Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 90

Thread: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

  1. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Looks like LF is getting the thumbs down.

    Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.

    That leaves me to sell the 'Blad outfit as well as my mountain bikes on eBay (3 down and 2 to go!), shame really as the Ti29er is a beaut'.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti29er View Post
    Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.
    Be sure to take some careful test shots with the 150 before you leave on your trip, to make certain that the rangefinder is calibrated. You don't want to be "surprised" after a year of shooting.

    I'm not alone in making this recommendation. When I bought my camera and lenses used, separately on eBay and from KEH, I soon found out that the 150 focus was way off, a few weeks before a trip overseas.

    When I had mine calibrated by Mamiya, they had both a special "rush" plan, and a normal turnaround plan. The calibration was a complete CLA of camera and lens, and was worth every penny. That was in 2006. Dunno what they do now.
    Last edited by Ken Lee; 5-Oct-2010 at 06:55.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Rangefinders in general are prone to going "out" especially if they are jittered for a few thousand bus miles. With the wider lenses you can always scale focus with the lenses and let depth of field be your friend, as opposed to the 150, which is hard enough to frame and focus with a good M7. It's not really the best portrait camera, the 150 is more for reaching a distant infinity landscape.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    181

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Consider a 6x9cm large format camera. You get all the movement of the "big" large format and all the easier film handling of medium format. Weight is also going to be a bit lower than 4x5", but not half the weight. My Arca-Swiss 6x9 with 3 lenses, 2 cassettes, tripod and backpack (but not much else in the backpack) is somewhere around 8kg if I recall correctly.

    6x9 "baby large format" comes in "field camera" style too, but maybe a bit harder to find. If it's "press camera" style, you'll trade some movement ability for some handheld ability.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,506

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti29er View Post
    Looks like LF is getting the thumbs down.

    Meaning the M7ii is heading up the top of the list thus far as it's lenses sound beyond reproach and it's a compact system if I take a 50 and a 150mm lens; plus my Nikon d700, a 28-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lens.

    That leaves me to sell the 'Blad outfit as well as my mountain bikes on eBay (3 down and 2 to go!), shame really as the Ti29er is a beaut'.
    Sorry about having to sell the bikes. I love to cycle so I know how hard it must be to give it up.

    About the Mamiya 7II, I would recommend that you consider a wide angle outfit rather than normal and long. I have made many trips with the Mamiya 7II and would estimate that about 80% of my work is made with the 43mm (or 50mm) and 65mm lenses, 15% with the 80mm, and no more than 5% with the 150 . It is with wide angle lenses that the rangefinder camera really shines. Also, with the really wide angle lenses any lack of calibration of the rangefinder won't matter nearly so much as with the 150mm lens.

    In terms of image quality you give up virtually nothing with the Mamiya 7II compared to 4X5, if you use the camera on a tripod as you would the 4X5, with a fine grain film like Fuji Acros 100 or Ektar 100. But you gain a lot in terms saving in weight, versatility, and the ability to set up fast and get a shot.

    Sandy King
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  6. #66
    Robert Oliver Robert Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA
    Posts
    488

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    don't let these curmudgeons talk you out of doing what you want.... I backpack with my 4x5 camera, even though it would be easier to carry a digital camera. Yes I could make images that document the same scenes, but I think 4x5 is better for landscape and it is WAY more challenging. The challenge leaves me feeling way more satisfied than shooting 35mm.

    I shoot with 4x5 because i WANT to....

    I shoot with Digital SLR's because I have to!

    Yes it will be a pain in the butt.

    Yes it will be heavy. Yes you will curse at it throughout your trip. Yes it will require WAY more planning to keep yourself supplied. Yes it will cost more. And yes the 35mm kit will be WAY easier and give you way more options,

    But in the end, don't be left second guessing your decision.

    Try it out first.... you can build a fairly light kit with 4x5 that won't be that much heavier than a 35mm kit. My Canon 7D camera weighs 2 pounds, not that much less than my Chamonix 4x5. I find good 35mm lenses weigh more than their 4x5 counterparts.

    I don't think any of the medium format cameras, besides the holga, will give you any noticeable weight savings.

    Speaking of Holga's take one along for portraits!

    I always carry a lightweight point and shoot digital that runs off of AA batteries for the shots that aren't important enough for LF. Great for people shots.

    I use the original Chamonix 45n-1 camera and choose light lenses. Film will be your biggest concern. I've been shooting 6x12 on my 4x5 with roll film. It's a nice mix of nearly 5" wide negatives and the ease of 120 film. Medium format film is WAY less weight per shot than 4x5 film.

    My 4x5 kit with enough film for 5 days is less than 20 pounds including tripod.

    I recommend finding ultralight solutions for the rest of your gear.
    Robert Oliver

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    139

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    Rangefinders in general are prone to going "out" especially if they are jittered for a few thousand bus miles. With the wider lenses you can always scale focus with the lenses and let depth of field be your friend, as opposed to the 150, which is hard enough to frame and focus with a good M7. It's not really the best portrait camera, the 150 is more for reaching a distant infinity landscape.
    I really like the 150mm on my M 7 II. It's a fantastic lens for environmental portraiture. It can't do tight head shots, but that's not what I'm usually after when I travel. Just make sure that you understand the DOF of the 150 on 67:

    http://dofmaster.com/doftable.html

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    139

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Oliver View Post
    don't let these curmudgeons talk you out of doing what you want.... I backpack with my 4x5 camera, even though it would be easier to carry a digital camera. Yes I could make images that document the same scenes, but I think 4x5 is better for landscape and it is WAY more challenging. The challenge leaves me feeling way more satisfied than shooting 35mm.

    I shoot with 4x5 because i WANT to....

    I shoot with Digital SLR's because I have to!

    Yes it will be a pain in the butt.

    Yes it will be heavy. Yes you will curse at it throughout your trip. Yes it will require WAY more planning to keep yourself supplied. Yes it will cost more. And yes the 35mm kit will be WAY easier and give you way more options,
    But in the end, don't be left second guessing your decision. . .
    I'd actually give a lot of weight to the opinions of people who have traveled with film gear. IMHO, medium format is an excellent compromise for travel, and my favorite is the Mamiya 7. YMMV.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    Well said.

    Unless you want your Mamiya 7 gear to get banged and scratched, it needs some protection and padding. The camera body and 2 lenses, even when stored separately with caps, is not a tiny set of gear. I found that while traveling, the camera and 2 lenses, plus a small tripod and some boxes of roll-film, take up a good portion of a small nap sack.

    I used a sweater, rain coat, and other clothing in the pack, to pad the equipment. If you need protection from rain, then add some resealable plastic bags. I would also carry a roll of adhesive tape, for when the glue on the end of an occasional roll, refuses to fully keep the roll from unwinding.

    Also, make sure you have a spare battery for the camera. The shutter as well as the light meter, are electronic. You can't trip the shutter without a battery. Of course, you want to bring a spare cable release too.

  10. #70
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Travelling for a year; so which LF camera?

    MF tends to have an easier learning curve than LF technique, but although I have no
    problems getting good shots with MF, I find the quality of the negs per se quite
    disappointing by comparison. Just too damn small for good enlargements. Might be a
    different story for those scanning, correcting the blemishes in PS, and making either
    digital negs or digital prints. But for direct printing, I've always regretted the choice to
    travel with MF. So why do I sometimes do this anyway? The most common reason would be high winds, in which a view camera becomes a kite. This was the case this
    last spring on Haleakala, where I couldn't have kept a 4x5 upright at all in the howling
    wind, but did get a number of impressive shots using the 6x7. MF is nice for quick shots too, where with the correct film, I can still print a decent 16x20. And then there
    are those really wet days when I might use the 8x10 but prefer not to have to dry off
    everything afterwards (despite the Goretex darkcloth). But since I tend to favor long
    lenses I decided against the M7 and still use the Pentax 6x7 system. Nice for skittish
    wildlife too, which might bolt or wander off before I have the view camera set up.
    Weight wise, it's only about 2 lbs heavier than a similar M7 setup, but about 4 lbs less
    than the 4x5 due to filmholders. But since my "normal" gear is an 8X10, all the above
    options seem lightweight.

Similar Threads

  1. What Kind of Camera? (Finding Camera Manufacturers)
    By cblurton in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 26-Nov-2006, 22:56
  2. Wehman 8x10--lookin for a camera? Look no further!
    By Bobby Sandstrom in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 3-Mar-2005, 07:46
  3. Arca-Swiss or Shen-Hao
    By darren in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2-Aug-2004, 07:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •