Heavy classic camera's on the trails...

<p>Since I got my first Contaflex recently I've wondered what the magazine backs are really like. I've heard mixed opinions about them, but if they work, this could be a novel solution to the problem of multiple 35mm bodies for different films. I'll often have cameras with tranny and B&W on me. Mind you, lugging the 115mm Pro Tessar for the Contaflex around is almost as bad as carrying another body, anyway.</p>

<p>My Mamiya C330F TLR, four lenses and a hand-held light meter go in a smaller bag and weigh a lot less than my 35mm SLR cameras and lenses, and produce much better quality results.</p>

<p>Well back out this afternoon mit wife & dog. One day pack, two waters, two lenses, (still) two camera bodies... (better than three)</p>

<p>I felt naked.</p>

<p>But it was lighter.. ;-) Progress... Will try some more...</p>

I recall this dilemma when I was much youner.. 30 or so trying to decide which camera, lens films etc I wasted a lot of time mulling over and it wasn'T a weight problem it was more of do I want 6x6 Transparencies or do I really want to load 36 exp of sldies in X camera or do I want big negs B&W etc or do I need the bigger lenses for people shots an so on.. I still do this (ADHS positive) but now I'm older and think about how cumbersome this all is.... A 645 folder or any folder is a great light weight means of getting big negatives!! I rarely take more than 1 camera two lenses or say two cameras a 35/MF.

I do like to keep a wide selection of film in the freezer and then choose on the geography, the weather and the equipment.

I think as therapy you should take a good semi-auto 35SLR with one short zoom. This will discipline you to say two lenses and one body and greatly lighten your load. Hopefully this therapy will spoil you as to wanting to travel lighter and force you to compromise! I think what Rick D said about embracing the digital revolution is true... we all have limits and technology helps us overcome the limits.

<p>On my last birthday, I went photo hiking with a couple of freinds. I decided to take my rb67, and a couple of lenses, and film backs, and bogen tripod, and the eye level finder. Oh, and a supply of film. All in my Lowe Pro back pack. The going was not to bad, but the coming back ( all uphill) quickly served to remind me of the fact that I turned 58 that day. I was also stupid enough to leave my water at home. Since that day, I've decided that if I'm going to do any medium format in a like situation, it will be one lens on the rb, or I'll take my Koni-Omega rapid. Unless I can afford a mule.</p>

<p>I do a lot of hiking and always take my film camera (I'm 61). Mostly I hike in the UK where there's nothing higher than about 1000 metres but I have hiked in the Andes (3000-4500 metres). I can tell you I've got obsessed with getting down the weight I'm carrying! I have an Olympus OM system and carry just a 50mm and a 24mm lens + a flashgun with a GN of 28 and an incident light meter, just in case. I also carry a small tripod (about 700gm) because I like to get into the summit photo (to prove I did it!) and of course also to prevent camera shake on a critical shot. My camera used to be an OM 1 but I bought an OM2000 because it's lighter and has a flash synchronisation speed of 1/125th (it's 1/60 for the OM 1). Particularly at high altitude, contrast can be a problem when shooting people so the faster flash synchronisation speed and the flashgun come in handy. I'm usually shooting landscapes or people (fairly close up) and those two lenses do me fine.<br>

My camera bag has a belt but I've arranged to clip it off the bottom of my small rucksack. The arrangement is like larger rucksack and with the belt on, the weight is evenly distributed between my shoulders and hips. I can reach back to unclip the bag and swing to around to the front (i.e. without undoing the belt or taking off the rucksack). It's a home made arrangement but I find it very convenient. <br>

</p>

<p>Peter; I'm about 8 years older than you, and I must say that the rest of our lives is too short to be encumbered by all that damn gear. I'm with Paul Wheatland, when he says, "<em>As for cameras, a point and shoot tiny digital and a rangefinder or Slr 35. On the rangefinder, usually a Leica D or M3 and one lens, either a 35 or a 50. On the Slr, a 35 to 70 zoom. That's it, I don't want to lug a heavy bag of photo stuff.</em>" If you can't get good photos with a kit like Paul's, then it's not the gear's fault. Just MHO.</p>

<p>Well I was out there again today, and making progress, with the less is best. As I was walking, I was thinking about the comments of using a light digital, and that its not the gear, that makes the photograph, but the photographer who uses the gear, to capture the creativity. That's true.</p>

<p>Now I have nothing against digital, and would rather not have this theme get into one of those 'contests'. Each to his own and more of it. But, there is something sweet for me, about these old classic camera's. I got back into photography because my neighbor was bugging me to go shoot with him and I got out my dad's old Nikon state of the art 1967 Photomic Tn. Thinking I could trade it in on a good digital and giving some extra bucks. Well, it just wrapped around me, and I've been caught ever since.</p>

<p>That dang old camera, somehow, brought out the creativity in me. I'm sure its the same for those who use digital. It's something, for me, well worth while to lug around. For it fulfills something in me that is beyond words, or the pictures I take. As I was waiting for the sun to light a small canyon where the water was dripping, it just seemed to be part of the stemless panorama that I was quietly waiting within. Timeless.</p>

I hike off-trail. Last summer in the high desert I carried a Spotmatic with a 35, Agfa Isolette III with the Apotar (lots of medium format quality in a tiny and light package), and a digital superzoom. The superzoom just in case. I don't normally need much telephoto. For the tripod, a Veblon UltraLux i F, which packs small, is light, and very adaptable to broken surfaces at odd angles.