Any Suggestions/Recommendations For A Lighter Field 4X5 Camera?

[Drew Wiley]

I'm recovering from 3 past months of miserable shoulder bursitis. Two days ago I picked up my commercial 4-cycle trimmer for the first time this season, and dealt with the back yard foliage, and finally today I put on the backpack with the Sinar Norma system in it, and did at least a brief steep uphill and downhill session for sake of a good shot. I'll increase the distance next week. I'd already been doing fairly long walks with MF gear, and if I could have packed the Ebony folder instead; but the whole point is to get back into shape with heavier and heavier packs. Backpacking season is coming.

Convenience-wise, and versatility-wise, the monorail system wins hands-down. But within its own bellows extension range, the little Ebony is capable of every bit as precise shots. I'd rather have either of these cameras than a Technika, and obviously did make that choice. My brother used a Technika, and it's a stunning piece of manufacturing; but it has neither the long lens capability of my Sinar, nor the light weight and compactness of my little Ebony, both of which balance on a tripod way better than a Technika, so there's a substantial weight saving there too. That's what one needs to consider - cumulative weight, and not just camera weight per se.

[Dave Ogle]

I hear you on the age factor, I'm over 70. photograph close to the road now. I do have a "light weight basic set up" a Wista, 135mm caltar II, 4 or 5 filters, light weight dark cloth, meter, couple of film holders and a few odds and ends in a fanny pack. camera goes in a small shoulder bag, hand carry tripod and maybe my cane in the other hand. But hey, I'm still out there.

[Vaughn]

...Also previously mentioned, two pounds lower weight camera could be reduced else where in the overall image making kit. Bernice

Except if one is carrying the camera on the tripod in hand, with a shoulder bag for the meter and holders. A couple pounds of camera weight become important...speaking from much experience. Although my 4x5 (rail camera) weighs 2.5 pounds (w/ lens), so it would be difficult to find something lighter.

[Paul Ron]

go wood!

[Corran]

Intrepid MK4 - lightest weight, but least precision, and no good for lenses shorter than 72mm and even that's a stretch. The 3D-printed one is excellent and I have enjoyed using it.

Chamonix 4x5 N or F models - almost as light but more precision and flexibility.

I wouldn't consider anything else. Unless you have specific use-cases that demand certain things.

Sorry I know I'm late to the party but I've used most of the field cameras in the low weight class and I thought I'd give my 2c.

[manfrominternet]

Wow. Everyone here brought up terrific points and recommendations. I really like the Chamonix, Shen Hao, Tachihara, and Walker offerings. That Chamonix 45F-2 certainly looks like a winner.

In retrospect, however, I think Bernice and some other commenters brought up a good point that actually helped me put things in perspective. I actually think I can save 3-5 pounds by just offloading some things from my camera bag. I'm one of those borderline OCD people who feels, for whatever illogical reason, that I should bring all the lenses that'll fit inside said bag, from my 65mm Nikkon-SW to my 300mm Nikon-M. That's 5 lenses. Not to mention the 6x17 and 6x12 panoramic backs that I bring along in a separate bag.

I love my TK45S. It's a great camera. I do wish it was a bit lighter, but I really shouldn't complain as it has served me well. While it would be amazing to have any of the lighter cameras that were mentioned in this thread, I think I'll save a bit of $$$ and get some more film instead for now. Nonetheless, I will definitely revisit all the cameras mentioned.

[Bernice Loui]

Suggestion, completely un-load the camera bag. Put only the TK, one lens-most often used, film holders and only what is needed to make images. Take this greatly reduced outfit for a photo outing to see what images can be made with one lens focal length.

Process the images, spend time with them.. then ask the question, how much stuff is really needed and why?

This is an exercise to let go of what is perceived as "security blanket" items. They can be anything from lenses, to roll film backs, filters and...
It is good to be prepared for most any image to be made that comes up, but there is a cost to dragging around stuff that will never be used.


Bernice

I actually think I can save 3-5 pounds by just offloading some things from my camera bag. I'm one of those borderline OCD people who feels, for whatever illogical reason, that I should bring all the lenses that'll fit inside said bag, from my 65mm Nikkon-SW to my 300mm Nikon-M. That's 5 lenses. Not to mention the 6x17 and 6x12 panoramic backs that I bring along in a separate bag.

I love my TK45S. It's a great camera. I do wish it was a bit lighter, but I really shouldn't complain as it has served me well.

[Drew Bedo]

Ok, and now a smart-@$$ suggestion made in fun . . .

Before doing what Bernice suggests (and she has a great idea). . . . .

Binge-watch one of the "Herders" TV shows one weekend.

THEN do what she suggests.

[Tin Can]

My 4x5 holder bag holds 10, way too many for me

The 5X7 bag holds 5, still too many

I prefer carrying 2, meaning 4 negs

but my DR process is optimized for 8- 5x7 films or plates, so some wait a bit

I only carry one lens on/in the camera, maybe a filter, maybe a lens hood

go light and see more