bad back = get a light weight 4x5" camera

[AtlantaTerry]

I have been having bad back issues that do not seem to be getting better as I approach my 70th birthday. :(

I am thinking of getting a smaller / light weight field design 4x5" camera to add to my Cambo system.

Pair the back pain with the theft of my 4x5" Crown Camera kit that needs to be replaced. (Camera, 135mm f/4.7 Wollensak, 150mm f/5.6 Fujinon and 240mm f/6.8 TeleCongo + some sheet film holders and dark cloth in a beat up old Graflite case.)

The lenses I still have are a 75mm f/6.3 Komura Super-W, 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW, 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S and 300mm f/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N.

I like the majority of my lenses to be mounted on Crown Graphic lens boards so they will fit directly on the Graphic body or the Cambo with an adapter. The only lenses not mounted on Crown boards are the very wide (75mm and 90mm) or very large/long (300mm), those three are on Cambo boards.

The main work I use a 4x5" camera for are portraits, products (advertising) and architectural in that order.

I'm thinking of getting a light weight camera for the out of studio work (which would mainly be portraits) using the 210mm and 300mm lenses along with replacements for the 150mm and 240mm lenses.

To lighten my load out of the studio, I would carry the camera, Sekonic meter + dark cloth in one case, film holders in a second case and the lenses in a third. Right now I have the Cambo with a regular and bag bellows, compendium, right angle finder, 90mm, 210mm, 300mm, cable releases and Sekonic meter all in one large case that is now almost impossible for me to lift. (Gee, I wonder why?) :confused:

A lighter weight camera would also allow me to use my normal Gitzo tripod instead of the heavier video tripod with fluid head that I currently use with the Cambo. So that is some additional weight saved.

So I'm asking the church assembled to testify as to what I might want to be looking for in way of a decent light weight 4x5" camera. Names I have read around here include Tachihara, Wista, Shen Hao, Chamonix, etc. Wing's Camera here in Atlanta has a used Sinar system which if was just the camera might be interesting but this particular kit includes a bunch of lenses in DB shutters so the total cost is more than I want to spend.

Or maybe I should just find a replacement Crown/Speed Graphic and use that. I was thinking of the Speed to replace the stolen Crown because I have been building some soft focus lenses for my portrait work and the focal plane shutter would be put to good use.

I would also like a Speed Graphic because sourcing an Aero Ektar is on my bucket list. But the AE might go on an unused 4x5" R.B. Super D Graflex (circa 1947) that is sitting on a shelf waiting for a lens.

BTW, I do own another Crown lens board adapter that I could attach to the light weight camera's regular lens board.

Do any of the light weight cameras have interchangeable bellows if I need a bag bellows or extra long one? What about a compendium?

Your thoughts and opinions, please.

Thank you.
Terry

[Old_Dick]

Hi Terry,


I realize you are looking for a lighter camera, but have you given any thought to a lighter tripod? I believe many people here have lighten their load with a carbon-fiber tripod. Just one step on making things easier.

[AtlantaTerry]

Hi Terry, I believe many people here have lightened their load with a carbon-fiber tripod.

I had not considered a carbon-fiber tripod as part of a lighter kit. Thanks, I may look into that.

[djdister]

A Crown Graphic is lighter than a Speed Graphic (no focal plane shutter), so that could work except when using lenses longer than 300mm. In addition to some of the lightweight wood 4x5 folders, there is the Canham DLC.

[Alan Gales]

Terry, I have owned a Tachihara. They are extremely lightweight and have a really bright screen. The thing is that for the price they are going for, you could buy a used Chamonix which is also lightweight but sturdier. You could also look at a Shen Hao but again I think the Chamonix is more for your money.

I've also owned a Crown Graphic which is a fine camera but a little heavier and lacks back movements. It all depends upon what your needs are.

I feel for you. I had a back fusion back in December of 1994. Over the years it slowly gets worse. I shoot a Wehman 8x10 but I don't go far from my Jeep. If I do very much walking I'm carrying my Fujifilm X-100s.

[Alan Gales]

I had not considered a carbon-fiber tripod as part of a lighter kit. Thanks, I may look into that.

My buddy Harold owns a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod with Gitzo pan tilt head. He uses it with his Toyo 45A and his medium format cameras including a Pentax 6x7. I've picked the thing up and it is feather light!

[Old_Dick]

I forgot to mention, helium filled bellows:) . I believe someone had mentioned that one already, Drew maybe?

[Alan Gales]

Drew maybe?

You know it! ;)

[Alan Gales]

This is my camera bag. http://www.amazon.com/Klein-Tools-55452RTB-Tradesman-Organizer/dp/B00BZXA35I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437860279&sr=8-1&keywords=Klein+wheeled+tool+bag

It keeps the weight on the ground and not on my shoulder or shoulders.

