium format photographs. Of course if you'll be in places where you can periodically restock film and store your exposed film that might change things, assuming you just like medium format and feel more comfortable with it rather than a digital camera. But having used both a 6x7 system for many years and a good digital system for about six, I just don't see a good reason for medium format especially not on a trip of that length.
Good lord, I totally disagree. There is a huge difference in image quality between a MF system like Mamiya 7II and the very best DSLR. I have a friend who has the latest version of the Canon 5D 22mp camera and we often compare his work with my work with Mamiya 7II. You would have to be half blind to not see the difference in image quality between a 22 mp DSLR and 6X7cm Mamiya 7, even at printing size of 16X20. At printing size of 20X24 the difference is so great you would have to almost totally blind to not see a difference.
Yes, of course DSLR gives you a lot of flexibility that you don't have with film and you might prefer that to a film camera, but to suggest that you can get the same image quality with 21mp DSLR as 6X7 cm film is just totally ludicrous.
Sandy King
I travelled for 6 months with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens. Tmax400 film. I did a lot of trekking and some high mountains. It is dificult to keep film coolish and dust free, even in sealed containers. I have some wonderful photographs and many damaged wonderful photographs. The weight of the film carried was significant. There were no post offices where I went. If I were to do it again I would take my Agfa Record 6x9 folder, and lots of 120 film. It is easier to deal with than 35mm. Lighter. It could be stored in light tight black bags and boxes from Ilford 4x5 film. Inside Zip lock bags, inside a soft zip up chilly bin. Use tape of some sort to reinforce the sticker tab on used films, to prevent it coming loose and tape very tight to prevent movement. Movement is the enemy.
To travel with 5x7 for portraits and landscapes is a dream of mine, but to take a LF camera on a long trip is madness. To be comfortable you need to take as little luggage as possible. I did not take a change of clothes, or spare underwear, wear icebreaker wool underwear, only my very minimal climbing stuff and camera and film, and still I had too much to carry by a long shot. What ever camera you take, it must be tough. It will ride on the top of busses, get bashed a million times, wet, very hot and very cold.
I took a Nikon F65, 50mm f1.8 and a spare battery. About 1200 exposures in 6 months.
David
Brian Ellis
29-Sep-2010, 21:40
Good lord, I totally disagree. There is a huge difference in image quality between a MF system like Mamiya 7II and the very best DSLR. I have a friend who has the latest version of the Canon 5D 22mp camera and we often compare his work with my work with Mamiya 7II. You would have to be half blind to not see the difference in image quality between a 22 mp DSLR and 6X7cm Mamiya 7, even at printing size of 16X20. At printing size of 20X24 the difference is so great you would have to almost totally blind to not see a difference.
Yes, of course DSLR gives you a lot of flexibility that you don't have with film and you might prefer that to a film camera, but to suggest that you can get the same image quality with 21mp DSLR as 6X7 cm film is just totally ludicrous.
Sandy King
I'm not going to get into a digital vs film argument with you. I used a Pentax 67 camera for many years. I have hanging on my wall prints from it and from a Canon 5D Mark II. You'd need a loupe to find any difference in the image quality. Maybe your friend doesn't know how to use his camera or maybe he doesn't know how to make an excellent print. Or maybe your Mamiya produces that much better quality than a Pentax 67. Or maybe you're making larger prints than I am (15x22 or so are my largest).
If you want to disagree with me, that's your right. But please make an effort to be polite about it. I've participated here for many years. I've occasionally disagreed with others and sometimes in retrospect been ruder than I should have been. However, at my most rude I've never called anyone elses opinion ludicrous or suggested that they're blind and I don't appreciate those kinds of insults from you.
I do not think anything written on a forum such as this should be taken personally, ever. Settle down, who cares anyway. If he wants to use digital on his trip, rather than film or MF film, then he is more rational than most of us commenting on this thread. As for the MF film v digital debate, I for one do not want to know. Please do not go there.
David
I'm not going to get into a digital vs film argument with you. I used a Pentax 67 camera for many years. I have hanging on my wall prints from it and from a Canon 5D Mark II. You'd need a loupe to find any difference in the image quality. Maybe your friend doesn't know how to use his camera or maybe he doesn't know how to make an excellent print. and make excellent prints. Or maybe your Mamiya produces that much better quality than a Pentax 67.
If you want to disagree with me, that's your right. But please make an effort to be polite about it. I've participated here for many years. I've occasionally disagreed with others and sometimes been ruder than I should have been. However, at my most rude I've never called anyone else's opinion ludicrous or suggested that they're blind and I don't appreciate those kinds of insults from you.
Rory_5244
29-Sep-2010, 22:00
Was Sandy referring to black and white prints? Colour prints from my 5D Mark II look awesome. However, I do have a very hard time getting b&w prints from the 5D Mark II to match the tonality of prints from a Rolleiflex.
I'd go digital on this trip: there's convenience and the IQ is certainly "good enough".
I have the larger Ries pod and head (together almost 20 pounds), so supporting the 7x17 will be no problem. Even if the Gowland was threaded the same as the tripod head, it would still look a little silly sitting on a tripod that weighs about 9 times as much as the camera! Also the black metal of the camera clashes with the wood and fittings of the tripod...and we can't have that, :D But my Eastman View No2 (5x7) would look quite at home up there, but alas in too is not threaded the same as the head.
But back to the backpack road trip through South America. The purpose of the trip over-rides many seemingly practical things -- mode of transport, equipment, and all. My choice of a bicycle to transport me and my 4x5 around for almost 6 months trip thru NZ was largely driven by economics and previous NZ experiences -- but no previous experience of bike-touring! My photographic goals for the trip dictated the camera format. If I were to take the trip again, I probably would not take the 4x5 -- I'd go 5x7 -- or haul a trailer and go 8x10! And I'd do it in Iceland instead. :D
So if the 4x5 is what Tim envisions as part of his process and goals for the trip, he should go for it. Throw a couple 10 to 12 MP point-n-shoots in with the 4x5 -- you'll never notice the extra weight. A 120 roll back for the 4x5 is a handy thing to have on a trip -- the convience of roll film with the control of the view camera. I ran color negative film in 120, and TMax100 in the 4x5 holders.
Planning such trip is fun. Getting info and perhaps contacting photographer organizations in South America might be nice -- one might get some leads for developing film on the road.
Enjoy!
Vaughn
WOW! so much "you can't/shouldn't " do it in this thread.
i have traveled (mostly SE Asia) with 35mm and medium format for 6-8 months per year over a seven year period of time...yes, BOTH systems at one time! gasp. in a back pack.
the last couple of years i added a 4x5 and left the medium home.
chamonix is the answer (although petronio maybe on something with the crown....the crown is just way heavier). 4-5 film holders a changing bag, empty film boxes. ONE type of film (keeps down the need for more empty boxes) one or two small lenses. i just weighed the kit. 8 pounds! the tripod is another story.
i would buy a tripod at your 1st location if you can. i did this in BKK. saved me dragging it there. i have film shipped back and forth to me. i use the US PO. no issues. express mail is very very reliable. EMS mail from a foreign country is also very reliable. you can ship to yourself and pick it up at most any PO in the world. "Poste restante"
i had drop routes available as i had done this for many years. so i could leave my chemicals and tripod for when i returned home to work for more money. i had a small daylight tank and chemicals as well so i could develop a few sheets here and there to ensure i had no issues (like a bad spot meter battery one day......)
where do you plan to go? how long in each place? obviously in warmer places the pack will be significantly smaller and easier to manage. my pack was surprisingly small really. i even loaded it on a little scooter and took rides way out into the small areas and the various plantations and whatnot. i have posted some images here. (http://photo.net/photos/Ranong) 95% or so of the posted images are medium format RB67 stuff. i have thousands of images....:)
there are still some places that develop 4x5 negs in chaingmai and bkk. maybe in HCMC as well , and i think in Rangoon still.....:) it has been 3 years since i had been back to play.....sigh.....maybe dec 2011 i will return!
go for it. have fun. do not let the above negative posters suggest you cant or shouldnt do it. for more positive encouragement, ideas, and networking help along the way in SE Asia e mail me. (i still have some good connections)
cheers
eddie
sanking
30-Sep-2010, 08:09
I'm not going to get into a digital vs film argument with you. I used a Pentax 67 camera for many years. I have hanging on my wall prints from it and from a Canon 5D Mark II. You'd need a loupe to find any difference in the image quality. Maybe your friend doesn't know how to use his camera or maybe he doesn't know how to make an excellent print. Or maybe your Mamiya produces that much better quality than a Pentax 67. Or maybe you're making larger prints than I am (15x22 or so are my largest).
If you want to disagree with me, that's your right. But please make an effort to be polite about it. I've participated here for many years. I've occasionally disagreed with others and sometimes in retrospect been ruder than I should have been. However, at my most rude I've never called anyone elses opinion ludicrous or suggested that they're blind and I don't appreciate those kinds of insults from you.
Well, when someone expresses an opinion as fact, and it is not fact at all, I plan to continue to call it as I see it. And please don't trot out the suggestion that this is a film versus digital debate. I use both when I travel. My response was in reference to your comment below.
"A good digital camera (and I don't mean a Leica, I mean a good Canon or Nikon with top-of-the-line lenses) will equal or surpass anything you can do with 645, 6x6, or 6x7 film and the advantages of being able to take thousands of photographs on a handful of flash cards IMHO outweigh the practical problem of carrying around the literally hundreds of rolls of medium format film you'd have to somehow carry to take an equivalent number of medium format photographs."
I agree with you that there are advantages for working with a DSLR, especially in color. When I travel I usually take a DSLR with me to shoot in color and use the Mamiya 7 for B&W work. But it simply not a fact that a 22mp DSLR will surpass anything you can do with 6X7cm film, especially if image quality in B&W means anything.
And for the record the Mamiya 7 optics do produce much better negatives than Pentax 67. At one time I owned both systems and made several direct comparisons. On average the Pentax 67 lenses were barely capable of giving 60% or so of the resolution of the Mamiya lenses.
Sandy King
Frank Petronio
30-Sep-2010, 08:45
We really don't have enough information to dictate exactly what you should do ;-) But we're happy to speculate and argue.
Eddie has it right. Go as native as possible, let yourself smell a little funky because you only have one t-shirt, grow a beard, light is right.
If you want 4x5 then go for it. The sheer presence of the larger format beats digital or medium-format even if you debate the technical issues to death (ahem, get a Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690 for sharpness or a light vintage 6x9 folder for character). We already know that going with a good DSLR with a fast prime lens is the practical thing to do, although millions of other togs have already done that to death, where only a relative handful have traveled widely with a 4x5.
My point with the Crown is that you can use it handheld in good light and they are bulletproof compared to most lightweight wooden field cameras. Depending on your shooting style, you might be able to get away with a really tiny travel tripod and some creative "bean-bagging" (ie set the camera on the ground or on a railing for long exposures).
The other handheld camera that will appeal might be a converted Polaroid 110. Having had a couple I am not a fan compared to the more rugged Crown, but they are a little smaller and lighter.
I'm a little envious, it could be quite an adventure. Good Luck and let us know how it goes.
Oren Grad
30-Sep-2010, 09:43
Buy an inexpensive 4x5 kit now, and start using it. The details don't matter - just get some compact 4x5 wood-field and one or two lenses in close-to-normal focal lengths, and start doing what you think you want to do on your trip.
Soon enough, you'll figure out whether the idea is realistic *for you*.
Buy an inexpensive 4x5 kit now, and start using it...
Good advice! Work out all the bugs in the equipment and process way before you leave. I've made that mistake before!
Michael Chmilar
30-Sep-2010, 10:49
I've done two long trips with my 4x5. The first was 3 1/2 months through China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The second was 6 months through China, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. In both cases, Everything I needed had to fit into a backpack and small dufflebag.
The gear was an Ebony sv45u field camera, four lenses, spotmeter, tripod, and assorted small accessories. On the first trip I also carried a Leica M6ttl and Tri-Elmar. On the second, just a pocket digital camera. On the airport weighscale, my pack weighs about 25Kg.
The real problem is film, especially since I shoot quickloads, which are quite bulky. The other choice is a number of film holders, plus a change tent.
I managed film using the postal service plus courier companies. If money is no object, Fedex makes it very easy, since you won't wait more than two days to receive fresh film.
Most countries offer a "poste restante" service, which could otherwise be called "hold at the post office for pickup. You can send a parcel of film to yourself, at the post office. They will hold it for a period of time (weeks or months) until you come to pick it up. This allows you to use cheaper postal rates, but requires you to know at least a couple of weeks in advance that you will be visiting a particular city.
The poste restante is fairly reliable. In China I sometimes had to chase around to the various post offices in a city to find the correct one, and communication could be difficult. (I brought a photocopy of each address label with me, to show in the post office.) One package went missing in China. The only other screw up was the Alice Springs post office in Australia, which insisted they did not have it when I phoned them each week hoping to recover it. After two months, they called to say they were returning it to sender since it had gone unclaimed!
Of course, you should research into the reliability of the postal services in each country. If you want certainty, it is worthwhile to pay the money to a courier company. For example, in Cambodia, I used Fedex. And when the Australia screwup happened and left me short of film, it was again Fedex to the rescue.
You may also have to deal with customs when sending into a country. My strategy to minimize this hassle was to send one large package into a country, and then break it into small packages re-mailed internally. Then only one potential customs hassle was required. I did end up having to deal with customs brokers in China and New Zealand.
Exposed film was posted back home whenever I had enough to make a reasonable package. All exposed film arrived home safely.
I think the defining issue is the remoteness of the place. Travelling for 6 months in NZ with a 20X24 would not be a problem. Travelling in a place where there are no good roads, lots of trekking, lots of camping, no cities to retreat to send film home and recover from the last adventure. Plenty of places with unfriendly people and all of them very poor. How you travel defines the camera you use, or the camera you use defines how you travel. It is possible to go to a remote place for a long time with a big camera, but it costs a lot of money.
Also a big advantage of a digital is that you can show people their photograps, it is a very big thing to see yourself when you have never seen your reflection in anything but a pool of water. A digital will identify you as a tourist sucker. As will an expensive and shiny ebony or chamonix and an american accent. Low key, cheap and replaceable is the way to go.
Drew Wiley
30-Sep-2010, 21:32
Why compromise? I think an Ebony 4x5 is a great idea. I'm over 60 and I backpack
with one. And as far as theft is concerned, a techie looking medium format camera
would seem to be more tempting than something wooden and old-fashioned looking.
Why go to so much trouble and forfeit the quality that only large format can provide? Supplement this with some kind of simple 35mm camera for spontaneous shots, and you've got all the bases covered.
Also a big advantage of a digital is that you can show people their photograps...
And it is yet another to let people who have never looked through a view camera before, do so! And as time marches on, these people will have not only seen their reflection in a mirror and seen images of themselves, they will want to take a photo looking thru the of the back of your 4x5 with their phones.
I seem to have set the right tone as it's become a lively debate!
I would have considered cycling 'cept I tore my lat' quad muscle cycling in the summer and have sold 3 of my 5 bikes thus far, two more to go this week!
Weight & bulk is always going to be a consideration when travelling as I will be both trekking and backpacking in the traditional sense, meaning buses and the like.
I've done something similar in S E Asia & carried a 35mm set up but now want something to make my images more considered and to slow my whole photographic process down to a more deliberate pace and process. I also hope to write a few articles on route to accompany the images.
I have a budget of about $1k a month from rental properties so I should be okay for funds and I’d process some stuff on the way to make sure all’s working okay. My ‘Blad set up is at present 250, 80, 50mm lenses, although I might chop out the 250 for something smaller.
Again, I’m torn between selling this lot onwards and getting the field camera, or sticking with what I have.
Nice position to be in I know, and I appreciate your comments, some of whom have really put some considerable thought into my quandary, and for that I thank you.
Tim
B.S.Kumar
1-Oct-2010, 02:06
And it is yet another to let people who have never looked through a view camera before, do so! And as time marches on, these people will have not only seen their reflection in a mirror and seen images of themselves, they will want to take a photo looking thru the of the back of your 4x5 with their phones.
Curiously, I have this same experience here in Japan. Here people take photos with their phones, barely breaking their stride, and for them, I'm an object of wonder. They come up to me saying "sugoii na", take a look through the back, amazed that the image is upside down and take a photo of me and my camera. I've made their day!
Kumar
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/fujigf670.jpg
If you can live without interchangeable lenses, one of these (http://www.gf670.com/technical.php) (along with a Nikon scanner at home) would save a lot of room.
I've often kept my folders (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#folders) in my pocket, and used a tiny tripod which folds to the size of a travel umbrella.
If, after a year, you don't want the camera, you can send it to me :)
If you can live without interchangeable lenses, one of these (http://www.gf670.com/technical.php) (along with a Nikon scanner at home) would save a lot of room.
I've often kept my folders (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.html#folders) in my pocket, and used a tiny tripod which folds to the size of a travel umbrella.
If, after a year, you don't want the camera, you can send it to me :)
Ken, the problem is that this camera costs a bundle. But if you can live with one lens, and the cost, it is very compact and makes great negatives, on a par with those from the Mamiya 7II. I think the Fuji 667/ Bessa III 667 (same camera, different name) for high quality B&W plus a small Micro four-thirds camera like the Panasonic GF-2 or Olymous EP-2 for color and diary work, would make a very compact and light traveling outfit with a lot of versatility.
Sandy King
Tim, good to hear that you have covered some ground in faraway places before. A lightweight and compact 4x5 system probably will not take up more space or weigh more than your present MF system.
In the six months I was on my trip, I exposed 75 sheets of 4x5 film, and several rolls of 35mm (with one of those little clam shell Olympus P&S). I worked slow and steady, doing a lot of editing before setting up the camera and before I'd put a film holder into the camera. I ended up with a 20 print portfolio. It would have been a bit stronger, but I lost quite a few negatives to high humidity static discharges (black dots on the film, rather than streaks), as they sat, exposed but not yet developed, in film boxes as I biked over gravel highways in the rain. If there is a time when I have nothing better to do, I'll scan them and see clean them up in PhotoShop.
There are many people who would use the same amount of film in the first week of a trip. If you go with 4x5, using it for awhile before the trip (as well as your past travel experience) will give you an idea of how much film you will go through. I took 100 sheets with me, and brought home the 25 unexposed. My guess that's towards the low end of the scale.
But to have to chose between the Blad and a 4x5! It would be nice if someone could loan you a 4x5, just to give it a go for a couple weeks.
Vaughn
Frank Petronio
1-Oct-2010, 11:03
Working with a Hasselblad (or better yet a Rolleiflex) has a nice pace, in between large and small formats obviously. But I dare say that both the Blad and Rollei are pretty sensitive to dust and grit messing with their shutters, neither is sealed very well.
A good old Graphic with a loose, bent metal, sloppy tolerance, American-made ACME or Supermatic 1950s shutter is probably the most reliable "bigger than 35mm" camera ever. You can literally roll them in the beach sand and they'll still work -- Ask the togs at Normandy.
William McEwen
1-Oct-2010, 13:46
Hi, Tim:
The question is this – do you share our disease? The LF disease? If not, you’re probably going to be kicking yourself during your trip and wonder why you brought that heavy camera. For me, having to change the film away from my darkroom day in and day out would drive me batty in a hurry.
Look how many of us (who have the LF disease and have had it most of our lives) are advising you against taking LF.
If I were you, I’d probably just take a Rolleiflex (my second favorite camera), a meter, and lots of film. And maybe a spare Rolleiflex just in case. That and a small digital camera, either point and shoot or DSLR.
When you return home from your trip, you will be armed with the knowledge of where you should return to with the LF, and you can plan to do that a year or two from now.
Lowest cost is a older Crown/Speed Graphic type of camera. Make sure it is in good working condition and the lens is acceptable to you. A wooden field camera is the other alternative if a portable solution is of interest. Shen Hao and Chamonix are the most popular, I use a Shen Hao myself. You will need to carry a Tripod, film holders, light meter and other lenses for this type of work.
Is "disease" accurate?
Besides, it's not a good idea to go back somewhere, always forge onwards so things are fresh and exciting. Going back is always a let down as places and people move onwards and it's never the same on any return visit, especially of a trip of this length - that's why it's got to right from the outset.
Those Fuji's look interesting but they seem to have fixed lenses except the 6x8 which also has dinky lenses.
Tim
Is "disease" accurate?
Besides, it's not a good idea to go back somewhere, always forge onwards so things are fresh and exciting. Going back is always a let down as places and people move onwards and it's never the same on any return visit, especially of a trip of this length - that's why it's got to right from the outset.
Tim
I agree with the idea that you should look ahead and plan to make your best images on this trip, not the next one. Indeed, not many of us will ever repeat a trip of a whole year abroad.
Although I have never made a trip of the duration of the one planned by the OP I have made some 50 or so trips abroad over the past fifteen years ranging in duration from two weeks to four months, and traveling with outfits as large as 12X20 at one extreme to a MF folder and Canon G9 at the other, with lots of 5X7 and Mamiya 7II sandwiched in between.
Personally I would strongly recommend against traveling with a new system as your main camera. You are most likely to do your best work with a system that you know and trust than with one that you adopt at the last minute. And that is especially true of 4X5 and larger film, especially if you have never used it before.
However, above all one must determine, 1) what they plan to photograph, 2) how large they want to print with optimum quality, and 3) whether printing will be done in B&W or color. Once you make those determinations the options become much more limited, and much clearer. In general I think that if I were planning to spend a lot of time photographing people, and in color, a good DSLR would be be my preference. But for high quality B&W work, and especially landscapes, IMO a high quality film MF camera would be required, at a minimum. But choice of camera is to some extent nearly always something of a compromise between would we like to achieve and what is practical to achieve under the circumstances. There is a sweet spot for everyone between image quality and practicality and I have found that the Mamiya 7II outfit is that spot for me for travel photography, but that does not mean it would be the spot for others.
Above all the logistics of travel may place severe restrictions on your camera equipment. For example, many battery operated cameras do not do well in very cold weather, and wearing thick gloves to protect your hands from the cold will make it very difficult to operate some cameras. Extreme heat will also impose restrictions that one needs to anticipate and plan for.
Sandy King
I am thinking along the lines of Eddie and Frank and support the idea of finding a 4x5 that suits you. If you are interested in using LF on your trip then definitely do it. This could be the only trip of this kind you'll ever take and a romantic notion to bring a 4x5 field camera along. A Chamonix could do the trick or even an Ebony if you're so inclined. They aren't that difficult to figure out but definitely get the "figuring out" part squared away prior. Metering, set-up, film changing, tripod, etc. It can be done I'm certain and I feel you should follow your initial instinct. Are you trying to make art or simply documenting your trip I guess would be a good question to ask yourself.
Andrew O'Neill
2-Oct-2010, 10:30
Travel lightly as possible. Three lenses (90, 150ish, 300); 5 film holders, 3 gel filters: green, yellow, red; light metre; loupe; focusing cloth; cable release; one of those cheap light Chinese carbon fibre tripods; a backpack that's very comfortable; Film changing bag, and a few empty film boxes for exposed film. Keep all unexposed and exposed film, film holders in ziplock bags.
Finally, you MUST know what you are doing in regards to equipment and camera operation, film response to filters, exposure, reciprocity, development, etc, before you embark on this long trip. Otherwise, you may come back pictureless and very disappointed.
On the subject of the Mamiya ii - http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00CfbG?start=10
What's the issue with not being good with portraits though? As in "not close enough focusing" or am I mis-reading this comment?
Anyhow, it's all good food for thought, thanks.
Tim
What's the issue with not being good with portraits though?
They are superb cameras, but the Mamiya 7 do not allow close focus, enough to accommodate tight head-and-shoulders shots. I found this out when I owned one, and had an 80 and 150 lens.
This is a problem inherent in rangefinder design: after all, there are limits to parallax correction, and Mamiya had to draw the line somewhere. For whatever reason, they drew the line a little too far for portrait work.
Perhaps they never intended the Mamiya 7 to replace their SLR 6x7 camera, the RB67 (http://www.mamiya-usa.com/rb67-pro-sd-lenses-180mm-f4.5.html) - "Workhorse of the Pros". For portrait work - especially on a tripod - the RB67 is much more capable.
What's the issue with not being good with portraits though? As in "not close enough focusing" or am I mis-reading this comment?
Tim
i believe it is a rangefinder so critical close focusing is a challenge at best.
eeerrr what ken said. ken, is there no extension tubes for it?
eeerrr what ken said. ken, is there no extension tubes for it?
On the Mamiya 7, one would need not only an extension tube, but additional "tilt" from the rangefinder window, to point further down and over as you focus more closely.
It uses a "split-image" rangefinder, which has to be calibrated now and then. I had mine calibrated by Mamiya. It's more important, of course, with longer lenses - or when focusing close. That's why I say they had to draw the line somewhere, consistent with their whole product line. The Mamiya rangefinder changes depending on which lens you mount - so it needs to accommodate several lenses at all distances. To do so, even at close range, was probably beyond the scope of their "design goals".
The RB67, on the other hand, has extension tubes and other options - even a zoom lens (http://www.mamiya-usa.com/rb67-pro-sd-lenses-100-200mm-f5.2-zoom.html).
If the RB67 weren't so heavy and large, I would have one today. (I had a Bronica GS-1, which is smaller and lighter, and which has many of the bells and whistles like interchangeable backs - but the Mamiya optics are in another category).
Ron Marshall
3-Oct-2010, 09:35
On the subject of the Mamiya ii - http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00CfbG?start=10
What's the issue with not being good with portraits though? As in "not close enough focusing" or am I mis-reading this comment?
Anyhow, it's all good food for thought, thanks.
Tim
At the maximum magnification with the 150mm, the long dimension covers 28.5 inches of subject. This is fine for half body portraits, or group shots ect., but it won't focus close enough for a head and shoulders shot.
Frank Petronio
3-Oct-2010, 10:21
All the compact medium format folders and rangefinders are going to suffer from the same inability to shoot close.
Of course it is no small challenge to get nice head and shoulder shots with a 4x5 in the field with unprofessional models... I've been doing it for over 20 years and it still is hard.
It's where a Hasselblad would shine.
Gee there is no perfect camera! Darn....
jeroldharter
3-Oct-2010, 14:24
I have traveled as long as 8 months, 6 months, 3 months, 3 months, shorter with cameras from 8x10 to 35mm. The 6 month trip was South America, from Quito to Ushuaia and then back up. Not much of it was backpacking though.
From the sound of your post, you might be new to LF. If so, I would definitely not take LF on such an ambitious trip and learn on the road. You won't have any feedback from your work until you return and it will be too late. So whatever you take, get as comfortable as you can with the gear before you go.
Assuming you have a comfort level with MF and LF, I suggest MF. I use a Pentax 67 outfit and the Pentax 67II is an excellent camera for such a trip. Built like a tank, good metering, automatic modes if needed, sharp and inexpensive lenses. It is heavy, but you could take a 55, 135, 200 or something like that depending on you preference for shorter vs longer focal lengths. I find the 135 macro lens to be outstanding. You could send film home with friends or friends made along the way. You could ship film ahead to American Express offices (if you have an Amex card) or to the South American Explorers Club offices in major cities so that you can re-supply. You could get away with a lighter tripod. I also suggest a Feisol carbon fiber monopod which works very well for taking pictures in markets or on the move with films like TriX or TMAX400.
I would not take LF unless you are simply avid and want to have a much lower number of great negatives from a limited subject range. No candid market shots of unsuspecting locals for example. You would need to be fanatical about dust control which would be a challenge. A lot of South America (the rain forest) is a challenge for LF because of low light and high contrast. So you might find yourself dragging around a lot of heavy gear for minimal use in very high humidity environments. If you try to take city photos or market photos, you will need to be very careful about security when you are under a dark cloth. Depending on your travel options, you should consider transporting the gear in a Pelican case, at least between major destinations. The Pelican is lockable, dust proof, water proof.
Wayne Crider
3-Oct-2010, 16:07
If it were me going on the trip, I'd consider safety depending on the country and where I was going, length of time in any one place, places I'm visiting (plan this), pack weight obviously, including a tripod, and my intended use of the negatives. I don't see a Hasselblad as giving the panoramic view I might want nor perhaps the 1:1.25 perspective of the slow shooting 4x5. (btw, although I love B&W, I'd be shooting color; In 4x5 that's $23-$25 for a 10 sheet box. Approx $2.50 a sheet processing fee.) For myself I would consider a good 6x9 camera, (perhaps a baby Graphic), and an easily hidden pocket digital camera for roughing it. If I was staying mostly in 2nd class city hotels and jaunting into the countryside perhaps an old crappy looking 4x5 Graphic. All I know about S. America including Mexico is that you don't go around flashing expensive stuff and you want to dress like everyone else. Gringos still stand out tho. Further south and out in the boondocks on a walkabout you may run into some looking for bribes, and that includes the police or army. Learn Spanish, and like a hike in the woods, leave your agenda with someone and make a regular contact schedule.
Looks like LF is getting the thumbs down.
Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.
That leaves me to sell the 'Blad outfit as well as my mountain bikes on eBay (3 down and 2 to go!), shame really as the Ti29er is a beaut'.
Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.
Be sure to take some careful test shots with the 150 before you leave on your trip, to make certain that the rangefinder is calibrated. You don't want to be "surprised" after a year of shooting.
I'm not alone (http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/1507.htm) in making this recommendation. When I bought my camera and lenses used, separately on eBay and from KEH, I soon found out that the 150 focus was way off, a few weeks before a trip overseas.
When I had mine calibrated by Mamiya, they had both a special "rush" plan, and a normal turnaround plan. The calibration was a complete CLA of camera and lens, and was worth every penny. That was in 2006. Dunno what they do now.
Frank Petronio
5-Oct-2010, 06:33
Rangefinders in general are prone to going "out" especially if they are jittered for a few thousand bus miles. With the wider lenses you can always scale focus with the lenses and let depth of field be your friend, as opposed to the 150, which is hard enough to frame and focus with a good M7. It's not really the best portrait camera, the 150 is more for reaching a distant infinity landscape.
Sascha Welter
5-Oct-2010, 07:27
Consider a 6x9cm large format camera. You get all the movement of the "big" large format and all the easier film handling of medium format. Weight is also going to be a bit lower than 4x5", but not half the weight. My Arca-Swiss 6x9 with 3 lenses, 2 cassettes, tripod and backpack (but not much else in the backpack) is somewhere around 8kg if I recall correctly.
6x9 "baby large format" comes in "field camera" style too, but maybe a bit harder to find. If it's "press camera" style, you'll trade some movement ability for some handheld ability.
Looks like LF is getting the thumbs down.
Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.
That leaves me to sell the 'Blad outfit as well as my mountain bikes on eBay (3 down and 2 to go!), shame really as the Ti29er is a beaut'.
Sorry about having to sell the bikes. I love to cycle so I know how hard it must be to give it up.
About the Mamiya 7II, I would recommend that you consider a wide angle outfit rather than normal and long. I have made many trips with the Mamiya 7II and would estimate that about 80% of my work is made with the 43mm (or 50mm) and 65mm lenses, 15% with the 80mm, and no more than 5% with the 150 . It is with wide angle lenses that the rangefinder camera really shines. Also, with the really wide angle lenses any lack of calibration of the rangefinder won't matter nearly so much as with the 150mm lens.
In terms of image quality you give up virtually nothing with the Mamiya 7II compared to 4X5, if you use the camera on a tripod as you would the 4X5, with a fine grain film like Fuji Acros 100 or Ektar 100. But you gain a lot in terms saving in weight, versatility, and the ability to set up fast and get a shot.
Sandy King
Robert Oliver
5-Oct-2010, 08:42
don't let these curmudgeons talk you out of doing what you want.... I backpack with my 4x5 camera, even though it would be easier to carry a digital camera. Yes I could make images that document the same scenes, but I think 4x5 is better for landscape and it is WAY more challenging. The challenge leaves me feeling way more satisfied than shooting 35mm.
I shoot with 4x5 because i WANT to....
I shoot with Digital SLR's because I have to!
Yes it will be a pain in the butt.
Yes it will be heavy. Yes you will curse at it throughout your trip. Yes it will require WAY more planning to keep yourself supplied. Yes it will cost more. And yes the 35mm kit will be WAY easier and give you way more options,
But in the end, don't be left second guessing your decision.
Try it out first.... you can build a fairly light kit with 4x5 that won't be that much heavier than a 35mm kit. My Canon 7D camera weighs 2 pounds, not that much less than my Chamonix 4x5. I find good 35mm lenses weigh more than their 4x5 counterparts.
I don't think any of the medium format cameras, besides the holga, will give you any noticeable weight savings.
Speaking of Holga's take one along for portraits!
I always carry a lightweight point and shoot digital that runs off of AA batteries for the shots that aren't important enough for LF. Great for people shots.
I use the original Chamonix 45n-1 camera and choose light lenses. Film will be your biggest concern. I've been shooting 6x12 on my 4x5 with roll film. It's a nice mix of nearly 5" wide negatives and the ease of 120 film. Medium format film is WAY less weight per shot than 4x5 film.
My 4x5 kit with enough film for 5 days is less than 20 pounds including tripod.
I recommend finding ultralight solutions for the rest of your gear.
Robert Budding
5-Oct-2010, 11:23
Rangefinders in general are prone to going "out" especially if they are jittered for a few thousand bus miles. With the wider lenses you can always scale focus with the lenses and let depth of field be your friend, as opposed to the 150, which is hard enough to frame and focus with a good M7. It's not really the best portrait camera, the 150 is more for reaching a distant infinity landscape.
I really like the 150mm on my M 7 II. It's a fantastic lens for environmental portraiture. It can't do tight head shots, but that's not what I'm usually after when I travel. Just make sure that you understand the DOF of the 150 on 67:
http://dofmaster.com/doftable.html
Robert Budding
5-Oct-2010, 11:29
don't let these curmudgeons talk you out of doing what you want.... I backpack with my 4x5 camera, even though it would be easier to carry a digital camera. Yes I could make images that document the same scenes, but I think 4x5 is better for landscape and it is WAY more challenging. The challenge leaves me feeling way more satisfied than shooting 35mm.
I shoot with 4x5 because i WANT to....
I shoot with Digital SLR's because I have to!
Yes it will be a pain in the butt.
Yes it will be heavy. Yes you will curse at it throughout your trip. Yes it will require WAY more planning to keep yourself supplied. Yes it will cost more. And yes the 35mm kit will be WAY easier and give you way more options,
But in the end, don't be left second guessing your decision. . .
I'd actually give a lot of weight to the opinions of people who have traveled with film gear. IMHO, medium format is an excellent compromise for travel, and my favorite is the Mamiya 7. YMMV.
Well said.
Unless you want your Mamiya 7 gear to get banged and scratched, it needs some protection and padding. The camera body and 2 lenses, even when stored separately with caps, is not a tiny set of gear. I found that while traveling, the camera and 2 lenses, plus a small tripod and some boxes of roll-film, take up a good portion of a small nap sack.
I used a sweater, rain coat, and other clothing in the pack, to pad the equipment. If you need protection from rain, then add some resealable plastic bags. I would also carry a roll of adhesive tape, for when the glue on the end of an occasional roll, refuses to fully keep the roll from unwinding.
Also, make sure you have a spare battery for the camera. The shutter as well as the light meter, are electronic. You can't trip the shutter without a battery. Of course, you want to bring a spare cable release too.
Drew Wiley
5-Oct-2010, 15:21
MF tends to have an easier learning curve than LF technique, but although I have no
problems getting good shots with MF, I find the quality of the negs per se quite
disappointing by comparison. Just too damn small for good enlargements. Might be a
different story for those scanning, correcting the blemishes in PS, and making either
digital negs or digital prints. But for direct printing, I've always regretted the choice to
travel with MF. So why do I sometimes do this anyway? The most common reason would be high winds, in which a view camera becomes a kite. This was the case this
last spring on Haleakala, where I couldn't have kept a 4x5 upright at all in the howling
wind, but did get a number of impressive shots using the 6x7. MF is nice for quick shots too, where with the correct film, I can still print a decent 16x20. And then there
are those really wet days when I might use the 8x10 but prefer not to have to dry off
everything afterwards (despite the Goretex darkcloth). But since I tend to favor long
lenses I decided against the M7 and still use the Pentax 6x7 system. Nice for skittish
wildlife too, which might bolt or wander off before I have the view camera set up.
Weight wise, it's only about 2 lbs heavier than a similar M7 setup, but about 4 lbs less
than the 4x5 due to filmholders. But since my "normal" gear is an 8X10, all the above
options seem lightweight.
don't let these curmudgeons talk you out of doing what you want.....
yeah! what bob said!
the way i look at it you can always shoot digital.....digital is a great "old persons" camera. light and easy.......
you will make incredible friends shooting LF....trust me!
i shot "street portraits" in Rangoon while i w as there.....it was basically my own outdoor studio.....i had the locals bringing me people to shoot. it was awesome. i shot some 35mm to process and give away to the subjects....that just created more "work"/models.....it was awesome! i bet they still remember the crazy white guy with the camera!
eddie
Robert Oliver
5-Oct-2010, 21:08
how about one of the 6x12 or 6x17 "point and shoots"...
if my personal economy improves, I will get one so I can work quicker when my wife is waiting... she doesn't always have the same patience as I do when it comes to large format work.
Robert Oliver
5-Oct-2010, 21:13
I second the idea that you will meet some cool people shooting with the LF.... I met some really neat people on the John Muir Trail carrying my 4x5 because I was carrying a 4x5.
yeah! what bob said!
the way i look at it you can always shoot digital.....digital is a great "old persons" camera. light and easy.......
you will make incredible friends shooting LF....trust me!
i shot "street portraits" in Rangoon while i w as there.....it was basically my own outdoor studio.....i had the locals bringing me people to shoot. it was awesome. i shot some 35mm to process and give away to the subjects....that just created more "work"/models.....it was awesome! i bet they still remember the crazy white guy with the camera!
eddie
Frank Petronio
5-Oct-2010, 21:59
Since I'm living vicariously through this guy's potential adventure, here's what I would do: Carry the D700 he already has. If he has to bring the zooms then that's his burden, to me a wide and a normal prime would do better. (Actually a D90 would probably be better in terms of weight and bulk...) That allows him to shoot tons of color, low light, work quickly, pretty reliable (until the zoom sucks crap onto his sensor) and so on.
