Moving on from 35mm - to MF or LF?

[Dan Fromm]

Um, you were ok until you mentioned that you'd like to go off by yourself for a week or more, carrying all food and equipment. Not to beat you up over the obvious or anything, but a substantial MF or LF rig will put you on the edge of starvation, if not well into it. And with a press or view camera you'll need a tripod. With 35 you might have been able to get away without one, but perhaps not with your choice of emulsion and shutter speeds.

One inexpensive possibility that will probably fit inside your budget and sort of match your vision is a Century or 2x3 Crown Graphic, a 2x3 Graphic RH-8 back (late one with lever wind and pin rollers on both sides of the gate) or a 6x7 Mamiya RB back, a 47/5.6 Super Angulon, and 80/6.3 Wide Field Ektar, and a 101/4.7 Ektar. Given your very nice portfolio, I don't think you'll need a lens longer than normal. The Kodak lenses are small and light, the SA isn't too huge. All cover 2x3 (nominal 6x9) and are pretty good. The Kodaks aren't the best, but what they lack most of all is coverage, not an issue with a Century. At today's prices you should be able to get everything and have the shutters CLAd for < $1500. Probably won't spend that much. The Century Graphic's advantage is that it has a Graflok back built in, not all 2x3 Crowns do. Mmm, I don't know how brittle a Century will get at really low temperatures. Not a problem with Crowns.

The biggest problem with this rig is finding the pieces. You'll also have to have the shutters overhauled. Used ones can't be trusted, and I think you'll be shooting chromes.

Come to think of it, you'll probably need a little fixture to help you square up the front standard for the two short lenses. More time spent waiting for the machinist, unless you can make it yourself.

The second biggest problem is that the camera has only one useful movement, front rise, and not a lot of that. No front tilt without modifications, ask about 'em, if interested, on www.graflex.org You'll be shooting stopped way way down.

I suggested this rig because its basically what I carry around. Works ok. Haven't had my 47/5.6 SA's shutter overhauled yet, its a new arrival. Have been making do with a 38/4.5 Biogon, but inexpensive ones, mine excepted, don't exist.

Cheers,

Dan

[Marko Vrabec]

Uh, thanks for the enormous response in such a short time! Some additional explanations to questions put up in responses so far:

I intend to shop online (have already purchased from KEH in the past), will stay in Miami with a permanent address and internet access. Since I will additionally be shopping for a CF tripod, head and lightmeter I thought I could try getting a deal if I would buy the entire outfit from one dealer. I want to buy a reasonably complete outfit, however I'm OK with leaving a lense or two for later purchase.

I will carefully consider (or re-consider) additional suggestions given, though Mamiya RF systems are sadly but definitely outside what I am willing to pay (have been waiting for years to see their prices drop but..).

With regards to camera outfit size and weight: during my solo 12-day backpacking in Finland in 2002 from where most of my sample photos are, I initially carried 35kg (75+ pounds) of stuff, of which 6 kg (13 pounds) was photo gear (film and tripod included). Admittedly, this was on the edge of humanely possible, for example you need a boulder as a platform to take off/on your backpack, otherwise you just can't make it. I think I remember reading QTL had similar experiences backpacking in one of the Alaskan National Parks. But yes, 6 kg of photo gear is acceptable if not resonable for me.

Going 6x9 with a rollfilm back on a LF camera is an interesting option, and it was my first thought when I started considering LF several years ago (I then felt very skeptical about sheet film and film holders). But after some more reading I got the impression that good 6x9 lenses and rollfilm backs would cost about the same and be as time consuming to operate as a normal 4x5 outfit?

With regards to Graphic cameras, isn't the cost of a used Super Graphic (which is the only to have "real" front tilt) at reputable dealers only a $100 or so lower than new Tachichara/Shen Hao? Of course with my budget every $ counts and I do think Graphics are cool - but would they be versatile enough for what I need?

[Øyvind Dahle]

The Bronica, Pentax 67, Pentacon and Olympus 4Ti are "fast" cameras, meaning you can adjust the camera, take the camera out of the rucksack, shoot a picture and put it down again in less than 1 second. A LF camera need more, much more time. If you have a strechable budget, get a press-like camera with room for a small lens attached with rollfilm and Polaroid 545-backs, two lenses, rollfilm and Polaroidfilm and sell it if you don't like to work that way - this is the most important part - try it to see if this is for you, there should be good prices for tested LF equpment wherever you live.

You will find shift/tilt lenses for most MF cameras, but it will cost you! (HB, Rollei, M-RZ) What you wan't is a Rollei SL66, but it is a cult camera, so it will cost you!

Maybe consider a shift/tilt MIR lens for your Pentacon ;-)

All those MF lenses is going to weigh quite a bit, so the most backfriendly might be a 4x5" or 2x3" LF press-like camera with a multiformat rollfilm back (Shen Hao: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005vlC ) and two or three lenses, my US$250 90/6,8 Angulon is 230g? My US$20 non-coated-bad-shutter 135mm Kodak Anastigmat is a about the same, here is a picture with the latter, the nonmoving needles on the trees are pin sharp: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=86915

I use my tripod as a walking stick, so get a lightweight one. My Gossen Digiflash meter is 40g.

Consider a week in Lofoten on bicycle.

Øyvind

[John Cook]

When it comes to camera brands, everyone has his favorite for very personal reasons. I don’t need to add to the excellent advice you are receiving about manufacturers.

But as for film format, let me make these quiet observations:

(1) Film size, like rank in the military, is everything. If your subject isn’t moving, there is rarely an excuse not to use sheet film. This forum is made up of people who have learned that truth.

(2) In a world of extreme needless technical over-complication, a sheet film camera is as simple as a mud fence. The multitude of tiny electronic parts in any 35mm or 120 camera will soon wear out. When you trade in the body, all the expensive attachments and lenses will have to go as well (at a big loss). Many on this site are using the same lenses they have had for years on each new view camera they acquire.

Forget about ten-way pre-programmed averaging center-biased electronic shutter metering with fuzzy-logic backlight compensation. I earned my living for years with a lens with no shutter. Just an old worn leather lens cap and the ability to count to “one-thousand-and-two”.

Over the long haul, the lack of manufacturer planned obsolescence in view cameras will save you a fortune. And your technical quality will be superior as well.

[Mike Lopez]

Very well said!

[Christopher Condit]

IMHO, LF is an acquired taste. Even though I have acquired it, I would recommend MF for you. Fuji GSW690, Fuji GW690, Mamiya 6, Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide (6x10).

[Julio Fernandez]

Marko: film size is straight arithmetic and so is equipment weight. You do not need our advise for that. The main issue I do not think has to do with arithmetic but the art of photography. LF enables you to shape your pictures to your way of seeing far more than any of the fixed lens and back formats. To appreciate the difference you need to gain some experience with LF before deciding. To see what a good landscape photographer can do with LF visit Paul Schilliger's web site at

http://www.paulschilliger.com/ You can also look at David Muench's web site. He is a LF photographer.

Oportunistic nature photography such as birds and bears requires a format that enables you to react quickly and for that nothing beats 35mm. Art Wolfe comes to mind as that kind of photographer although he also has a good feel for landscapes. It all depends on what attracts you. Format follows not leads.

[Brian Ellis]

I've used the Pentax 67 system in addition to large format for about eight years so I'll respond with respect to it. From a money standpoint it would be a great choice. You can buy a used 67 (not 6x7, that's the oldest model and I'd steer clear of it just because of age)for around $400. Pentax 67 lenses are excellent and inexpensive compared to many other medium format lenses of the same quality. You could assemble a very nice Pentax 67 system - say camera, 55mm or 75mm, 105mm, and 200mm lenses - and be within your budget I believe. The big problem with this system for what you want to do is weight. My camera and four lenses plus teleconverter and the usual accessories weighs about as much as my 4x5 system (Ebony 6 lb camera, five smalllenses, etc.). You no doubt are in excellent physical condition but carrying the Pentax 67 system up mountains isn't something I'd like to do unless you possibly could get by with maybe two lenses instead of three. In all other respects except weight it would be an excellent choice for what you want to do. There is no observable difference from a technical standpoint in the 11x14 and smaller prints I make from the 67 and the 4x5. I wrote a review of the 67 system on my web site, www.ellisgalleries.com, click on "Equipment Reviews" if you're interested.

[Doug Meek]

Hi Marko.

I faced the same decision you did 2 years ago. I too was an OM system user. I second everything John Cook said above. His advice stems from years of experience. As John said, size is everything when it comes to film. Also, I do a great deal of backpacking deep into the mountain backcountry. Weight, bulk, expense and quality were the criteria I needed to address in my decision-making process. MF and LF weight is about the same. Bulk - advantage MF (barely). Equipment expense - about the same, perhaps a slight advantage to LF (film is another story, however). Quality - LF wins by a huge margin.

Bottom line, much more bang for your buck with LF. As for the ability to hike with LF, I have backpacked all over the Sierra Nevada Mountains during the last 2 years with my LF setup (5 lenses, 1 body). No mules, just all of the horsepower that my 46-year old body can muster. I strongly recommend LF for your landscape-style shooting. As John said earlier, there simply is no reason not to shoot LF in your situation.

[Jo Surich]

I started with a 6x6 Rollei twin lens, tried 35, went to a Bronica with enough lenses and stuff to break a donkey's back and finally settled on 4x5. As someone said so eloquently - size does matter. I'd go for a field camera with a couple of lenses. This should be possible for the budget and will deliver outstanding results.