Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

[Jordan]

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]

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.

[Ti29er]

On the subject of the Mamiya ii - http://photo.net/medium-format-photo...0CfbG?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

[Ken Lee]

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 - "Workhorse of the Pros". For portrait work - especially on a tripod - the RB67 is much more capable.

[eddie]

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?

[Ken Lee]

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.

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]

On the subject of the Mamiya ii - http://photo.net/medium-format-photo...0CfbG?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]

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]

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]

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.