But then, rather than recreating the wheel by bringing some modern sharp medium format camera, I'd bring something funkier. Something vintage, with some character and bokeh and all of that. A fixed lens, nothing too precious or expensive.... Like an old German folder (6x9) or a Rollei TLR or something with a little funk, that will slow down the process and engage the people being photographed.
I mean a D700 is going to make plenty of technically perfect images. A Mamiya 7 will too. Perhaps the M7 would out perform the D700 if he spends the money on high-end $$$ scans, but if we're talking scanning 120 on an Epson, then gee, those files are going to come in awfully close to a D700 file... So why lug both?
If you wanted the ultimate image quality you'd be talking a medium format digital or a high quality 4x5 with the latest lens, backed up with $100 drum scans.... but I doubt you can travel easily for months and months with either of those, even if you could afford them.
Remember this dude is selling his bikes. He doesn't want to come home and have to pop for 200 $75 scans....
Ivan J. Eberle
6-Oct-2010, 03:50
I just spent a 3 month road trip by car to Montana where I took all the formats and most of the cameras I own from APS-C through 645 to 4x5.
The dSLR was a shoe-in primarily for wildlife and PJ, but it turned out far more useful for wide landscape shots than I imagined it would be, due to wind and weather concerns. The 645 was used a great deal as well, both because my least-distorting ultrawide is in this format and because of the dynamic range of neg film among all the snow and ice. Each format (and film v. digi) has it's strengths and weaknesses. Decisions as to what to grab on the way out the door on any given hike related to the subject content or conditions under which I was photographing.
A 4x5 was also used for a great many shots, but least among the three. When I chose to carry it afield, numerous opportunities were missed in rapidly-changing light that I would handily have gotten with either the dSLR or the 645. (And this is with a fast-deploying folding metal technical-press camera-- the monorail I also took saw no use at all!). I'd have been hamstrung with just one format, or just film/digital, there.
Right now I'm on another, shorter (3 week) trip back East to catch fall color. I had to pack relatively light (flying) so I brought only the technical press 4x5. Part of my reasoning was for the discipline, part of it because the photography is of secondary importance on this trip.
I would urge that you also have some sort of small dSLR or point-and-shoot handy on a trip of your intended duration for the many times when the wind, weather and fast-changing light conspire to foil the use of large format.
BrianShaw
6-Oct-2010, 07:25
... a Rollei TLR or something with a little funk, that will slow down the process and engage the people being photographed.
That's what I used for my 1.5 years in the UK. The Rollei slowed me down so I could make some fine photos; the funk of my clothes and dirty laundry led to some interesting engagment with the people being photographed (or near things I was photographing)!
BrianShaw
6-Oct-2010, 07:27
p.s. I also travelled with a monopod, which led to lots of questions like, "If that camera support is 'something like a tripod' then how does it stand up with just one leg?"
But then, rather than recreating the wheel by bringing some modern sharp medium format camera, I'd bring something funkier. Something vintage, with some character and bokeh and all of that. A fixed lens, nothing too precious or expensive.... Like an old German folder (6x9) or a Rollei TLR or something with a little funk, that will slow down the process and engage the people being photographed.
I have owned a bunch of those old German folders, including the Bessa II which is about the best there was. These cameras make pretty nice negatives but they are a pain in the derriere to use. But you are right, using them will sure slow down the process.
Now, if I wanted something with a little funk that was fairly easy to use and would not break the bank as a good Mamiya 7II outfit will I would go for one of the 690 Fuji cameras, the Texas Leicas. In fact, you could buy two of them, one with 65mm lens and another with 90mm, and still spend a lot less than for used Mamiya 7 with a single lens. The last ones were the GW690III (90mm lens) and GSW690III (65mm lens) but the II version of both cameras costs a lot less and has the same lens. And these are totally mechnical cameras, no batteries, not even an exposure meter. And if someone ripped one off you don't lose a lot as the used price in bargain condition at KEH is around $500 or so, maybe a bit more for the one with the 65mm lens. And these cameras are very user friendly, unlike those old German folders. So you get a lot of funk but also the ability to make great negatives, maybe even a tad better than Mamiya 7 because of the slightly bigger negative (6X9 compared to 6X7).
Sandy
I mean a D700 is going to make plenty of technically perfect images. A Mamiya 7 will too. Perhaps the M7 would out perform the D700 if he spends the money on high-end $$$ scans, but if we're talking scanning 120 on an Epson, then gee, those files are going to come in awfully close to a D700 file... So why lug both?
Good point about the quality of scan. But the difference is that with the D700 you are stuck with a crappy 12mp file for the rest of your life. With the Mamiya 7 6X7 cm negative you can do quick and dirty scans on the Epson that will be at least equal to the D700, and you will always have the negatives that you can scan at higher resolution at any time, now or ten years from now. A high resolution scan with a top quality scanner (5000 spi) of a good 6X7cm negative is about the equivalent of 125-150 mp, and that is not 100 mp of crap but real effective resolution.
Sandy
Not wishing to bore people with more words about why some people like Mamiya 7II optics I am attaching two real image files. One is a full view of an image I made in Mexico last year with the Mamiya 7II and a 50mm lens, at f/16. The film was Fuji Acros and I developed it in two bath Pyrocat-HD and scanned the negative at 5080 spi with a high end type scanner. The tree you see is rather huge, one of the largest of its kind in the world (judge scale by the elephant ear plants you see in the foreground) and I am standing about fifty meters from the trunk.
The second image is a small section of the image that I have scaled at 8X10" size. If I were to reproduce the entire image at this scale it would be 144" X 180". Yet even at this size, and at a distance of about fifty meters you can easily see the veins on the leaves. To put this in perspective, you are looking at approximately a 64X magnification of the original negative.
Photographers who have used the Mamiya 7II and learned how to get the most of it will probably not be surprised that you can get this fine detail in the leaves at great distance. Those of us who have used 4X5 and 5X7 cameras and optics would understand that this level of quality is not easy even with these much larger formats.
Sandy
NicolasArg
6-Oct-2010, 21:53
Well, I'm Argentinian and I live in one of the most visited trekking places in Patagonia; so here goes a VERY personal opinion.
Do you know how many DSLR toting "gringos" we receive each year? Hundreds, perhaps thousands. And I have yet to see one of them doing something remotely different from the guy who just left- all the market candids, all the "cute locals" doing cute local stuff has been already shot hundreds of times, both on MF, 35mm and digital.
If a change to this routine is not an option, I'd at least try to do it with a different format. I'd really prefer 50 4x5 keepers and a bunch of casual digi PS shots to hundreds of MF slides or thousands of RAWs that replicate what has been done before in the same places. But that's just a personal opinion.
