Who needs heavy? My 4x5 kit weighs 8.5 lbs.

[Christopher Condit]

I took a walk to reshoot an image yesterday. I only mention that it was a reshoot because that allowed me to carry only one lens and one bellows. Beyond that, I carried everything I normally carry, though I got by with a lighter tripod than usual. Total carry weight: 8.5 pounds.

Everything fits in a shoulder bag designed for 35mm: Gowland camera, ReadyLoad holder and film, lens, two filters, spotmeter, cable, loupe, hex wrench (it is a Gowland, after all). No dark cloth, as I got by with the folding shade. Velbon 343 tripod strapped on outside of bag. I don't count my baseball hat, used as a lens shade.

I mention this for two reasons. First, to encourage fellow unathletic types, that LF in the field does *not* require hauling a 50-pound pack: even the relatively feeble should be able to handle a sub-ten-pound load. Maybe you won't be prepared for every possible contingency, but you can still take perfectly good pictures.

Second, what is my light weight kit missing that other folks' massive kits include, that would allow (or help) me take better pictures? Besides of course more lenses (I can carry a total of four and still be well under 20#). What do I not carry that you couldn't do without?

I find the tripod to be the biggest carrying burden; what discourages me most from hiking with my 8x10 is having to haul the corresponding mondo tripod. With the featherweight Gowland, I can get by (just barely) with a very light and small tripod, and with a ball head.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Good points. I also have a Gowland 4x5" and a Gowland 8x10", and they really do make it possible to carry a view camera when it would otherwise be difficult. When I photograph birds with my 35mm camera and a big 600/4.5 lens, I often slip the Gowland 4x5" into one pocket of my ScopePack, and I can carry one or two lenses and a Grafmatic or two for occasional landscapes and macros between bird shots.

Using Readyloads as you do keeps things very light. I use Grafmatics, which are heavier than Readyloads, but more compact than traditional filmholders. Alas, for 8x10" that's not an option, and the filmholders are what really add to the weight quickly.

[Chuck_1686]

What do I not carry that you couldn't do without?

I always seem to need faster film for landscapes to stop or minimize wind movement. So I would need holders and they add weight.

[Henning Wulff]

I just checked my lightweight kit, including 4 lenses from 58 to 240 and three graphmatic holders, and without tripod but with everything else including the fannypack I carry it in it comes to 10.5 pounds. Add another 3.5 for my usual tripod, although this camera could be used with my small carbon fiber one, which weighs about 2 pounds with head. This is a wood field camera which can use all 4 lenses' full image circle.

This has been my only hiking LF setup for nearly 20 years, and has been a joy to use. In the city doing architecture, I use other equipment, but I've never felt the need for anything else while hiking.

[Dick Roadnight]

My bigger lenses weigh 13lb, my medium sized tripod weighs 22lb (the large (10m) tripod weighs 75kg).

My 600mm f9 is good enought to cope in most circumstances, and I do have a carbon tripod.

I look forward to backbacking with a Sinar p3 and an MF digiback.

[Ken Schroeder]

I recall a trailside conversation years ago while in the Great Smokies. The fellow was telling me about his friend who used a 4x5 camera. It seemed to require more logistics than the D Day operation. I was inwardly smiling, and wearing my $5.00 Woolworth bookbag containing a Busch Pressman, 135mm lens, spot meter and a few holders. (I was carrying my tiltall tripod.)

This primitive rig would not be a first choice for longer hiking. However, it was quite liberating after carrying a heavy shoulder bag. I write this to encourage those who are still in the shoulder age to consider wrapping the camera in the focusing cloth with a lens or two, a few holders, a meter if you like, and stuffing everything in a humble bookbag. The difference is amazing. (No doubt, most will soon go on to a more sophisticated backpack.)

For those of us who are low tech at heart, I recently purchased a Gnass film holder file. I'm one of those stone agers who uses double holders. The Gnass holder holds eight holders. In hindsight, I wish I had purchased the ten holder size. I don't need two more holders. The pockets can also carry things like filters, notebook, etc. When not fully loaded, the holder is thinner and easier to pack.

[Bill_1856]

Do you actually recommend the Velbon 343 to hold any camera larger than a Minox? You might as well hand hold. I have yet to find any tripod much lighter than a Tiltall which will safely and steadily hold a 4x5 camera at eye level with a dark cloth (to catch the wind).