Needing suggestions for a lightweight MF SLR

<p>I'm wanting to buy a lightweight medium format SLR for traveling... my husband and I are going on a 2 year backpacking trip and I just can't fathom not shooting film. I really want to shoot with an SLR but I know it's nearly impossible to find lightweight MF cameras that aren't rangefinders, so I'm just looking for some decent options. I know it will probably be impossible to find everything that I'm looking for, but here is what I'm looking for in order of priority:</p>

<p>1 *lightweight* (as much as can be for an MF SLR) and not bulky (or at least something that breaks down and can pack in a somewhat compact way)<br>

2 *close focusing range (or an option of good close-up filters) with lens option of at least f/2.8 or shallower -- I shoot primarily portraits<br>

3 *price range under $1,000.. but preferably under $600<br>

4 *6x7 or 6x6 format (not interested in 645 or 690, but would maybe consider it)</p>

<p>interchangeable backs would be nice but are not totally necessary. I love all-mechanical cameras and wouldn't mind something that is fully manual... I would actually be lower maintenance backpacking and not needing a battery. Not interested in TLR's (I already have traveled with a few different ones and I love them but they are not what I'm looking for for this trip) and I'm REALLY not interested in rangefinders (I know they are the most lightweight but they just don't work for what I like to shoot). Also not interested in 35mm. </p>

<p>numbers 1 and 2 on this list are must-haves and the rest are preferences. I could definitely budge on price if it really were worth it! Thanks so much in advance!! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's a very tall order. The lightest med format SLR that I'm aware of is Pentax 645. However, since you said you're not interested in a 645, the next lightest SLR that I can think of is Bronica SQA. It has interchangeable lenses, backs, prisms. I'm not aware of any lens in the Bronica SQ series with an aperture larger than 2.8. Mamiya 645 has an 80mm f1.9 lens. That's the fastest lens in med format that I'm aware of.<br>

So, the lightest camera: Pentax 645<br />Camera with the fastest lens: Mamiya 645<br>

The lightest camera that meets your criteria: Bronica SQ/SQA<br>

Hope this helps</p>

<p>An Hasselblad 200 or 500 body is about the same size and lighter than a Nikon D3. None of my Hasselblad lenses, from 40mm to 250mm, are as large or heavy as a Nikon 28-70/2.8 zoom (but you need more of them). I use the same sized backpack (Thinktank Airport Commuter) for each kit, and the same shoulder bag (Thinktank Speed Racer) for a day bag - body plus 3-4 lenses.</p>

<p>A lot of people prefer a Mamiya 7 for travel and landscapes. A rangefinder design, it takes 7x6 cm pictures, and the lenses are compact and extremely sharp (retrofocus design is not needed). The rangefinder is somewhat fragile (needs frequent adjustments) and some lenses are hard to find on the used market. You must close a manual shutter to change lenses. Far fewer Mamiya MF cameras were made than Hasselblad.</p>

<p>Those are both very helpful responses! I have been thinking about both Bronicas and Hassy's... I don't have experience with either but they both seem like they might work well for what I'm looking for and they are solid cameras. I will look into them both more in depth, thanks for your help! </p>

<p>Given your travel plans, I'd rethink 645 cameras. The Mamiya 645 Pro/ProTL is sweet: not huge or especially heavy; good lenses; tough; within budget. Shot wide open, any MF 2.8 lens will have very shallow DOF, so don't consider anything slower to be unsuited for portraits--5.6 DOF, in fact, isn't all that deep. The Mamiyas, Bronicas, and Pentax(no interchangeable backs)are worth a look. They are battery-dependent but only for the shutter. You can get metered finders for the Mamiyas and Bronicas(built-in with Pentax)but a good handheld meter is necessary if you don't.</p>

<p>I agree that if there is a chance to reconsider the 645 format, that would be the best bet.</p>

Hasselblad 500 C/M or 503 plus either an 80 or 100mm Zeiss Planar or a Pentax 67 with a 90mm SMC Takumar. Or if

you want a wide angle option, a Hasselblad SWC/M.

 

Either way I think you will find that the weight and bulk of the film you will carry will far exceed the size and weight of the

camera and lens.

