the ultimate travel medium format camera

[tom_kondrat]

<p>continued from this post: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00WDH3<br>

so I finally went to Iceland in the winter time with my dad's two Pentacons - Six and Six TL with two 80mm lenses, one 50mm and one tele lens (200mm or 250mm - I don't remember). I am quite satisfied with the results ( ). there were few things I liked and few I didn't about these cameras, here are my comments:<br>

- it turned out that some of my photographs taken with 1/30 shutter speed were not very sharp (I might have used 1/15 few times as well)<br>

- Pentacons don't have build in light meter so I had to buy an external one so no quick shots (focusing is not fast as well)<br>

- I like to get my perspective straight so waist-level finder focusing was difficult in situations when I wanted my camera as high as possible<br>

- one of the cameras stopped working properly due to heavy snow/low temperatures and the other had some issues with lens. that was one of the reasons that I had to shorten my trip (the other reasons might have been: I got sick, had two car rollovers and no money left)<br>

- Pentacon Six is just too heavy, together with my Manfrotto tripod from the stone age it was hell to hike in the mountains with all that snow, ice, wind and cold<br>

- I used 80mm lens 95% of the time so didn't really need to take the huge and heavy 50mm (not even mentioning the tele lens)<br>

- I like 6x6 format but there were many times when it felt there is too much space to fill at the bottom and top and I felt it's too short on the sides<br>

- it felt magical to use these cameras: the sound, the beautiful square image (dissapearing whenever I pressed the button)</p>

<p>I sold both of my father's Pentacons (after making sure they work properly again). After that I tried Koni Omega (too heavy), Shen Hao large format (too heavy and it takes ages to take a photograph, on the other hand the results are amazing and it kind of slows you down, it's like meditation), fuji gw690II (too big, rangefinder). I don't know why but I bought Mamiya 6 even knowing that rangefinders just don't work for me (I love precise composition and straight horizons too much). I like that Mamiya 6 is so small and light though, also quick focusing + light meter. Now I'm planning two trips, one would include lots of sand and heat, the other tropical climate. I want to finally choose the right camera for my travels. Here are few things I care about...</p>

<p><em>important:</em><br>

- the camera should <strong>not</strong> be <strong>very big and heavy</strong><br>

- I need to be able to take sharp photographs using <strong>1/30</strong> shutter speed <strong>handheld</strong><br>

- <strong>sharp</strong>, high quality <strong>lens</strong> (ideally f2.8 or faster)<br>

- I'm into <strong>precise composition</strong> - what I see is what I want to get so <strong>no</strong> more <strong>rangefinders</strong> for me thank you very much (not sure about TLRs, never used one)<br>

- I'm planning to sell <strong>large</strong>, high quality<strong> prints</strong> (min 24"x30")<br>

- the camera has to be <strong>reliable</strong> and work properly in <strong>extreme conditions</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<em>less important but still:</em><br>

- <strong>built-in light meter </strong>but not too electronic (I like the feel of mechanics and magic of film, otherwise I would go for Canon 5D II)<br>

- although I'm quite adjustable with format I prefer something <strong>slightly rectangular</strong> like 6x7, 4x5 or 6x4.5 (6x9 is probably too long), after said that I could work with 6x6 as well<br>

- 80% of my photographs are in <strong>landscape format</strong> (not sure about 6x4.5 then)<br>

- when I take portraits I like to use shallow depth of field (f2.8-f4) so would be great if camera was able to shoot <strong>faster than 1/500s</strong> (incase it's sunny)<br>

- would be great if you could use the camera in a <strong>'</strong><strong>periscope'</strong> position (handheld of course) or at least on the eye level<br>

- I know usually you have to spend more if you want more but <strong>price does matter</strong> as well, although I would prefer to safe for a bit longer rather than get something I'm not happy with</p>

<p>so I guess my choice is between 6x4.5 format cameras (not sure if large prints are ok, problems with landscape format shooting?), TLRs (not sure about precise composition) and Hasselblad or Rollei (both not cheap, I don't think you can handhold them at 1/30). </p>

<p> </p>

[marc_batters]

