What Camera to travel with?

[coops]

I am planning a few weeks in the Yucatan soon and have pretty much decided against taking the 4x5, particularly as tripods are not allowed in so many sites. I have ab RB67 and three lenses but the thing is bulky and I have a hard time composing, focusing at the same time I am holding it. I thought I would peruse for a good deal on a MF camera that can be held very much like a 35mm camera, and would like some input as too what the best bang for the buck might be. Thanks

[Ron Marshall]

The highest quality MF set-up is the Mamiya 7; although not cheap, it is good value.

The best combination of value and quality, for handheld use, might be a Rolleiflex.

[Gem Singer]

A name brand DSLR, at least 10mp, with a zoom lens that goes from wide to long focal lengths.

Much easier to carry on a plane. More practical than a MF camera.

No worries about airport X-Ray damage to film.

[Richard Wasserman]

I think Ron got it right–Mamiya 7 (maybe a 6) or a Rollei.

[J Ney]

As long as you've got strong forearms, you can't beat a Pentax 67. The thing handles almost exactly like a 35mm SLR only on steroids. Make sure you don't get the Pentax 6x7 which does not have a meter. I have a Pentax 67 and it is a great camera.

It is also widely available and the lenses are quality and inexpensive.

[aduncanson]

If you are committed to film and can put up with a fixed focal length then a used MF rangefinder from the Fuji GW/GSW 670/680/690 family is a great performer for far less money than a Mamiya 7. (Alternately, here is another vote for a Rollei also.)

[williamtheis]

Hasselblad? I bought a 500c/m with some lenses for the really light and quick stuff. Really tough. Mine took a tumble into the snow last weekend and survived. When I'm on a tour, I do carry a monopod.

[drew.saunders]

If the Mamiya 7 is out of your price range, or too large, look into a used Fuji GA645zi. I took one on a recent trip to Italy, along with a little digital P&S, and it's a great travel camera. Lighter than most 35mm SLR's, 4-step "zoom" lens (55, 65, 75, 90mm), AF with MF override (not very convenient for MF). The non-ttl light meter is very accurate and I generally use aperture priority. Being a zoom, the max aperture isn't so great, so I used TMY-2, and that combo worked very well.

[Michael Graves]

I'm putting up another vote for the Mamiya 7. If life cut me short and I had to give up every camera except for one, I'd keep the 7. (I hope that isn't considered a violation of Forum policies!) I get large format results from a very portable camera with interchangeable lenses. Now if only I could afford a 43mm.

[cjbroadbent]

A Bessa III. Here... (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=2418&PT_ID=586) At least it's got a bellows.

[William McEwen]

I like my twin lens Rolleiflex A LOT, though the square format can sometimes be challenging with landscapes. It's light, quiet, and easy to use. I also recommend you take a tripod with you since it appears tripods are sometimes allowed.

[AF-ULF]

My main travel camera is a Mamiya 7II with 2 or 3 lenses. But I must warn you, traveling with the Mamiya 7 can get very expensive. No, not from the camera, but from the affect it has on your 4x5 photography. Once you print the Mamiya negatives, you will see how great they are, which will cause you to question the use of your 4x5, which will in turn cause you to move to 8x10, which also will require a new enlarger and possibly a bigger darkroom etc. etc. etc. I speak from experience here. You are warned.

[sanking]

You are right to leave the 4X5 at home if photographing ruins is high on your agenda because INAH does not allow a tripod in any sites it controls, and getting permissions is fairly complicated. In any event you are likely to be working in light that allows hand holding the camera so you should not miss a tripod much with MF. Take a monopod as you should be able to get it into the sites since it is not a tripod.

The choice between a MF film camera and DSLR should be based on how much quality you want in your final image. For color work and print size up to 16X20 I would go with the DSLR. For larger color prints, and any size B&W, MF film cameras will give much higher final image quality, especially if you use slow and medium speed films.

What MF camera that works like a 35mm camera? I would opt for either the Fuji GA645Zi, an automatic focusing and exposing camera with a 55mm to 90mm variable focus lens, or a Mamiya 7II with a wide angle and normal lens. The Fuji GW690 or GSW690 would also be a good choice but will limit you to one lens and then you would also have to bring along an exposure meter.

I own both a Fuji GA645Zi and a Mamiya 7II outfit and am facing the same decision as you since I plan to spend a couple of weeks this January in the Yucatan working at ruin sites. Not sure which choice I will make but either way there is not a lot to lose as either camera is capable of making great negatives.

Sandy King



I am planning a few weeks in the Yucatan soon and have pretty much decided against taking the 4x5, particularly as tripods are not allowed in so many sites. I have ab RB67 and three lenses but the thing is bulky and I have a hard time composing, focusing at the same time I am holding it. I thought I would peruse for a good deal on a MF camera that can be held very much like a 35mm camera, and would like some input as too what the best bang for the buck might be. Thanks

[Ken Lee]

There's no one easy solution - only tradeoffs. It depends on how you plan to compose your images, process your film, and how large you plan to print.

If you plan to scan MF or smaller, then you need a good scanner, or need to send it out for scanning. A good scanner for MF costs $2000. So you're getting a camera, possibly some lenses - and - a scanning solution of one kind or another. If you enlarge your b&w or color film yourself in the darkroom, then it's not an issue.

If you spend the extra money to get the best lenses, then you want to shoot on a tripod most of the time, or money spent on fancy lenses and cameras and scanners is a waste.

If you shoot square images and don't need to crop, then there are several choices, including one of the better 6x6 folding cameras, and the Mamiya 6.

If you rarely make square images, then a 6x7 or 6x9 will give you much more negative size, and thus less enlargement, even if the lens is of lesser quality.

If you plan to do a lot of close work, then you need an SLR, like a Hasselblad or a Bronica.

For near/far landscapes, you need to stop down the lens to get depth of field, or use a camera that lets you shoot short wide angle lenses. Once you stop down too far, you might waste your money again, because the lenses are no longer at their optimum.

Years ago, I used a Bronica 6x7, which allowed all of this, plus had interchangeable backs. Unfortunately, while the 110mm lens was great, the 200mm lens I had was a rather shabby performer. I sold it and got back into 4x5.

For around $1000 you can get a 6x9 Bessa II with Color Heliar. It folds up small for travel, but has a very good lens, rather close to modern optics. 6x9 is twice the size of a 6x6 cropped, or a 645 camera. And the Voigtlander cameras are built very strong. One problem I had, was that the tripod hole was really a hole for the case, and was placed in such a way that you have to take the camera off the tripod, in order to change film.

If you only shoot with wide lenses, then one of the Fuji cameras will be great. They made 6x6 and 6x9 models with slightly wide lenses. A 6x9 Velvia slide made with a modern lens like the Fujinons, can be pretty impressive.

[Frank Petronio]

Of course you could challenge yourself and not go for ultra-high resolution "perfect" images. Instead take a more personal approach and photograph your own interaction with the location, make it about you being in the Yucatan rather than trying to recreate a National Geographic article or make postcards.

You can always purchase nice quality images, perhaps better than you might be able to do, in a coffee-table book for $39.95 anyways....

Once you make that leap, then you can use whatever cameras you want -- toys, Polaroids, 35mm, digitals, etc. -- all of which would be more responsive and/or work in lower light levels (handheld) than any 120 camera.

You could always get a Noblex or Russian panoramic camera for vistas and landscapes to supplement, the 35mm ones are reasonable and compact (and fun.)

[coops]

Thanks for the great response. You guys sure raised some points I had not considered, so plenty for me to consider and research.

[John Jarosz]

My only camera (other than LF & ULF) is the Fuji GSW690. I feel it's the best compromise between no frills, reliability, negative size, lens sharpness, and overall size.

It has never disappointed me. You've got a lot of choices, good luck.

[aduncanson]

If you are committed to film and can put up with a fixed focal length then a used MF rangefinder from the Fuji GW/GSW 670/680/690 family is a great performer for far less money than a Mamiya 7. (Alternately, here is another vote for a Rollei also.)

I neglected to add that I love the way mine (a GW690III) handles on a mono-pod. The combination is fast and I have confidence that the camera is not moving. I bought the tiny Gossen Pilot 2 and accessory shoe mount for it, which worked well but was prone to falling off. The Sekonic L-208 would probably be a more capable, up-to-date choice.

[Ken Lee]

a MF camera that can be held very much like a 35mm camera,

You could take a 35mm camera. With fine-grained film and either a good scanner or enlarger, you can make some pretty nice photos. Not huge, but very nice.

You might find it interesting to see what Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm) does with an old Leica, some Velvia, and a commercial scanning service.

[Miguel Curbelo]

I concur with Frank Petronio's advice, but just to add to the list, my favourite travel cameras are a Rolleicord V and a Bronica RF645. Both are comparatively light, compact and easy to use.

[Toyon]

I agree with those that suggest a Mamiya 7. Fantastic lenses and lightweight. One caveat is that they are relatively tender, and will become misaligned with rough handling. If you are going to go fully digital, stick to Disneyland or other brightly painted vacation spots.

[cyrus]

Try a hand-held LF camera like a Super SPeed Graphic.
Best MF bang for the buck would probably be a TLR like a Yashica 124 which is way cheaper than a Rolleiflex and then there are the folders like a Super Ikonta. They'd have to be CLRd though.

[Michael Wynd]

I've only got one, so my choice is a Tachihara 8x10. Even when flying!!
Mike

[Ivan J. Eberle]

What do you envision for your trip, 30"x40" or larger landscapes as wall art, or just great memories? Ruins call for moves but that demands a tripod. Birds in the jungle call for long lenses and 35mm. Travel and culture calls for super wides and macro. I too might have a hard time deciding if I were in the OP's shoes because I've got everything from 35mm to DSLRs to 4x5.

But without benefit of a tripod, I'm often hard-pressed to use a film camera and improve upon what can so easily be produced handheld with a DSLR by racking up the ISO (satisfactorily to 1600 with my Nikon APS-C sensor). That and the hassle of flying and Xrays or hand-inspection, not to mention the birds (wouldn't want to leave the tele home), would probably have me opting for the D300 if one camera had to do it all, on such an international flying excursion.

Truthfully, though, I'd be scheming how to drive down there and take all of my cameras. Right now I'm most partial to my Pentax 645N and 35mm SMC-A f/3.5, loaded with either Ektar 100 or Astia 100F, as a terrific walking around point and shoot that focuses to a foot and has incredible DOF on hyperfocal distance. Not too much need for a tripod so long as the sun is up, I can preview the pola and the GND filter effects, and the metering is spot-on. Fun camera that I could replace for less than $750 if I crash it into a cliff face or it gets ripped off.

[john biskupski]

On a trip to Panama, my Lowepro Micro Trekker bag carried a Rollei 3.5 TLR with its 75mm lens, and a Hasselblad 903 SWC w/38mm Biogon, spare back and shade. I used a monopod with the SWC. This made a compact lightweight outfit, covering medium to super wide angle focal lengths. The TLR focuses well enough for portraits and other situations where you need focussing accuracy, and the SWC offers all the near-far sharpness you could want, and covers wide-angle interiors. OK, it's all 6x6, but that's the compromise.

I also always take my Leica D-Lux 3 for low light and p&s situations plus short telephoto shots. It's not terribly useful for exposure control, as the lens aperture range doesn't compare well with the MF cameras, so I also carry the tiny Gossen Digisix light meter.

[Tony Karnezis]

Lots of good suggestions. I had a Pentax 67. I loved it on a tripod, but it was heavy for my taste when I traveled (that's why I decided to start shooting LF).

I now use a Mamiya 6--small, quiet and compact (its lenses collapse into the body, unlike the Mamiya 7). I wouldn't call it the best bang for the buck, though.

If you want something relatively inexpensive and you don't mind more deliberate shooting, consider one of the many folders like the Agfa Isolette. http://www.certo6.com/cameras.html

[Bruce A Cahn]

How about a Voightlander Bessa III, a 6x7 rangefinder? I have not used one so I can't recommend it, but am thinking about the possibility of getting one.

[sanking]

How about a Voightlander Bessa III, a 6x7 rangefinder? I have not used one so I can't recommend it, but am thinking about the possibility of getting one.

I am very tempted by the Bessa III as well. But at $2300 it definitely would not be the most bang for the buck for the OP. I believe his best choice would be the Fuji GA645Zi that I mentioned earlier. One can often pick these cameras up on ebay for $500-600, which seems a great bargain to me for an auto focus, auto exposure MF camera with a variable focus length lens.

BTW, Ken Lee suggested the Bessa II, a 6X9 folding rangefinder camera from the 1950s. I own a Bessa II and it is really a fabulous camera for its age but I find it pretty difficult to get optimum results with it hand held. Also, if you don't already have one a used Bessa II is *very* expensive. Even one with a Color Skopar will cost over $700. I also think that one would not find the 105mm lens on 6X9 ideal for the intended work. I have done a lot of this type of photography and have found wide angle lenses the most useful.

Sandy King

[coops]

the Fuji GA645Zi that I mentioned earlier.
Sandy King


This does look like a good choice. Cheers

[tmastran]

I just went through this exercise myself for a trip to Central America in a couple of weeks. I wanted decent resolution from a film camera for landscapes in average light, something fast for those vacation snaps, and importantly something I wouldn't care about too much if it was lost or stolen.

I'm taking my $50 Nettar 6x9 with Ektar 100 and Portra 400 for landscapes, and a 12MP Canon point and shoot, along with a small tripod or monopod. The gear fits in a small Think tank bag.

I've been testing this combo for months and have found I can pretty much do anything (and sometimes more) that I would have used my 4x5 for. I think testing is the key to make sure you get the images you want with any new setup.

[amoebahyda]

I take along with a Linhof Outdoor T617 with a Super-Angulon 72/5.6 XL lens. With 6x17cm film size and lens coverage of 110 degrees, it give me a lot of room for cropping even for wall size enlargement...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/LinhofoutdoorT61772.jpg

[coops]

Nice Linhof

http://cgi.ebay.com/Linhof-Outdoor-T-617-silver-New-boxed_W0QQitemZ370271554247QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?hash=item5635e78ac7

I could extend my vacation for about 6 months with what that thing costs lol.