Folks, Pietro, the OP, cited the revolving back feature of the (Mamiya) RZ as what he's trying to emulate - see his post #16. The cameras with "reversing" backs that have to be removed, flipped and remounted are not what he's after.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a 4x5 with a revolving back that's going to be much shy of 6 pounds.
Yeah, they are all metal like Toyo 45A, Wista technical fields like the SP, Super Speed Graphic, British MPP, Linhof Technika. I would think Linhof would be the heaviest but also best built. All fine cameras though.Originally Posted by Oren Grad
The only rotating back 4x5 I own is a Graflex RB Auto. I've never weighed it but "light" is not one of the words I would use to define it. It is a wonderful camera though and sets up and takes down very quickly. Movements might be a mite limited but it depends on what you need. For Portraits and Landscapes it does great.
I do have a couple of 8x10s where the back unclips and then clips back on in a different orientation. It is a lot simpler to do then to explain.
However, if I intend to hike any real distance, the Intrepid is my choice. Come to think of it, in 4x5, it is almost always my choice anymore. Nice camera although a bit on the basic side.
EDIT - It does have a very fast and simple rotating back though; just flip it over on its side. It is light enough that my tripod does not seem worried in the least.
The Viewfinder is the Soul of the Camera
If you don't believe it, look into an 8x10 viewfinder!
Dan
The Wista 45VX, with revolving back, is spec'ed at 2.4kg. The Wista 45N, a VX without front swing but otherwise identical, may be fractionally lighter. Roughly, a 4x5 revolving back adds 450-500g. If it's something you will use a lot the added weight is a feature. If you never use it, it's deadweight.
IMO it`s not only the ability of rotating the back, but also the easiness or smoothness in that rotation... so I`d not limit the search to "the lightest" but instead to "the fastest" or to the best build.
I don`t see the point of having a rotating back that is not smooth and precise unless you were changing from portrait to landscape in a continuous manner. And if so, the slowness of 4x5" makes me wonder about its suitability. Press cameras are history for a reason...
As has been mentioned in other threads may times: if you count in the weight of your tripod, film holders, loupe, lenses, light meter, filters,..etc..the absolute weight of the camera alone gets less important..
Good luck with the many choices !
Best,
Cor
"Lightest" to me just not an issue.
When I was doing ultra-light backpacking, I would go to extreme measures to save ounces. Then at one point realized that carrying an extra few pounds, was realized in a lot more comfort and better meals. Now I day hike with a f/64 backpack containing either a Whole Plate or 8x10 camera with as many lenses as I can carry. Carrying a water filtration system seems to save the most amount of weight for not having to carry full water bottles. Fortunately here in New England, water sources (streams) are more than abundant pretty much anywhere I go. For a 4x5, I now use a Chamonix, but if I had the money, without hesitation, would purchase the latest metal Linhof, and the weight difference has to be a lot. Interesting that Minor White and Fred Picker primarily used a Sinar Norma for their outdoor shots, and the Sinar Norma is no light compact camera by any means.
I love my Technika with its rotating back, but it's a beast to carry - heavier than my 5 x 7 Kodak. On the other hand if you need to pound in a few tent pegs the Technika is capable.
Great point Greg! I bought a Sawyer Squeeze earlier this year and have started carrying it instead of my larger water bottle / extra water on longer hikes. This saves a few pounds overall.
But, as someone who owns a Linhof 4x5...I still generally hike with my Chamonix. Lately I've been going out with my Cham, Shen-Hao 6x17, and 3 or 4 lenses max. Roll film holder for the 617 and 12-18 sheets of film in Grafmatics fill out the kit, along with some filters and such. It all comes to maybe 25 pounds, which I consider pretty good for two complete systems. If I am planning on real long distance I would take out the 6x17 (or 4x5 depending on the situation) and a lens or two maybe. For even less weight I would be reverting to my 2x3 Century Graphic or my new Mercury modular camera.
To each his/her own. If had to choose between carrying a Chamonix with a water filter -- in the Apple Chains where there are lots of streams, or carrying a TOKO AND water -- in the Rockies where there are no streams, I'd choose the latter.
Either way, we will both get some great shots.
P.S. Does Chamonix offer a water filter as an accessory?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks