Recommendations sought for a lightweight 8x10 camera

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you have any experience with 8x10?

What sort of photos do you expect to make? Color? Black and white? Lenses; normal, long, wideangle, or closeup? In addition to the camera, you will need filmholders, film, a changing bag perhaps, a UV filter possibly, shades for each lens, a lightmeter, a tripod, dark cloth, cable releases etc. etc.. All at 5000m/16500ft. Are you going to climb, drive, or helicopter to this altitude?

You haven't given us much to go on, besides the format size and altitude.

[Bill Koechling]

The engineering and materials in the Arca Swiss F line 8x10 makes a relatively light candidate for your use. "Light" doesn't mean lacking sturdiness too.

[Drew Wiley]

The last place you want to be learning view camera technique with an 8x10 is up in the
mtns. There are a lot of logistical issues which need practice until they become intuitive.
Do you actually need a camera this big? And lightweight gear can become a liability if not
very carefully selected because things like wind and dimensional stabilty become serious
factors. A lightweight tripod might be worthless in the snow. I have done plenty of this
kind of photography. You have to learn it incrementally.

[Alan Gales]

My Wehman 8x10 weighs 8.7 lbs. There was a lighter version made that weighed 7.2 lbs. It folds up into a "bullet proof" clamshell. It kind of reminds me of my Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, not the prettiest thing but it sure is tough. You can look at the Wehman website for details and pictures. Unfortunately, due to health issues, Bruce Wehman is no longer making the camera. I bought mine used for $1,500.00 with a few extras.

I have a bad back so no mountain trekking for me but if I was able to do it I wouldn't take the Wehman. I would take my Tachihara 4x5 instead. Everything is heavier with an 8x10, camera, tripod, lenses, and film holders!

[Rod Klukas]

Arca-Swiss also makes a 9 lbs 8x10 as Does Canham.
Up high you also get wind. Take a golfers umbrella to create a wind break for when you are high. Light and broad.
You might consult with Jody Forster who spent 9 months in the Himalayas with an 8x10 and 2 sherpas.
He will have many answers about the logistics. His images are incredible as well. 20x24" and larger.
Rod

[premortho]

For whatever it's worth, and I mostly shoot in the Adirondaks which are not very high, I use a Rochester Universal View because it's very light, and so easy to carry. It has a Turner Reich Triple convertable and a Packard shutter. It is too light to shoot in the wind, so I use it on still or close to still days. I only carry two filmholders, as four exposures are a days work for me. I generally use x-ray film because it is ortochromatic and much less than a dollar a sheet. I develope these, usually the same night, in three 11X14 trays under a red safty light. I think I have less than $350.00 in the whole outfit.

[John Kasaian]

The last place you want to be learning view camera technique with an 8x10 is up in the
mtns. There are a lot of logistical issues which need practice until they become intuitive.
Do you actually need a camera this big? And lightweight gear can become a liability if not
very carefully selected because things like wind and dimensional stabilty become serious
factors. A lightweight tripod might be worthless in the snow. I have done plenty of this
kind of photography. You have to learn it incrementally.

Drew nails it.

I've had some limited success with my Gowland Aerial, hand held and well baced, hunkered down in the snow and using fast film, but in order to do that I gave up movements and a lot of flexibility. Also the Gowland Aerial, while very light, is more bulky to carry.
I envy Vittorio Sella, who had his porters Secondino Bianchetti and Giuseppe Gamba to carry his sizeable kit!