Also get at least two A-12 backs for the Hasselblad(s)

<p><em>Either way I think you will find that the weight and bulk of the film you will carry will far exceed the size and weight of the camera and lens.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Size? Maybe, depending on quantity. Weight? That would be a helluva lot of 120!</p>

<p>What you're wanting is the Pentax 645. It is the smallest and lightest weight MF SLR ever made (that's assuming you're wanting a pentaprism and built-in metering) If you're considering 6x6 then 645 will get 15-16 shots/120 roll vs. 12 for a 6x6 saving you weight and bulk on film. Plus the 120mm macro is excellent. It is also the easiest top operate. The only real drawback is that it requires four AA batteries.</p>

<p>But if you're wanting a camera that doesn't require batteries then you'll also need a selenium meter of some sort.</p>

<p>Agree.The Pentax 645(later the better)could be your camera. Without a motor drive grip(Mamiya)or rapid winder(Bronica), these 645 SLRs suffer from near-impossible ergonomics off a tripod--pretty much the antithesis of a travel camera, no? AA batteries are cheap and available everywhere. Think big 35mm+battery grip/motor drive and you're close to a Pentax 645. The only thing that kept a Pentax 645 out of my life when shopping for a 645 SLR was the lack of film backs. You won't be giving up very much in image quality with a 645 neg compared to a 6x7. More to the point, the difference between 35mm and 645 isn't subtle.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Mamiya 645 Pro/ProTL. The Pentax 645 is also excellent, but you wanted "something that breaks down and can pack in a somewhat compact way", so for "flat packing", the completely modular Mamiya takes the honours over the one-piece Pentax.</p>

<p>Another option, still within budget, would be a Mamiya 645AF or 645AFD. The prism is non-removable, but the film backs are removable (unlike the Pentax 645), and the ergonomics are excellent. It runs off 6 AA batteries but I find that Energizer Ultimate Lithiums last a very long time in that camera and are much lighter than alkalines.</p>

<p>As you profess a need for a close focusing range and say that you shoot primarily portraits, the Mamiya 120mm A macro kills those two birds with one stone. It would be ideal on any of the Mamiya bodies. Here's a sample close portrait with the 120mm wide open:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img538/7894/ETxy5s.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It's not an f2.8 lens, but as you can see, most of the face is still out of focus, due to the shallow dof at f4 in medium format.<br>

I focused on the left eye, as you can see in this detail from the image:<br>

<img src="http://imageshack.com/a/img540/7607/OPt6jA.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Let me get this straight - you want to go on a two year backpacking trip with a heavy old and/or electronic camera that may be impossible to find a repair shop for. And you want a style of camera - SLR's - notorious for their undependable qualities. Sounds like a plan to me.</p>

<p>Quite honestly I'm surprised that anyone has even bothered to suggest camera models of supposed suitability for this venture. The idea is mad beyond belief.</p>

<p>2 years of backpacking taking primarily portrait shots. Are these formal portraits? I suspect not unless you intend to hire studios along the way to do them. In which case they're candid portraits and yet you've ruled out rangefinder cameras that would at least be more suited to that type of shooting.</p>

<p>You want a modular system that can <em>"pack in a compact way" </em>and already accept that <em>"*lightweight* (as much as can be for an MF SLR) " </em>is not really light weight. Being able to take the camera apart to pack it doesn't reduce its weight ...... it just makes it even more inconvenient when it comes to getting a grab shot. Also remember a MF SLR really benefits from sitting on top of a substantial tripod.</p>

<p>This 2 years of back packing, will it encompass remote areas, regions of extreme temperature and wide varieties of weather? If so have you considered how to source and care for film in a world where the majority of people have seen the sense in abandoning film, have you considered how to get your films processed on your travels or are you compounding the madness by thinking of posting them home for processing thereby guaranteeing you don't find out about the light leak/sticky aperture blades/defective shutter etc., that has developed part way through.</p>

<p>2 years of backpacking suggests you may be youthful and possibly of strong disposition and carrying the weight of such a kit plus all the other bits and pieces you'll want on such a trip may well be possible for you. But take a step back from it all for a while and consider how much more pleasant it would all be with a lighter load, a smaller pack and, if candids are indeed part of your proposed shooting, a more inconspicuous camera.</p>

<p>Back in the '70s I lugged around a Nikon F2 kit in a camera case that I carried in one hand while carrying my backpack with a tripod and full camping gear (not so lightweight in those days), it didn't do me any obvious harm at the time, but I wouldn't last even a few days now trying to carry it. But if I could go back to those times with something like the camera I'm going to suggest for you I'd travel more comfortably and have a better and more complete record of my travels than currently exists. Not only because I could take more shots but also because I'd have instant access to them if I wanted to relive the journey (and they wouldn't be affected by mildew as many of my record sadly are). If you are youthful consider also that this may be the trip of a lifetime that you will want to relive when you get old, film is already becoming anachronistic in many ways just a decade or two into the digital era. If this is your trip of the '70s then forty years from now you may be regretting having shot film for it just as I regret there was no alternative but to do so when I did it.</p>

<p>My suggestion a Panasonic ZS50 ($400) and have the ability to also take portraits of our fascinating planet as you travel, it's not all about the people ...see beyond our species. Hey even shoot a movie or two.</p>

<p>Actually make that two Panasonic ZS50s ($800 and still in budget) and have redundancy built in for if and when crap happens, 'cause it's also that sort of world.</p>

<p><em>Quite honestly I'm surprised that anyone has even bothered to suggest camera models of supposed suitability for this venture. The idea is mad beyond belief.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>But still less mad than posting an utterly unhelpful rant.</p>

<p>My opinion: how about the Fuji rangefinders? They're maybe worth looking at.<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>But still less mad than posting an utterly unhelpful rant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I agree. I suggest that the moderator delete that comment. It is not helpful and all its general points, though fair ones, could have been made in two, short paragraphs.</p>

<p><em>"But still less mad than posting an utterly unhelpful rant."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Yours is the rant, you don't agree with me but just dismiss without explanation. I didn't agree with the OP's basic premise and took the time to explain the errors of her way with reasoned examples of why it doesn't, these days, make sense.</p>

<p><em>"I suggest that the moderator delete that comment. It is not helpful and all its general points, though fair ones, could have been made in two, short paragraphs."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I could have made it in one sentence..... "Don't do it". That may well have been "not helpful", so it seems that although I make a number of general points deemed "fair ones" but take several paragraphs to do so because I wanted to be thorough in my reply the upshot is that those general points though fair ones should be deleted.</p>

<p>What, without even a trial? Sounds like censorship to me.</p>

<p>Perhaps someone would like to explain why taking a MF SLR on such a trip would be such a good idea in today's world in the same considered way I explained my response, I won't complain if it's not just two short paragraphs because it's going to need to be longer to make any sense.</p>

<p>Was it perhaps the mention of the Panasonic camera that stirred up such antipathy. The genre of cameras to which that model belongs is one that has been devised to exactly suit the circumstances of the OP's needs for such a trip, the two (camera and purpose) are far better suited than any of the other suggestions so far. Most people so far have been suggesting cameras that the OP has already excluded, how are those comments any more helpful than my suggestion?</p>

<p><em>What, without even a trial? Sounds like censorship to me</em>.<br>

Please...The OP wasn't after a scolding, just advice on MF film cameras. Guess you missed that.<br>

<em>I could have made it in one sentence..... "Don't do it".</em><br>

Too bad you didn't. Nothing like clarity and concision.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"Guess you missed that."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I guess you missed that my original reply was aimed at the OP yet you took it upon yourself to criticise it with your own preconceptions rather than allow the OP to reply. She may have actually found the points I drew attention to of help or she may not, she alone had the right to tell me to butt out if she thought that appropriate. However butt out I shall as I have no interest in discussing it further with anyone other than the OP, who, whatever camera she takes I hope has a safe and enjoyable trip.</p>

<p>I think Mac's points are worthy of consideration myself and I suspect the OP will think so too. The OP may not agree and want film, which is fine, but 120 film is particularly more of a big deal than 35mm. I would certainly take a rangefinder Mamiya 6 x 6 or Fuji 6 x 7 or 6 x 9, or Bronica 645 myself and stick with 1 film type. Why is an SLR so particularly important in this case?</p>

<p>The OP has made a choice. She set a very clear set of parameters under which a system recommendation should be made. You may think it's not a good idea to recommend a system under those parameters, but the original question was clear. If a range finder or a 35mm system is not under consideration, then just recommend a system that is regardless of whether or not you agree that it's the best way to go. <br>

I'm sure there is a reason why the rangefinders and 35mm are not under consideration. The question was clear, the parameters were communicated, so just answer the question or don't answer at all, but it serves no purpose to start preaching a system that was explicitly rejected.</p>

<p>To Alexander O who said<br>

"so just <a id="itxthook1" href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00dITU?start=20" rel="nofollow">answer<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> the question or don't answer at all, but it serves no purpose to start preaching a system that was explicitly rejected."<br>

Are these "rules" for responding published somewhere or just your opinion?</p>

<p>It's an opinion. Otherwise, the conversation goes off on a tangent or worse yet, becomes a slug fest.</p>

This is why else can't have nice things.

 

Yes, the guidelines for participation are

available on the terms of use and community

guidelines pages.

 

Yes, Alexander is correct.

 

The medium format forum is very lightly moderated

and will stay that way as long as contributors

participate constructively. A consensus to stick

to the topic is preferred.

 

Personal digressions should be handled elsewhere.

"Should" be. Doesn't always work out that way.

But these sorts of spats tend to alienate

prospective new members. Photo.net participation

is way down as it is. Let's try to make it a more

welcoming place.

<blockquote>

<p>This is why else can't have nice things.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>...And why Elsa's things cannot be anyone else's.</p>