<p>Too bad you are ruling out rangefinders; Bessa III, the Mamiya 6's & 7's, a Voigtlander/Cosina or Fuji GF670's come to mind.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Why don't you get 645 (whatever make)....some of the lenses are at F1.9. Personally I would not because it's too close to 35mm/FF. <br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Les</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"- I need to be able to take sharp photographs using <b>1/30</b> shutter speed <b>handheld</b>"</i><br><br>Despite what many would have us believe, that is never going to happen.<br>That is: you may have luck every once in a long while. And it depends on what you would still find acceptable, would label "sharp". But (and it doesn't matter what camera we hold in our hands - our hands are to blame) compared to images made using a tripod or faster shutter speeds, the loss of sharpness at 1/30 is quite apparent.<br><br>Do you need a coupled meter? Or would a prism based uncoupled meter do just as well?<br>A handheld meter can be slow, yes. But considering your trip was to Iceland, so - i assume - most images will be made outdoors, capturing Iceland's landscape, light will not change much or fast, and you don't have to meter very often. (On the other hand, considering that you went to Iceland, and given Iceland's weather, clouds chasing across the skies... Still, there is rarely a need to meter every single shot.) Just keep tabs on the light and if and how it changes, and you can bring up the camera to your eye without having to meter again.

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>I doubt there is a camera that meets those specs and can make you a better photographer. You seem to be asking too much and imposing too many restrictive requirements.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>RF composition is not that bad, specially for landscapes, and I cannot understand why you cannot get straight horizons with it... I`m a Mamiya 6 user and have no issues with it. It`s matter of checking the coverage of the frame at different distances, one roll is enough.<br /> I think your camera is a Mamiya 7; let`s be realistic. I also would like a 6x9 with the weight of a P&S, built in matrix/center/spot metering, Leica/Zeiss or higher quality lenses at Pentacon prices, f1.4 lenses, super-sharp at 1/30... etc., etc. It doesn`t exist.<br /> Mamiya RF`s are the lightest with built in meter (anyway, I`d carry with a hand held meter too), reasonably compact, by far with the best ergonomics for hand held shooting, and use high quality lenses (amongst the best).<br /> The max. speed is 1/500, which is right for most needs. If you want to go faster, you`ll probably need other than a RF, IMO not as convenient for the task. Anyway, not an issue for portraiture, with a RF you can always use a ND filter, without darkening the viewfinder.<br /> Prices are high, obviously, according with the quality you`re asking for.<br /> <br /> I know it`s not the answer you`d like to hear... if you definitely don`t like a RF, maybe I`d try a Hasselblad with grip and viewfinder (never used one), Bronica or similar in 6x6 format.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>I've had fantastic results from the Fuji/Voigtlander 667 and 667W - using them outside here in Vermont through the winter...to the blowing sands of the desert southwest...to the salt-laden air of the Maine coast. Stunning quality allows for great enlargments. Ultra smooth and quiet shutter release allows me to consistently achieve perfect sharpness down to 1/30th of a second handheld, and the two cameras fit side by side in a compact, messenger style bag. Total weight of the two cameras, bag, plus a feisol carbon fiber tripod, a few rolls of film, plus a few filters, is under ten pounds.<br>

....but if you don't like RF - maybe you should get a Hasselblad. If you don't like the square format, either get an A-16 back (which means also getting a right angle prism, like a PM-90, to shoot verticals), or the 645 mask set - which admittedly wastes a bit of film, but which you can install either horizontally or vertically in an A-12 back, allowing you to use the waist lever finder for either orientation - saving weight, space, and perhaps being somewhat more conducive to a "zen-like" experience, specifically in that this allows you to use both eyes.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p><em>"- I need to be able to take sharp photographs using <strong>1/30</strong> shutter speed <strong>handheld"</strong></em><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

this is a matter of brand?</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>You can hand hold a 'blad at 1/30. They, and TLR's will give you the most precise framing. 'blads are also not light, especially w/ a metered prism on top. Me, I wouldn't worry about framing because even w/ 6x4.5 there's plenty of neg to crop. A tiny little Zeiss Ikonta w/ a Tessar lens will give you IQ that will give huge prints. No meter, so get used to hane metering. The more you do it the quicker it gets. This holds true for framing your shots too. Once you get used to your camera over time you'll understand where things will end up, even w/ a folder w/ a pop up finder. Don't worry about dast lenses, as f3.5 is roughly the same as f1.7 on a 35mm camera. My advice is to get a Rolleiflex (or a Rolleicord if you can live w/ knob wind) and deal w/ hand metering. Get a 'flex w/ a Planar and even wide open close ups will be tack sharp. Landscape photography isn't about having the sharpest lens, it's about finding the shot, getting good clouds, etc.</p>

[tom_kondrat]

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5661895">Marc Batters</a> I have Mamiya 6. it's a perfect camera but it's a rangefinder. I just can't get used to it. I tried many rangefinders and it's always hit and miss for me, never get a frame that I wanted.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6502147">Leszek Vogt</a> I think 645 neg is around 2.7 times bigger than 35mm. I think it's quite a big difference.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> I feel confident to shoot 1/30 with my Mamiya 6 handheld (75mm lens). I wouldn't be so sure using Hasselblad (based on my Pentacon Six experience).<br>

