Packing a 4x5 on a bicycle

[andreios]

Good thread - only the last weekend have I been contemplating how to combine my recenlty rediscovered joy of cycling with LF...
I came to the conclusion that the wisest thing probably would indeed be to find a solution to strap the tripod to the frame and carry the camera and lens in a backpack (not utterly comfortable but I am used to it from my commute - it seems odd to put panniers or similar gear on a folding bike that I started to use for going to work ) Since I have no-suspension bike (works fine for the forest roads and fields around here) I wouldn't think of strapping the camera to the "rattler" and use my body as a "suspension" for the camera, if that makes sense..

[Vaughn]

Thanks Vaughn. Were you using a camera bag or a trunk bag for the camera?

I had a top-loading climbing sort of daypack. I have a Gowland PocketView...the rail comes apart in the middle and by loosening the swing on both standards it collaspes pretty flat (half the rail on each standard.) The camera went between two pieces of open-cell sculpted foam and that slipped into a waterproof stuff sack. That sack went tightly into the pack first. Another stuff sack holding five 4x5 film holders went on top of that, then the lens and meter on top of the film holders. I put several inches of foam in the bottom of the pack -- nice not having to think twice about setting the camera pack down. Front loaders are much easier, but in the end, everything has to come out of the pack for a single shot, anyway. I could attach side pockets for a waterbottle and food for all-day hikes.

Directly on the back bike rack was my tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad and tripod. All aligned cross-way. The camera pack was laid on top length-wise. If the bike tipped over, the camera pack did not hit the ground...the tent and all would take the impact. That was the theory, anyway! Fortunately I have long legs and seat is very high, so I just was able to swing my leg over the tall pile of stuff on the back of the bike and get on. The front panniers were "lowboys" - weight centered of the axle. The back panniers held most the weight and were also nicely weight-centered about on the axle. So even with 60 to 80 pounds on the bike, once moving it was very stable...nice on mountain turns! Tires: 26x1.9 smooth center with knobby sides.


I put the lens, surrounded in loose clothes, in the right front pannier. I figured I had a better chance of missing potholes, etc with the front tire than a rear and could more easily de-weight the front tire if needed to reduce shock. I also thought that if I had to lay the bike down, I'd try to go down on the left side and protect the lens. Ahhhh...such foolishness. When I got into deeper gravel on a turn and drifted into rocks -- then I realized that left or right made little difference as the handle bars turned a full 180 degrees as I flew over them.

[macolive]

I had a top-loading climbing sort of daypack. I have a Gowland PocketView...the rail comes apart in the middle and by loosening the swing on both standards it collaspes pretty flat (half the rail on each standard.) The camera went between two pieces of open-cell sculpted foam and that slipped into a waterproof stuff sack. That sack went tightly into the pack first. Another stuff sack holding five 4x5 film holders went on top of that, then the lens and meter on top of the film holders. I put several inches of foam in the bottom of the pack -- nice not having to think twice about setting the camera pack down. Front loaders are much easier, but in the end, everything has to come out of the pack for a single shot, anyway. I could attach side pockets for a waterbottle and food for all-day hikes.

Directly on the back bike rack was my tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad and tripod. All aligned cross-way. The camera pack was laid on top length-wise. If the bike tipped over, the camera pack did not hit the ground...the tent and all would take the impact. That was the theory, anyway! Fortunately I have long legs and seat is very high, so I just was able to swing my leg over the tall pile of stuff on the back of the bike and get on. The front panniers were "lowboys" - weight centered of the axle. The back panniers held most the weight and were also nicely weight-centered about on the axle. So even with 60 to 80 pounds on the bike, once moving it was very stable...nice on mountain turns! Tires: 26x1.9 smooth center with knobby sides.


I put the lens, surrounded in loose clothes, in the right front pannier. I figured I had a better chance of missing potholes, etc with the front tire than a rear and could more easily de-weight the front tire if needed to reduce shock. I also thought that if I had to lay the bike down, I'd try to go down on the left side and protect the lens. Ahhhh...such foolishness. When I got into deeper gravel on a turn and drifted into rocks -- then I realized that left or right made little difference as the handle bars turned a full 180 degrees as I flew over them.

Ouch! But the gear survived right?

[macolive]

Good thread - only the last weekend have I been contemplating how to combine my recenlty rediscovered joy of cycling with LF...
I came to the conclusion that the wisest thing probably would indeed be to find a solution to strap the tripod to the frame and carry the camera and lens in a backpack (not utterly comfortable but I am used to it from my commute - it seems odd to put panniers or similar gear on a folding bike that I started to use for going to work ) Since I have no-suspension bike (works fine for the forest roads and fields around here) I wouldn't think of strapping the camera to the "rattler" and use my body as a "suspension" for the camera, if that makes sense..

I get what you mean. I'll give it a try.

[GG12]

There used to be long discussions about carrying cameras on motorcycle trips, long ones across the country. The worry was that the vibrations would slowly loosen up the hardware in ways that were not easily seen. In general, the discussion went in two directions:

1) with enough layers of foam and isolation, the camera would be OK.
2) no level of packing would do the trick, and wasn't worth the risk

The packing of a 4x5 on a bicycle has some similarities, but the vibrations (and shocks) are different. Less vibration, and more shock probably. While it is easier to see and fix damage to a 4x5, as loose screws can be fixed, any separation of corner joints would not be so easy to repair. This might depend on the camera - metal vs. wood, although I'd hate to have shutter mechanisms subject to road bumps.

So I'm for taking the camera and lens and put them on your back (more isolation) and let the rest of the stuff be in panniers or other holders. The more isolation the better.

Running absolutely the other way, there was this Time-Life photographer studied with some 45 years ago who used to put his Leicas and lenses in a Pan-Am (remember them?) bag without any padding and just let them tumble against each other as he walked. He did just fine, but then again, the cameras were replaced probably every couple of years....

I guess it comes down to how rugged do you think your gear is? If you think its fragile, go one way. If you think its all tough, go the other. Just be prepared to do some repair over time.

[adelorenzo]

I do a lot of cycling with cameras, occasionally on smoother surfaces but mostly on trails or snow. Even on multi-day trips when all my other gear is carried on the bike I carry the camera gear on my body somewhere. When it comes to the 4x5 camera that means a backpack.

[AuditorOne]

It does make you wonder just how Timothy O'Sullivan and others of his kind made it across the west with a horse and buggy, big cameras, glass plates, tripods and all. No shock absorbers and no roads.

[Jac@stafford.net]

My biggest concern is usually the tripod.

Me, too!
.

[Eric Woodbury]

You need a bike that converts to a tripod. Maybe a 1/4-20 on the seat post or handlebars. Maybe not.

[Greg]

ad from 1891 Photo Catalogue...