[Peter Lewin]

Amateur bicycle racers used to calculate the $/ounce of weight savings; the equivalent in photography is to figure out how much it would cost to save a pound of tripod versus a pound of camera (I don't know the answer, but it is relevant to the decision whether to get a CF tripod versus a lighter folder). I have owned a Wista (the ZoneVI modified version) and currently a Canham DLC. The Wista had fixed bellows but was lighter; the Canham has interchangeable bellows (although the bag bellows is very costly :() weighs a bit more, but is in my opinion a better all-around camera (but like everything, at a cost). A different option which has popped up in the For Sale section twice recently is a pocket Gowland, a super-light monorail. Of the cameras I have handled but never owned, the Chamonix seem very nice.

But as an aside, at 68 I have also become more conscious of weight, and even with my light Canham, a CF Gitzo, the pack with all of the necessary items feels pretty heavy; my hunch is that even playing the weight-saving games we all try, each saving is a relatively small percentage of the whole, or phrased differently, LF is never going to be really light weight.

[djdister]

This is my camera bag. http://www.amazon.com/Klein-Tools-55452RTB-Tradesman-Organizer/dp/B00BZXA35I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437860279&sr=8-1&keywords=Klein+wheeled+tool+bag

It keeps the weight on the ground and not on my shoulder or shoulders.

Nice! Looks like it could handle 5x7 cameras easy enough too...

[jp]

I would reduce the amount of lenses you carry. I carry two lenses in my bag when I go shooting and leave others in the car/truck/home. I don't carry a dedicated dark cloth. My speed graphic has a foldup hood, and if I need more, I use my shirt or jacket. (I do wear a tshirt under it, to spare people the non-model un-tan physique.) I carry the speed (if you like the crown that would be lighter), 2 lenses, film holders and light meter in one toolbag. Everything but the tripod in one modest bag that's small enough and light enough for carry-on. I've got a couple bad discs and my muscles and mind often say I can carry more than I really should. This is no problem for me for multiple miles of carry. The wooden cameras might be a little lighter, but I don't consider them as sturdy for my use of bigger old lenses.

137533

[Alan Gales]

Nice! Looks like it could handle 5x7 cameras easy enough too...

I use it with an 8x10 Wehman. I can just fit my camera, 3 film holders, dark cloth and one lens in the large cavity. My Pentax digital spot meter, torpedo level, flashlight, etc. fit in the front pouch. I can carry additional film holders and lenses in a cheap vinyl cooler that sits on top of the bag. I usually take out the dark cloth and put it in the cooler with the film holders and my lenses in the bag for safety sake. I do have to carry my tripod unless my daughter is with me.

[Dan Fromm]

Coupla thoughts, Terry.

If you want a 7"/2.5 AE for y'r 4x5 RB Super D, check to make sure that it will focus to infinity on the camera. I could be mistaken, but IIRC it won't.

If you replace y'r stolen 4x5 Crown kit, consider not replacing the 135 Wolly. 135 is pretty close to 150. The 10"/5.6 Wolly tele would replace y'r TeleCongo nicely. I used to have one, it wasn't that heavy.

AFAIK the Toho FC-45X is more-or-less the lightest monorail going, seems lighter than many folders. You might want to consider one. See Kerry Thalmann's writeup at http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

[john_6267]

I agree with with others. Also, I similarly am older and have a bad back.

You really do have to reduce the weight of everything. I use a carbon fiber tripod and light ball head. I sometimes carry a reusable canvas grocery bag and chord and weigh the tripod with a few rocks once I am there. I own a lightweight camera. My minimal kit is one lens(I use a 150mm much lighter than a 210 plasmat). I take the minimum number of small filters if at all. I purchased new wood film holders because they are lighter(though maybe not as well made as Toyo). I carry 2 holders with me and leave two others in the car. Forget the heavy camera bags, put the camera in one light bag and lens and other accessories in the other. If you don't mind nicking up your camera, put a light focusing cloth on your shoulder put the camera on the cf tripod(legs extended) and carry that on your shoulder then you only need one light camera bag. I keep my equipment in the car and use a composing card to scout an area, this minimizes the amount of lifting significantly.

[AtlantaTerry]

<snip>
I sometimes carry a reusable canvas grocery bag and cord and weigh the tripod with a few rocks once I am there.
<snip>

I read somewhere that you don't need the canvas bag. Instead use one of those mesh bags oranges and grapefruit come in. They are free and strong.

[Old_Dick]

I believe Kirk uses a modified baby stroller to move his equipment. I think there is a picture somewhere in this forum. If I find it, I'll let you know.

[LabRat]

On that Super D RB, The Aero Ektar won't work... Camera's too long... The smaller format models are shorter, but that big lens won't fit on it...

Since you are playing around with one now, read my post on how to measure your camera... (I think mine is the same model/era)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?122876-Super-D-4x5-question

There are MANY other fish-in-the-sea to mount on it that won't rip the front standard off some camera!!!! (I have a AE from long ago that could probably go through a windshield if thrown hard enough!!!!)

Steve K

[Tony Lakin]

My lightweight backpacking 4x5 outfit is Gowland pocket view + 150mm f9 G Claron + late 90mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon in Copal shutter + 200mm f8 Nikkor M, My Gowland has been converted to take linhof lensboards, tripod is Gitzo GT3541L C/F, I have a smaller lighter tripod if needed.

Weight of outfit including 3 film holders, filters and bag 9 pounds 2 ounces, tripod not included, meter,loupe etc. are carried seperately in pockets or waist pack.

[rfesk]

The availability of rangefinder focusing is important to me. For that reason the Crown Graphic (or Busch Pressman) is the best compromise.
Saving weight comes from lighter lenses, lighter or less accessories and a lighter tripod and head.

By the way, I have a Galen Rowell camera bag that rides on my hip. No weight on the back or shoulders at all.

[andy]

For what it's worth, I spent most of yesterday bicycling around NYC with my chamonix 4x5, a 135mm lens, a few holders, my meter, and a loup in a messenger bag, and it was great--the weight was far less than I carried when I was in grad school. A carbon fiber tripod would have made the setup ideal, I didn't carry a tripod because it was too much, I borrowed one when I got to where I was going.

It's amazing how light large format can be.

[axs810]

The Chamonix 45F1 was the lightest 4x5 camera I've ever used...I would highly recommend one of those if you are looking for a lightweight camera. The only reason I sold my Chamonix is because I prefer the Linhof color I have because I'm faster with it

[AtlantaTerry]

The only reason I sold my Chamonix is because I prefer the Linhof color I have because I'm faster with it.

I don't understand. What does the color of a camera have to do with the speed of operation?

[axs810]

Linhof Color is a camera model

[Old-N-Feeble]

:) :) :)

[AtlantaTerry]

Ah... this is why the use of upper case letters is so important. :rolleyes:

[axs810]

hehe I'm sorry :P

[Corran]

Terry,

I've written about this before and also on my blog so instead of rehashing it all I will link it HERE (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2015/01/lightweight-4x5-kit.html).

Long story short, my Chamonix and a few small lenses and an especially small CF tripod make a great kit. I did some really hard hiking/canoeing last week and I knew I wanted to keep it really light so I packed this exact kit. I had no complaints. I really only needed one lens so I still over-packed.

The CF tripod I have is a cheap Gitzo knock-off that most people would laugh at if I said I was shooting 4x5 on it. But it's completely rigid and stable with my Chamonix and even my normal, heavier lenses. I've used my 8x10 on it even, with some caution.

This kit is actually lighter than an average 35mm SLR and a few lenses. Once I get my Travelwide I will likely downgrade to nothing but that and my 90mm f/6.8 Angulon. I stop it right down to f/32 and it's as sharp as my Nikkor 90/8 in all but the farthest corners on one side.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Corran, that looks like a good ultra-lightweight field kit. If longer lenses are desired, I'd suggest a 203 Ektar or 210 G-Claron or 210 f/6.1 Xenar or 200 Nikkor-M. For even longer, I'd suggest a 300 Fujinon-C or 305 G-Claron.

[Corran]

Good point. I'm more of a wide kinda guy, hence the 65mm instead of a longer lens. On that note, a 300mm Nikkor-M is another option.

[Drew Wiley]

I just packed for my next backpacking trip. Just two lenses should do just about anything I need with 4x5 this time: 200M and 300M Nikkors. Gitzo CF tripod, no head, Ebony 4x5, and last of my Quickload holders. Very lightwt and compact. The remaining wt is basic camping and mtn supplies.

[Pete Roody]

"I would also like a Speed Graphic because sourcing an Aero Ektar is on my bucket list. But the AE might go on an unused 4x5" R.B. Super D Graflex (circa 1947) that is sitting on a shelf waiting for a lens."

I use a 7-1/4" Verito in a recessed barrel mount on my Super D and it focuses at infinity. I doubt the AE would focus at infinity because of its physical size that may place the iris too far forward. It may work for closer work. I really like the combination of the 7-1/4" Verito with the Super D. With a Verito, you get a wide range of image qualities by varying the F-Stop from F4 to F22. The lens is small enough to fold up in the Super D too. But a graflex Super D weighs almost 9 pounds! So it is not a lightweight option. I just got back from Italy using the Super D. My Super D, 3 lenses, 4 grafmatics (24 sheets of film), 1 bag mag (12 sheets of film) and meter all fit in a small backpack (Thinktank Streetwalker Pro Exterior Dimensions: 10”W x 17.5” H x 7.5” D). My cf tripod also straps to the backpack. Total weight is still 20 pounds sans tripod.

