the ultimate travel medium format camera

[dave_s]

<p><em>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)</em></p>

<p>Roger Hicks, who used to post on photo.net, said the tonality advantage was due to something called the 'half-tone effect'. I think he wrote about it in one of his books. I never understood it completely, but I have an intuitive idea what he meant. </p>

<p>I think it has to do with the number of silver grains in a given unit area, like you say. With more grains, it's like using a very fine half-tone screen, and you have a greater range of grays that you can convey. At the other extreme, if you do the <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> thing, the ultimate coarsest half-tone screen would only be able to depict black and white.</p>

<p>I guess that's what they call a hand-waving explanation. It's an interesting topic though, and I suppose it might be transferable to concepts of sensor size and pixel density in digital. </p>

<p>As for me, I'm off with my Rolleiflex in the morning, for a week-long backpacking trip. And yes, I'm bringing a tripod.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Said the Foreman to the Carpenter: "Stop blaming your hammer"!"</p>

<p>Mamiya 7-II ... and learn how to use it.</p>

<p>Best film camera for travel I ever owned.</p>

<p>Good luck with the 1/30 shutter hand-held requirement. </p>

<p>-Marc</p>

 

[dave_redmann]

<p>Dave Sims, I agree, that's a helpful way to think about it. In fact, somebody around here gave a good response on similar grounds to the argument that inkjets prints are inherently / ipso facto inferior because they are not continuous-tone, i.e., traditional B&W is not continuous-tone either. That shut up a few supposed purists.</p>

[paul_loveteck]

<p>I am surprised nobody mentioned the best of all for travelling: Hasselblad SWC/M (or 903SWC or any variations).<br>

- Lightest of all (I personally prefer to stay home than to travel with my Mamyia)<br>

- Smallest of all<br>

- Best picture of all (the fantastic Zeiss Biogon 38mm).<br>

- Interchangeable backs, never a dead battery, no mirror or focal shutter vibrations<br>

- Most reliable of all (ask any tech how many of them he has seen failing!)<br>

Regarding the 1/30s speed: in most cases when travelling you will find some solid surface on which you can rest (wall, window, tree, post, fence . . .) and the SWC at 1/30s will make perfect pictures if you know what you are doing. I have some poster size enlargements done like this, no tripod.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Not sure anyone said it, but a TLR will have parralax issues due to taking and viewing lenses not being on the same plane. For the most part, at least for me, it's a non issue. I either am far enough back it doesn't matter, or learn to compensate for it mentally.</p>

<p>That said, I personally find the way you hold a TLR much better than an SLR, but that's just me (no rangefinder experience).</p>

[robert_marvin]

<p>Some TLRs, such as Rolleiflexes, have parallax correction via a moving mask under the screen.</p>

[donbright]

<p>There are always compromises in Photography, and a list of issues to adhere to. Too often Photographers either find ways not to get it done, or try to buy there way into a notion. We can all agree Medium format is critical for big pictures. Ruling out foldable's without thinking of the possibilities maybe a way to keep a thread going, but why narrow the solution. There are wheels too. I'm referring to a small travel pack on wheels, if deciding on a heavier camera, SLR? 3 lenses. Feasible? Of course. Personally, after a long experience with SLRs in travel, and making it happen, a Fuji GF-670 seems like a very viable way to get the job done, but understood that this will require a new mode of going about ones approach to getting it all done. Testing, testing, push the envelope, and work out what is livable always presents pleasant surprises.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>In trying to define what might be a good travel camera, its important to think of the particular context of "travel"...with modes such as backpacking, car-camping, flying to a destination and renting a car, or whatever.</p>

<p>My wife and I do quite a bit of hiking, and multi-day backpacking...and for this I find that either a Leica-M or the pair of Fuji-Voigtlander 667's (standard and wide models) to be unparalleled, in terms of reasonable compactness and weight, plus the ability to photograph on-the-move, without needing to remove my backpack, and without the necessity of a tripod or external light meter. </p>

<p>Sometimes I'll bring a Feisol CF tripod (tall model, with photo-clam head) along - this tripod is wonderful, with total weight at around 2.5 lbs, and has features which thus far are not quite available from Gitzo or anyone else - given the total weight, maximum height, etc.</p>

<p>When car camping, I'll often bring large format gear - 4X5 or 5X7...and/or a Hasselblad system, consisting of a 903SWC with focussing screen, a 501CM with 50, 80, and 120(macro) lenses, a prism and a couple of backs - plus a large Gitzo CF for large format, and my trusty old Leitz Tiltall for the blads. I really don't consider the Hasselblad, which invites taking time and thoughtful contemplation (as does large format, for that matter), that much of a backpacking camera...perhaps with the exception of the SWC. </p>

<p>For flying to a destination, I'll sometimes just pack the Fuji/Voigtlanders with the Feisol, or perhaps just a large format and Gitzo, but almost never both as this is just too much juggling in addition to other logistics. In a pinch I can add a single M Leica to either set.</p>

<p>If I'm feeling totally into square format, but need to travel light, I'll pack the SWC with a Rolleiflex 3.5F - a wonderful combo...and if I'm feeling confident - I'll leave the spot meter at home and just go with sunny 16 - which usually works just fine.</p>

<p>...I guess what I am getting at is that for me, it all depends on the nature of the trip. If I had to choose but one camera from the above - it might just be the Rolleiflex...and someday I may indeed need to make this choice - but not yet!</p>

<p> </p>

[jim_peterson2]

<p>Mamiya 645 will give the option of an f/1.9 lens.<br>

Pentax 67 has an f/2.4 lens.</p>

<p>Beyond that I think f/2.8 is as fast as it gets and most of the Bronica lenses are even slower than that. While a majority of responders seem to thing you should just bite the bullet and learn how to use a rangefinder, the Mamiya rangefinders don't have any lenses faster than f/3.5 so that is another problem.</p>

<p>I think portability will be the area in which you are forced to compromise. The rangefinders are just so hard to beat in that area. If you are leaning toward a Hasselblad with prism finder and grip I would definitely suggest looking at the Pentax 645n. It is a joy to use in terms of ergonomics, it is much more economical than the Hassy and has a great viewfinder. The compromise is no film backs. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>The (discontinued) Contax 645 system has an 80mm f/2, and I'm pretty sure there's an 80mm f/2 for the more modern-type Rollei 6x6 SLR's (various models).</p>

<p>But it pays to look at the whole picture: yes, a Mamiya 7's 80mm lens is f/4, but when hand-holding, I'd be more confident in my ability to get a reasonably sharp picture with, say, a Mamiya 7 at f/4 and 1/30 s than I would with my Mamiya 645 at f/2.8 (I have the regular 80mm) and 1/60 s, and <em>maybe</em> even than with a Contax 645 at f/2 and 1/125 s. Do not underestimate the important of the blanking of the viewfinder and the slap of the mirror to your ability to hold the camera steady. Also, this assumes shooting wide open is okay. If you need to stop down for depth of field, that can minimize the advantage of fast lenses (although to be fair, using a 6x7 like a Mamiya 7 means that, to get the same depth of field as a 645, you need to stop down between two-thirds and one stop more). But if your choice is shooting, say, a Mamiya 7 at f/11 and 1/30 s or a Mamiya 645 at f/8 and 1/60 s, I vote for the rangefinder (7).</p>

 

[david_smith35]

<p>"and it doesn't matter what camera we hold in our hands"<br>

Oh, but it does matter. It's considerably easier to hand hold a rangefinder than an SLR at slow shutter speeds. Our hands are not entirely to blame.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Our hands are not entirely to blame.</i><br>Yes, they are.

[david_henderson]

<p>What's the point? The OP hasn't participated on this thread for 6 weeks , presumably because no one told him he could have what he needed. </p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em>"Yes, they are"</em><br>

No they are not.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

"it doesn't matter what camera we hold in our hands"

[david_smith35]

<p>Oh, but it does, especially when that camera has a smooth vibration free shutter release.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David,<br>The movement of your hands - no matter how steady you think they might be - is several orders of magnitude larger than anything a camera produces.<br>Even the poudest shutter and mirror are not nearly as bad as our 'steady' hands.<br>Smooth, vibration free shutter releases will reduce the contribution of the camera, but do nothing to that of your hands. Yes, a stiff shutter will make us push harder and increase the chance that our hands move the camera even more. But it's still the hand that does the moving.<br><br>It really doesn't matter what camera we hold in our hands. Our hands are entirely to blame.<br>Until we put the camera out of our hands and on a sturdy tripod.

[david_smith35]

<p><em> "Yes, a stiff shutter will make us push harder and increase the chance that our hands move the camera even more."</em></p>

<p>And therfore will increase the likelyhood (albeit slightly) of an unsharp image at a slow shutter speed with this type of camera. Which is precisely what I've been saying all along. So why are you unable to accept my perfectly valid point of view?</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<p>Nice pictures. But if you are shooting in snow you are better off using a hand held meter. I have a camera that can do everything except focus automatically. The problem though is if you are at the beach with white sand or in an area with a lot of snow coverage on the ground you need to compensate. It's just easier and more accurate for me to just use an incident meter and transfer the reading over to the camera.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>What's the matter Quinten, cat got your tongue?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You were expecting a response, David?<br>O.k.<br><br>Don't handhold, and there's no problem.<br><br>How's that?

[david_smith35]

<p>Well, I was expecting you to do what you normally do, which is to constantly contradict and cause one of your usual arguments.<br>

Nice to see that you don't disappoint.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>I'm not at all bored when I have you to provide entertainment - after all you do swallow the bait hook, line, and sinker practically every time.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

So you're just boring.

[david_smith35]

<p>And just to prove me correct you rise to the bait yet again.</p>