At least in Argentina you can easily buy 4x5 film in Buenos Aires, both color and BW. And heck.... few people can say- I traveled through the whole South America shooting 4x5.
Rick Tardiff
8-Oct-2010, 18:38
To put in my two cents, I say stick to your original idea and take the Ebony 4x5. You might also take a canon G11 p&s. I never leave home without it:)
in 2006 and 2007 I had the singular good fortune to travel all around Ecuador and Northern Peru. I brought lots of film but only two cameras and only two lenses....it was not primarily a photo trip..
A 1970's vintage spotmatic with the standard 50mm Takumar lens was my "backup camera".
A top rangefinder 4x5 Crown Graphic with the standard 135mm Xenar was my main camera. I carried and used it every where. I shot mainly hand held and rangefinder focused. Exposure was guessed most of the time during the day but, I had a small gossen light meter too. I carried ten standard film holders, a changing bag and three film boxes.
The beauty of the crown is that it is all self contained. It opens and shoots almost as quickly as a medium format SLR...it is rugged and dead simple. And it really isn't that heavy. It doesn't need any special backpack, case or other special considerations - just fold it up, put it in a big plastic zip lock (when travelling by dugout canoe or panga) and throw it in you bag with your other stuff. No fuss!
Needless to say, I recommend that you seriously consider getting a 4x5 crown graphic immediately and acquaint yourself with all of its subtle beauty.
Inspirational. Can you post pictures?
David
in 2006 and 2007 I had the singular good fortune to travel all around Ecuador and Northern Peru. I brought lots of film but only two cameras and only two lenses....it was not primarily a photo trip..
A 1970's vintage spotmatic with the standard 50mm Takumar lens was my "backup camera".
A top rangefinder 4x5 Crown Graphic with the standard 135mm Xenar was my main camera. I carried and used it every where. I shot mainly hand held and rangefinder focused. Exposure was guessed most of the time during the day but, I had a small gossen light meter too. I carried ten standard film holders, a changing bag and three film boxes.
The beauty of the crown is that it is all self contained. It opens and shoots almost as quickly as a medium format SLR...it is rugged and dead simple. And it really isn't that heavy. It doesn't need any special backpack, case or other special considerations - just fold it up, put it in a big plastic zip lock (when travelling by dugout canoe or panga) and throw it in you bag with your other stuff. No fuss!
Needless to say, I recommend that you seriously consider getting a 4x5 crown graphic immediately and acquaint yourself with all of its subtle beauty.
Inspirational. Can you post pictures?
David
I had a bunch posted on my flickr place at the time. Took them all down to make room for more current stuff though. All the chromes are in my wine fridge :)
Frank Petronio
7-Nov-2010, 23:01
Much of my stuff has been shot with a Crown similar to BradS's model (and my work is all over my websites).
The only thing I would change from his suggestion is to use a small Harrison PupTent for changing since it is so much easier to keep the film clean, in my experience. And a Grafmatic film holder will take six sheets and be more "concise" than three separate holders.
Scott Davis
8-Nov-2010, 05:49
Although it wasn't hiking/backpacking across South America, I did drag my Canham 5x7 with me to Buenos Aires, Iguazu Falls, and Colonia, Uruguay. I ended up interviewed for a Latin American cable TV program, having some great conversations with policemen (who were also amateur photographers), and of course tons of wide-eyed kids who HAD to see under the dark cloth. It wasn't the most practical thing to do, but I had a blast and would do it again. The thing I loved about the Canham was the compactness and light weight of the outfit. I dragged along five lenses for it, some of which in retrospect I didn't need to bring, and others I could have substituted something smaller and lighter. I had it, the carbon-fiber Manfrotto tripod (for travel, a carbon-fiber 'pod is now a requirement in my book) and the usual accessories, along with a Contax G1 with 28 and 45 lenses for doing color snapshots of people and for when I didn't feel like bringing the big camera out.
Inspirational. Can you post pictures?
David
Here's one (attached) and I've uploaded a few to my flickr stream too. click the link in my signature to go there. :)
I say go for it, it'll be an adventure. Try one of the Wista metal field cameras (SP, VX or one of the older ones). My VX folds with a 150mm lens into a very compact package. It's also very tough. It's not the lightest camera around, but I prefer it to a camera with exposed bellows when folded.
I'd take two lenses--a 150mm and a small 90mm like the Nikkor 90/8SW. That will give you something somewhat similar to your 80 and 50mm MF lenses. Perhaps you could get by with just a 135mm lens for everything. It should also fold into some cameras.
A camera that folds with the lens mounted not only saves space, it protects your lens and is very fast to set up and break down.
Holders and film boxes will be your biggest problem, they're large. Take as many as you feel comfortable with.
I buy 10-sheet boxes of film since I shoot kodak color neg. But the boxes can hold more--so I may combine two or three boxes worth of film into one box, to save some space. Don't forget an empty box or two for exposed film...and you'll proably need a changing bag/tent.
If you do decide to go MF, then the Mamiya 7 is a wonderful system. But I used it on my last trip and I really regret not bringing 4x5 instead. (Though I was working in one spot, not backpacking!)
If you're scanning your film and you shoot MF you'll need to scan with a drum scanner or at the very least a Nikon LS9000 to get decent quality. With 4x5 you may get by with a good flatbed. This is a serious consideration that you should think about before you shoot.
Have fun!
thomashobbs
21-Dec-2010, 13:47
I will put in another vote for the Fuji line of rangefinders. They are a little bigger than a Mamiya 7 but built like tanks, half the price and still smaller and lighter than other medium format SLRs. They basically come in 4 flavors; 6x7 and 6x9, wide angle and normal. You'll need a light meter but a lot of times I just use a compact digital camera to judge the exposure. I'm actually getting pretty good about just guessing the light.
Traveling with just a single camera and a single lens is elegant and appealing. But, if you want to take a 4x5 then do it. If Werner Herzog can lug a boat thru the Amazon then what's backpacking with some extra gear? Personally I use a Busch Pressman. It's like a Crown Graphic but the back rotates to vertical, which is helpful because I do a lot of portraits.
The real issue, if you are traveling for such a long time, is what to do with all the film. I would be [am] paranoid about getting my stuff stolen. I live in Buenos Aires and there are two decent labs here that process large format [Buenos Aires Color and Megaphoto]. You can also buy 4x5 sheet film for about 50% more expensive than New York prices.
I suppose you can Fedex film back to someone in the US, altho I'd be nervous about this. I guess it's pick your poison.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.