[fishbulb]

I also recommend the carbon tripod and a lightweight wood 4x5 as the big weight savers.

My lightweight kit is a Nagaoka 4x5 (2.5lbs), carbon tripod with ballhead (5lbs), and 2-3 lenses, two usually being the Nikkor 90mm f/8 and 300mm f/9. With film holders, meter, etc. it's about 15 lbs. About the same as my DSLR, tripod, and a couple lenses.

[Bill_1856]

I second the NAGAOKA 4x5, (which I bought new in 1975). Even with a 5x7 extender, It's still under 3#. A beautiful little gem, drops quite nicely into a Domke F2 bag.

[Liquid Artist]

Don't use the hanging bag filled with rocks to stable your camera unless absolutely necessary.
The reason being that hanging objects catch any little breeze and can start swinging.
Your better off just hooking a cord to the tripod, and using a light weight tent peg to hold everything steady. A rock found close by is all you need to pound in a tent peg most times.

If you can't drive in a tent peg make the cord into a loop and just put your foot through it.

Or better yet, find some shelter in some trees or beside a building so your camera doesn't need any additional downforce.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Don't use the hanging bag filled with rocks to stable your camera unless absolutely necessary.
The reason being that hanging objects catch any little breeze and can start swinging.
Your better off just hooking a cord to the tripod, and using a light weight tent peg to hold everything steady. A rock found close by is all you need to pound in a tent peg most times.

If you can't drive in a tent peg make the cord into a loop and just put your foot through it.

Or better yet, find some shelter in some trees or beside a building so your camera doesn't need any additional downforce.

I would use a bungee cord and step on it but don't stretch it so much that it moves the tripod/camera.

[Hans Berkhout]

In all likelyhood your back will get worse with aging, so you need plan B or start right now with plan B. Rather than reducing weight of equipment now and then again in a few years. Consider Mamiya 67 II range finder with Ilford Pan F in Pyro. RB67 a bit heavier but offers exchangable backs.
Perform twice daily back excercises, see Mayo Clinic site.

[Peter York]

+1 for the Mayo Clinic site. Their back exercises have greatly helped with some back issues.

[Craig Roberts]

A couple of years ago I put together a lighter weight 4x5 kit. It consists of a tachihara 4x5, 8-16 holders, 2 lenses, focusing clothe and a light meter. I can carry this comfortably. One place it really shines is at White Sands.

Craig

[Jerry Bodine]

I would use a bungee cord and step on it but don't stretch it so much that it moves the tripod/camera.

Consider a non-stretchy lightweight length of chain (metal or plastic) with small links from Lowe's or Home Depot, and attach S-hooks securely to each end. One S-hook can be attached to the tripod center column's hook (or, lacking that, can be wrapped around the tripod's platform and attached back to one of its links). With the chain hanging toward the ground, it's easy to form a stirrup for your foot by passing the chain under your foot and pulling up on the free end and hooking its S-hook back into the chain. The gap between the stirrup and ground can be adjusted as needed; then step on the stirrup to exert a downward force on the tripod during the exposure. Rocks, etc., may not always be available at the scene to place in a mesh basket, but the turf is usually present; if the tripod feet are perched on rocks in a running stream, you're on your own.

[jbenedict]

If you liked the Crown before and it met your needs, I'd get another one. The Speed is a little bit heavier but not that much. If you want to use the barrel lenses, having a Speed would help but, remember, the Speed Runs out of bellows as fast as the Crown does so your barrel lenses need to be less than 240.

A Technika is heavier than the Crown but it should be able to do things with the longer lenses which the Crown won't do. The Crown doesn't do the 75 and 90 any better than the Technika but you can use a recessed board on the Technika. You still will need the Cambo and bag bellows for that. If you want to standardize lens boards, you could use Technika boards with everything and an adapter board on the Cambo. Another feature which may or not mean anything to you is that the Technika can hold a lens when folded up just like the Crown. You could leave the 150 on the camera.

[Corran]

On the other hand, the Crown has focus rails all the way into the box, so it actually is easier to focus wide-angle and even ultra-wide lenses with a Crown, than a Technika. A long time ago I tried a 58mm XL on my Crown and it worked with the bed dropped all the way, and focused normally. With a Tech you've got to have the wide-angle focusing device or mess around with the lens stuck inside the box halfway on the rails. However, the Technika is better for parallelism so there's that. It's a toss-up. My beef with the Crown, for landscapes, would be the limited movements. And the Technika may be better, but is still limited compared to other cameras, depending on how you look at it.