Well that's different. You need a turret on a donkey cart for that rig. I think saving weight on a tripod for that setup is a low yield enterprise. I don't know that gear well, but you need the biggest of whatever is available.Originally Posted by 77seriesiii
Steve brings up a good point. If your pack weighs 90 lbs saving 5-10 (and spending a lot of money doing it) is not going to matter much. I would instead figure out more efficient ways of transporting your equipment. Get some sort of baby stroller like many forum members here use, or an ATV, or heck even a donkey. Carrying that much weight really bears down on you after awhile. If you can split the gear up amongst several friends it will also save a lot of pain. There is no need to kill yourself trying to take on everything yourself. This is something I have unfortunately learned from experience.
Steve and gang!,
Thanks for the comments. I'll let Laura know that you liked her art, she will get a huge kick out of that! I'm the other half, the one that carries some of the equipment, holds the dog, drinks the wine...did I mention the wine?
I have seen a 14x17 but I hadnt thought the weight issue through, in other words, listed it all out and added it up. that is quite a bit and though can be done for a while, I dont think I can do that all day anymore. Even if I gave Laura 30lbs, I dont think she would be happy. Ok, so re-think the expedition camera and go with smaller and see how that works, lays out in a pack, etc.
On the CF versus wood, I am mostly concerned with the water Laura and I find ourselves in (sometimes falling in...). The occasional rain and fresh water is not so big an issue but we do plant a tripod in a stream or saltwater often enough to get the shot she is looking for. The weight savings overall of CF vs Wood is not that great as Steve pointed out. Still doing the mental gymnastics on the logistics.
Thanks again for the comments/thoughts.
Erick
If you get a CF tripod with the legs that slide in like a gitzo, you're going to have to clean the grit outta that thing by disassembling it. A wood tripod is easy to clean.
My book "Lonely Places on Cruise Ships"
Eric,
If you're doing saltwter and streams other than clear running, I'd agree with David - Ries is the way to go, a J-series or A-series depending on the maximum size camera. You might want to call the Ries folks directly, they are very helpful.
As an afterthought to the camera weight issue, you can carry light ULF cameras fo varying distances depending on you, the pack, the terrain, and the distance.
I frequently carry an 8x20 Korona (about 15 pounds), two holders, up to three lenses, and the usually stuff up to a mile on flat land or maybe 1/3 mile uphill, and I'm 53 and rather ordinary. I had Dan McHale make me a pack to carry cameras 8x10 up to 8x20, and it does exactly what he built it to very well. So it can be done, but the heavier the camera, the shorter you can carry it, the less steep you can stand, and so on.
I wouldn't even think about packing a 35 pound Wisner 14x17 unless the pack was to solely ensure the camera didn't get dropped when negotiating 10-100 feet to the desired location. That's assuming it would fit in any pack, again being more than a half a yard of camera in two directions.
If I were doing what I think you're doing, I'd do 7x17 and maybe 11x14. The cameras of choice for carrying would be a Folmer and Schwing or Korona (vintage, be careful buying), or a Canham or Ritter (modern). These cameras are small and light enough (if yo can even use those adjectives with ULF) for normal people to carry in a large pack for short distances. The F&S is a "banquet" camera and has a rather short bellows, the Korona was available in a "panoramic" model with a longer bellows and extension rail, and a "banquet" model without. My Korona 8x20 was a "banquet", but I had Richard Ritter make a rail and install a longer bellows.
Another thing to think about as you consider options is that above 7x17 and 11x14 (like 14x17, 8x20, 12x20), you're really into another class of lenses that can be heavier, much more expensive, and much rarer, at least in focal lengths 19" and shorter. For these larger cameras, you'll need 22"-24" of image circle at infinity, and if you want sharp out to the edges, that's not always easy shorter than 19"-ish.
Cheers, Steve
Ok, good ideas, didnt think about stuff getting trapped in CF sectionals. How do the backpackers in the forum cart around their wood tripods? Lash them to the side of packs?
Contacting Ries to see what they say and am looking at Berlebach. Price differential doesnt seem that much between CF and Ries, however Berlebach seems to have lower prices.
./e
Erick,
I've known several people to lash a J-series Ries to a pack, never seen anyone carry an A-series that way. Since I'm never going far with ULF, I usually carry the tripod in my hands. A J-series will be workable up to moderate 8x10s.
A lot of people do carts, but I don't since the trails I frequent are too rough unless perhaps it had bicycle wheels on it.
Cheers, Steve
just found Chamonix 14x17 is 14.55 pound at $4200 and a few pounds lighter than Canham....
not sure if it's cheaper.... 14x17...they're all very expensive..
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/1417.html
Laura,
I applaud your commitment and admire your strength. You have some very nice work on your web site. I hope you aren't planning on carrying a 14x17 very far. Have you actually seen a 14x17 camera in person?
The obvious question is how much weight are you looking to carry comfortably? One of the lightest 14x17 cameras around would be the Canham at about 17-18 pounds, and a Wisner is about 35 pounds. A Ries A-100 with A-250 head would be the standard tripod for this camera at about 18 pounds. Add a couple of filmholders at around 5 pounds apiece, a lens, 10+ pounds for a pack that will carry it, and you're up to a minimum of 56 pounds for one of the lightest outfits out there. A Gitzo 1500 series CF and 1570M head would save you about 5 pounds.
So you're looking at 50-80 pounds not counting filters, changing bag, loupe, lunch, water, wine, and so on.
A realistic pack weight for 14x17 might range from 65-100 pounds.
The next obstacle is what are you going to carry a 14x17 in? I don't know of any commercial pack that could carry one along with the holders, lenses, etc. You might be able to kluge something to a Kelty external frame pack, or get Dan McHale to make you something custom.
The attached photo shows a Wisner 14x17 next to a rather large 8x10 (larger than a Deardorff by a bit). It's more than a half a yard in height and width, and although the Canham will be half the weight, the size won't be much different.
Cheers, Steve
People seem to use 3-wheel baby strollers to carry their gear. I don't because I don't get that far from the car with my stuff.
My book "Lonely Places on Cruise Ships"
Check Navy surplus. Seems like a 5 inch gun mount oughta be about right...
Didn't the infamous Majestic head come with an equally humongous tripod?
I agree that weight saving isn't going to be significant. With a camera that large the only factor to consider in tripod selection is strength.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks