An exercise: The ultimate lite weight LF outfit

[David A. Goldfarb]

The lightest 90mm lens is going to be the 90/6.8 Angulon or something very much like it of older vintage, but the tradeoff for light weight is going to be image circle. Combine it with a 135mm/5.6 Caltar II-N, Sironar-N, or Symmar convertible, and they'll both take the same filters (40.5mm screw in or the older Linhof 42mm clamp-on system).

You can get the meter down to an ounce or two by using a Gossen DigiSix or DigiFlash, or if you prefer a spot meter, the Metered Light Pocket Spot.

[Frank Petronio]

Also consider the late Rodenstock Geronar MC 210/6.8. It is multi-coated and fits into a Copal 1, but is very small, sharp, and has plenty of coverage. It can fold up into a Linhof Technika, which is hard for most lenses over 150mm to do...

[John_4185]

Frank, with all the agony these people go through to save an ounce, why would they want to carry a Technika?

It seems to me that the ideal flyweight view camera would be skeletal CF standards on a strawthin monorail, friction stops, bag bellows (which doubles as a hat). For a support, they could just snap the pics while hugging a tree.

[Frank Petronio]

I know you're teasing but I meant to illustrate that it is about the size of a normal 150 Sironar type lens.

There are some really cool new carbon and graphite materials that modellers use for making ultralight free-flight competition model airplanes (which is a great hobby that I hope to do again someday but not until I have a lot of time on my hands...). If you peruse some the more exotic websites perhaps you could be inspired to design a superlight 4x5 and have low-wage Eastern European craftspeople build them for you.

http://w-hobby.com/
http://www.freeflightsupplies.co.uk/
http://freeflight.org/

It's come a long way since I was a kid with a Cox TeeDee .049 and a Satellite 320.

[Spencer Cliss]

Probably the single most important weight saving equipment choice are my Kelty Phantom and Cloud 4000 backpacks. These are no longer made, but apparently the Cloud 5250 is the current model.

http://www.kelty.com/Kelty/index.cfm?fuseaction=Packs.showProduct&type=pack&ID=143

I'd rather use these light packs than a flimsy camera and the weight savings is about the same.

These are large enough that the tripod goes inside. Very important too in my opinion.

[Ed Richards]

> My last 4 day trip to 14,000' was with a 14lb total packed weight--inclusive of food and bear cannister

You could probably carry a bigger camera if you left the bear at home.

[Ron Stoecklein]

I wish you could leave the "bear" at home, unfortunately its manditory in many areas of the Sierras adding a minimum of 2lbs. of weight.

[John_4185]

I wish you could leave the "bear" at home, unfortunately its manditory in many areas of the Sierras adding a minimum of 2lbs. of weight.

Mandatory, as in The Law? I know you can't carry firearms there, but how about hand grenades?

[CXC]

This discussion reminds me of one of my bicycle buddies, a 'gram-shaver', as they are called, who bought an incredibly expensive titanium seat post to shave off a few grams from his bike, and then carries at least 2 pounds of water in a water bottle, on a short enough ride where I didn't bother to carry any water at all. Beyond a certain point, maybe in the vicinity of 10 pounds, you can save more weight in your non-camera stuff: skip a meal, don't wear socks, get lighter glasses, etc. Then it becomes a game.

On a more constructive note, I got a complete, one-lens kit down to 8 pounds, in a shoulder-style camera bag. Key starting point is a Gowland monorail, and a relatively short, extremely light, intended for 35mm, tripod. Works fine with a short lens, no wind, and a little extra care.

[Glenn Thoreson]

My lightest 4X5 outfit? Rochester Optical Premo B, ca 1896. The camera proper weighs in at 36 ounces with lens.