the best travel camera?

If you think TLR was heavy/bulky then remember that most of the MF cameras are either heavy or bulky.

My favorite was Mamiya 645 1000s + 80mm lense. But I missed too many shots.

Many people have suggested fuji 645. Problem : it is a rangefinder as far as I know. If you can live with it, great.

Most of the newer digital cameras are now upto MF. For sure as good as 645. With film you need a good quality scanner. Considering all these factors I may suggest a small digital SLR like 5D/80D and a quality zoom lense.

@Prashant Khapane

 

... or with Film you need a Darkroom (mine cost me around 100?) and good paper for wonderfull enlargements. Not all in this world is digital now ;-) In my opinion a big print on baryt (fiber) from a 6x6 bw negative is really hard (not) to beat.

From my own practical experience Mamiya 7 is your best bet. Can be hand held, stunning quality lens'especially with tranni's. Second hand market is very good price wise in UK. Good luck

Never used one, but I drool over them everytime I find one in the window case. Compact-ish, smaller lenses, all the benifits of a rangefinder system. Large negative. I have travelled extensively with my Pentax 67 system and it wears me out though the results make me very happy. If I could trade it straight up for a Mamiya 7 system, I would.

 

Another thought...I don't agree with the other poster who said , "If you can't get it with the Rollei TLR, then you'll never get it" or whatever he said. BUT, I do think that you should continue using that TLR for longer before you give up. It is a fine camera and a fine format. Go with it rather than trying to let it go with you if you get my drift.

My vote for best MF travel combo: Hassy SWC plus Rollei 3.5F. Best single MF for travel: Mamiya 6 w/50+75, or Mamiya 7 w/50+80, or Bronica 645 RF w/45+65+100. Best single MF w/one lens: Plaubel Makina Wide (just make sure its in great working order!), or Mamiya 7 w/65, or Rollei 3.5F.

 

A Leica M-6 w/28+50 plus a Rollei 3.5F is also a great combo. The "landscape format" and intimacy of the 35mm RF, and more contemplative square format MF compliment each other nicely with no conflicts, which translates to a more holistic experience, with no redundancy and a minimal amount of time wasted scratching your head about which camera to use for a given situation.

 

Yes, the Rollei 2.8 is great also, but to me the bit of extra weight and bulk isn't worth the extra half stop, and I find the 3.5 series 4 (six element) planar to be simply unbeatable. Look for the third version of the 3.5f (w/series 4 planar) built in the early 60's, for the best combo of meticulous craftsmanship plus "modern" technology.

 

My personal favorite is the SWC/Rollei combo, to which I add the SWC focussing screen for a more contemplative "view camera" experience when the situation calls for this, plus a Rollei #2 close up lens, plus yellow, red, and green filters for each camera (I usually shoot just black and white). I've owned both T* and single coated versions of the SWC, and although I do find the multicoated version to have a slight edge in certain situations, the single coated version is still very capable as long as the optics are kept clean, and the price differential can buy you a plane ticket/car rental/hotel room and/or campground stay for a nice photo-getaway if you're savvy!

 

The above are all RF's or TLR's, which in my experience fit in well with other aspects of travel. True, a bit more resourcefulness is required for these systems versus an slr system, but I often find that the ability to travel light and simple equates well with a high "creativity quotient."

 

If you need to go with an slr, its hard to beat either a Pentax 645 or a Hasselblad w/50-80-120/cu.tube, plus 2 (or 3) film backs. The Hassy especially is a great workhorse, and reasonably compact as a system. For the Hassy 50mm, go for the FLE version. If you magnify the edge of your focussing screen - you can see with your own eyes the effect of the FLE adjustment! Makes me wonder why Zeiss decided to re-issue the "classic" version of this lens without this FLE feature, unless I'm missing something and its also a re-design.

 

Posting the above makes me want to pack my bags!

not impossible. Sorry for not reading the whole thread.

But I use the 7 since roughly 10 years and it is unbeatable

if you want film only.

Simple to use, light, amazing lens quality.

with 43/80/150, you can go anywhere, even without the tripod. also, you can get a pano kit to do the Xpan format on 135. This can be had used for rather low price.

 

However, for a definitive MF experience, Waist Level Finder MFs are must-try. If you haven't tried the WLF, you never know what you are missing. So Hass is also a good choice when you do location shoots.

 

All these can be had for about the price of high-end canon dslr or less, wonderful time indeed.

I have travelled with the Mamiya 7ii and agree that it is a wonderful traveling camera. It has all the ease of operation of a 35mm SLR -- film loading is a dream -- but the advantages of larger negs.

I am planning to take a Hasselblad 500C/M on a trip this spring to California -- the camera has superior optics, and I think it should be an interesting contrast to the Mamiya. I'll report back on whether the greater weight and more complex film loading is worth the greater image quality.......

Various tests on the web indicate the Mamiya 7 has superior optics to the Hasselblad.

I always take two cameras. My current outfit is a Rolleiflex 3.5F and a 35mm Voigtlander R with 28/3.5 & 50/2 lenses - all in a Domke 803. The Voigtlander does most of the chores and has color film but the Rolleiflex comes out for shots that I plan to enlarge.

Robert M -- can you point me in the direction of these tests between Mamiya and Hasselblad? Very interested in seeing these ......

My overseas travel outfit is (1) Leica M6 + 15mm Voitlander, Noctilux and 35mm 1.4 asph plus a Brooks Veriwide 6x10, hardly bigger than the Leica. All fits in a small Billingham and works better than my 16x20 Wisner, at least where my back is concerned! Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.

<p><em>Various tests on the web indicate the Mamiya 7 has superior optics to the

Hasselblad.</em></p>

 

<p>I thought I was pretty up to speed, but I've never heard of such an outcome being

declared, nor have I ever come across any such tests on the web. Perhaps you could be kind

enough to share them?</p>

The most recent tests on the web are on this site:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

Look, in particular, at his conclusions at the bottom of the page. He shows the actual details of the photographs he took in conducting the tests.

I tried a Mamiya 6 rangefinder...it is definitely compact, but I really missed thru-the-lens operation since I use a lot of filters. Then I tried a Mamiya RZ67...wonderful, but a bit bulky if you need to travel light. I would still recommend the Mamiya Rangefinders if you don't need to use filters however (along with the frequent cost of maintenance.)

<p>Robert, many thanks for the links to the site with the test info. It makes for very

interesting reading, and was new to me.</p>

 

<p>I'm a little unsure about the validity of the test though. The Mamiya lens didn't seem

to resolve detail any better than the Zeiss lens, but was clearly more contrasty with

reduced flare. I wonder if this is anything to do with the fact that (judging from the

pictures of the cameras) the Mamiya lens was fitted with a hood, and the Zeiss one was

not?</p>

 

<p>Personally I wouldn't use any medium format lens without a hood. It's one of the

single most useful tools to derive maximum image quality, second only to a tripod. I

wouldn't assume the test was an equal one unless all (or none) of the lenses were fitted

with hoods.</p>

 

<p>But what I really learned from the test was how impressive the Rollei TLR can be...</

p>

Great website, Robert! And a very impressive performance from the Rollei TLR. I do think that flim flatness makes a difference in these tests, and the Hasselblad is not quite as good as some other cameras in this respect -- I recall that Contax once developed a camera that blew the others away by using some sort of vacuum pressure to suck the film up against a very flat ceramic plate....anyway, very interesting site, and I guess you should never take the conventional wisdom for granted!

Quote "I travel very light"

 

If you travel very light then watch adding bulky lenses and accessories to a kit. It adds up fast! Nothing is worse then some big ass kit hanging on your shoulder or in a backpack that you have to constantly access.

 

Actually this thread is interesting as I was just thinking about the same thing; traveling light, but capable. The ZI sounds promising, but no camera is perfect, each having their own quirks. I would approach this question from a different standpoint. What's your budget, what are you trying to accomplish and what will allow you to do it? If I was photographing Cathedrals I would need a wide lens and the ability for a longer exposure most likely; If on safari I would need long lenses; If shooting lifestyles of Asian people I would need something faster and less noticeable; If flowers something with macro capability etc. If I was working for a magazine on assignment the assignment would dictate what I took. So your traveling around; And your doing what now? Just shooting, shooting on assignment, shooting to produce for Art Shows, shooting for postcards, shooting animals etc, You should get the idea. The other thing is you will always miss shots no matter what. I miss tons of them, but I'm not going to change my kit if my kit is right for what I need. I may add to the kit next time, but I will always carry what I need, to do what I need to do.

 

Interesting thread. What can you say about the suggestions so far?

<p>

See more info on the <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/fujirf.htm">Fuji 6x4.5 Cameras</a>

Wee: You say "It's too time consuming to set up, and also having to walk backwards and forwards to frame what I want looses the 'moment'."

It is hard for me to understand what you mean time consuming to set up. There is no easier camera to set up (other than a point and shoot). One hand focuses as the other sets the exposure and you frame. Why move forwards to frame, can't you crop it later. Would you not have to do that regardless of camera? Do you want a zoom lens? I know. Get a ShureShot!

To speak honestly, I currently use a Rollei TLR and no other camera is easier to use.<br>

Otherwise, I also agree that about cameras with interchangeable lenses, the Mamiya 7 or 7 II is a good choice. But interchangeable lenses means a higher weight, changing the lens ... Seems too complicated - or too slow - for you.<br>

The only solution is a fixed lens - either a zoom or a wide angle lens.<br>

If you use a wide angle lens, you can crop the picture later. A 47mm in 6x9 format is wide enough, like on the Plaubel Proshift. If you have money enough, take a look at Alpa.<br>

Within a few weeks I leave for India and will be traveling with a M8 with a 21mm 28mm 35mm and a noctilux and a Rollei TLR Gx... a super traveling combination. This is the 'do not notice me when photographing' combination...very non agressive, open way of working.

 

And just because I love the Hasselblad 110 F 2 a hasselblad 202Fa with two backs...colour & B&W. why the hassy...just because the lens is magic...This is... you have noticed me and are willing to pose and take some time...

all fits in a lowepro orion trekker.

 

Will leave a post on traveling with the M8 when I am back

 

Regards from Gent Belgium

 

Marc De Clercq

I forgot to mention I have travelled with a Mamiya 6 set...and also loved it but I prefer to look at a groundglas (from a distance)...for squaire format...and take low positions...

 

greetings

Marc