I guess coupled meter is more practical but I could get on with prism based uncoupled one. I guess I could even use a small meter on the hot shoe (it's just an additional cost).<br>

I went to Iceland during winter time when days have 4-5 hours so the light changes quite fast. Also I experienced the weather conditions that I was not very familiar with. I felt that almost every time I was getting out of the car, the light was different so just to be sure I prefered to measure it.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2002499">Brian S.</a> There is no camera in the world that could make anyone a better photographer but I believe there are cameras that could make your work easier and more enjoyable.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=499258">Jose Angel</a> I'm happy rangefinders work for you. They don't work for me.<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=991480">Mag Miksch</a> every camera has different weight, requires different way of holding it, has different mechanism, different shutter buttons - everything affects the ability to shoot handheld. of course if your hands are shaking and you can't hold still, there is nothing you can do<br>

@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7259562">steve mareno</a> I tried Hasselblad in the shop the other day. I almost bought it because of the shutter sound - magic!<br>

not sure how precise is framing with TLRs</p>

[Rick Helmke]

I'd go with either a Mamiya 645 or a

Pentax 67. Handholding at 1/30 is

going to be iffy no matter what but I've

found those two to work well for my

generally SLR based photography. I

love the RB67 but not for travel.

 

Rick H.

[david_henderson]

<p>Just because you want something doesn't mean that you can have it.</p>

<p>You want to take photographs at 1/30 handheld . You want to make prints 30" long minimum and you want to sell them. There is a massive conflict here and the answer is not to fret continually about what camera you're using.</p>

<p>If you're going to sell large prints, and expect people to hand over their hard-earned for something you've made, then you owe it to them to do the best you can. That means a good tripod. You can handhold and not sell large prints. You can sell large prints made from a tripod. But in my view you can't do what you want and its not fair to relieve people of money unless the images are appropriately sharp. I'm not saying you'll never take a handhold shot good enough to print 30" long, but they are likely to be rare. </p>

<p>I think you should reconsider your expectations and strategy.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>Try a Pentax 645. They were made to be hand holdable, or a field camera as the original advertising stated. It is eminently more<br>

usable hand held at 1/30 than Hasselblad. They are not very expensive now. Easy to focus, and easy to use. Nice images from<br>

sharp Pentax lenses.</p>

<p>It is a shame that you did not keep your Pentacon cameras and learn how to use them. Yes the bodies can be problematic,<br>

and the viewfinder shows much less than what is contained in the final image, but the Zeiss Jena lenses are so very nice.</p>

<p> </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Tom, you are a very talented photographer and I can easily see why your requirements are as stringent as they are. But here's a question to help with your thought process. If the ideal camera that meets all of those requirements cannot be identified, which of your requirements could you lighten up on? Could you give up on the 1/30 and settle for 1/125, for example? If so I would think a Hasselblad with prism (and maybe a handgrip) would suite your needs quite well, especially if interchangable lenses are desireable to you. If you really need to shoot as such low a speed then I'd suggest you consider a TLR. Much of my experience was with a Rollei TLR and I think it meets most, if not all, of your requirements. I actively avoid trying to handhold at slow speeds and often opt for a monopod when support is needed and I want to be a bit more mobile than onme can be with a tripod. Something, perhaps, for you to also consider.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>p.s. I traveled and shot with a Rolleicord Vb and a monopod for many years. Perhaps not the best Rollei ever made but quite light and sufficient quality for reliability. The Vb has a sliding mask to ensure cmposition is WYSIWYG... unless close-up of course where parallex might become an issue. But then there is always an option to shoot a tad wider and crop. :) I don't think I'd be able to enlarge as big as you anticipate, but at 11x14 I never had a complaint. Maybe a newer Rolleiflex with a better lens would suit your needs.</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>For me my ultimate TRAVEL medium format camera is my tiny Zeiss Super Ikonta A 531, but framing is anything but precise (actually, the alabada finder on mine is in good shape and the frame lines are quite bright, but I can't see them while wearing glasses). I've also used my Rolleiflex 2.8E a lot for travel; it's fairly light, can be used "periscope style" like any TLR or other camera with a waist-level finder) and can produce reasonable sharp results hand-held, @ 1/30 sec., with careful use, and the right technique.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>Just remember...that many of the older folding medium format cameras (Ikontas, etc.) are front element focussers - meaning less than stellar results at any distance closer than infinity...and stopped down a bit. There are exceptions of course...such as the old Voigtlander Bessa II, but even with this there are issues of film flatness with the 6X9 format, plus largish shutters which tend to add some vibration, plus weak pressure plate springs, etc. which can conspire to severely compromise what would otherwise be great performance. <br>

If you are talking 20X24 inch prints to sell, then you really owe it to yourself to acquire something which gives consistently great results - as in a Mamiya 7 or the aforementioned Fuji/Voigtladers (or perhaps a Hasselblad, and possibly a Mamiya Press camera, which is rather bulky but conceptually wonderful, as is the later RZ-67). </p>

 

[robert_marvin]

<p>That shortcoming of front element focusers, at least with Tessar-equipped Super Ikontas, is pretty hard to actually SEE in the real world.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I have done a lot of travel photography over the past 25 years and also sold many images from it. I tried a 35mm rangefinder, a 35mm SLR, a 4x5, all of which were not the solution for me. I finally settled on a Pentax 67 but that was not the ultimate medium format camera for travel either. Big and heavy? Somewhat. No backs for using different film, so I needed to take two bodies. Focal plane shutter causes hand held vib issues at 1/30 sec. It does much better at 1/60 sec though, especially with the 45mm lens. There is no perfect medium format film travel camera, so one has to work around their limitations. </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Hand held Pentax 67 shot, 105 Takumar, South Pacific.<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6813435803_ccc1ab9798_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I've had the medium and large format film experience, including a Fuji G617, Pentax 67 and Pentax 645n. The Pentaxes were dead reliable and I still have the 645n. After migrating to digital I was never quite happy with the results from my various Canons including a 5D2. I finally bit the bullet a couple of years ago and I've never looked back and my Imacon scanner collects dust.</p>

<p>Pentax 645D. I use my old Pentax 645 lenses (cheap on the used market), extremely reliable, ergonomically it is arguably one of the best cameras ever designed. Electronic horizon, and with care, you can shoot handheld down to some crazy slow speeds although you'll usually need to take a number of frames and select the best. It's far quicker and easier to use in the field than other medium format camera. The prices have come down on the use market as a result of Pentax price drops. Likely not a solution if you're intent on shooting film but the cost of film processing, scans adequate for the sizes you want to print, etc., will offset the cost of the 645D body in a couple of years, if not sooner.</p>

<p>And it weighs less than many of the other solutions that were suggested and weighs about the same, or less, than the professional FF 35mm bodies from Canon and Nikon.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>1/30 on a through the lens camera will depend on you not so much the camera. Much easier to shoot sharply at those speeds with a Mamiya 6 or 7. Fabulous lenses, light and easy to carry and use and takes razor sharp photos. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Mamiya 6</p>

[dave_s]

<p>IMHO, if you're going to handhold the camera, particularly at 1/30, you might as well save yourself the trouble and expense. For most purposes, your results will be every bit as good if you just use 35mm or digital.</p>

<p>I guess the exceptions might be if you needed super-narrow depth of field for some reason, or the enhanced tonality of medium format. Most of us use 120 because we want fine negatives and big enlargements, and at 1/30 of a second, your resolution is, if I may be indelicate, in the toilet. You might get a decent shot for a 5 x 7 or for web use, but if you're talking about enlargements, fuggedaboudit.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Insofar as you insist on shooting at 1/30 s hand-held, you'll probably be appreciably better-served by a camera without a flapping mirror or even a focal-plane shutter, so that suggests something like a Mamiya 7 (or 6), or maybe a TLR or Fuji rangefinder. Because in my experience, even the relatively smaller moving parts on a Mamiya 645 mean many shots at 1/30 s will be somewhat unsharp, and very few will be critically sharp. On the other hand, with a TLR I've got a fighting chance for a fairly sharp shot at 1/30 s. (I've never used a Mamiya or Fuji rangefinder.) I realize you've tried some of these and they're not exactly to your liking, but given your shooting style and intended uses, I think you have to put up with them. As far as precise framing goes, just shoot <em>slightly</em> wider and crop if necessary.</p>

<p>That said, sharpness / detail / resolution is definitely not the only reason to shoot medium format. In fact, to the average viewer of decent-size prints, I suspect that the reduced graininess, compared to 35mm film, was historically the main benefit. And I suspect that medium format's advantages in tonality are / were closely tied to its lower graininess (better signal/noise ratio), which made subtle gradations more visible (they didn't disappear into noise / graininess as quickly). Now digital has in many cases erased that gap, so you need to decide what is your point of comparison, and what are your priorities.</p>