Decided to try something a little different this time

[Axelwik]

Lately when traveling overseas I've been taking an M2 with 3 or 4 lenses (typically 15, 28, 50, and 90mm). Sometimes also a Hasselblad with a couple lenses. Usually Europe, but lately Australia, New Zealand, and a trip to Papua New Guinea earlier this year. If I rent a vehicle I tend to take more since schlepping it isn't as much of an issue.

This time however since I'll be on a motorcycle space is limited, and photography isn't the primary goal. Heading to Chile for a ride from Santiago down into Patagonia. To save a little space and lower the weight I'll probably take a iiif (screwmount Leica) with only two lenses; Summitar 50 and a Voigtlander Snapshot 25mm. I'll probably shoot FP4 and some Tmax 100. The rest of the "kit" will consist of a tiny little tripod, cable release, and a couple filters - yellow for more sky contrast and a ND 8 to open the aperture with the Summitar or slow the shutter speed with either. Even though a miniature format it should be fun to capture some of those iconic landscapes. Prints won't be any bigger than 8x10 or maybe 11x14. I also have the option of taking a Rolleiflex which isn't too much bigger, but gives me a bigger negative. The Rollei is limited to only one focal length though, and I can almost match the quality of the Rollei with 35mm by using Tmax and a good Pyro developer.

I'd love to take a large format view camera, but that just ain't happening. As I get older (and maybe wiser) bringing less crap is the way to travel. What does the collective think? I have a cellphone for color shots.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

From my light weight practice, my advice:

For a LF look with 35mm I would ditch the FP4 and take TMax-100; develop it in Microdol (TMax film doesn't seem to need the 'X'). TMX/Microdol grain is Tech-Pan fine, though you don't get the same creamy LF look.

You can make your own Microdol from Metol, S. Sulfite and NaCl (it's D-23 with the addition of pickling salt). Recipe in Troop and various WWW nooks and cranies. Ilford sells a work-alike.

If the IIIf has a self timer you don't need the cable release. Another use I have for a ST is when hand-holding at slow shutter speeds. Letting the ST release the shutter lets the camera movement and shake that happen with applying force to the shutter release to die away (admittedly less a problem with a Leica). I set the self timer for the minimum delay - 1 second or so.

 

[mshchem]

From my light weight practice, my advice:

For a LF look with 35mm I would ditch the FP4 and take TMax-100; develop it in Microdol (TMax film doesn't seem to need the 'X'). TMX/Microdol grain is Tech-Pan fine, though you don't get the same creamy LF look.

You can make your own Microdol from Metol, S. Sulfite and NaCl (it's D-23 with the addition of pickling salt). Recipe in Troop and various WWW nooks and cranies. Ilford sells a work-alike.

If the IIIf has a self timer you don't need the cable release. Another use I have for a ST is when hand-holding at slow shutter speeds. Letting the ST release the shutter lets the camera movement and shake that happen with applying force to the shutter release to die away (admittedly less a problem with a Leica).

Pretty good advice!

 

[Ian C]

The Ilford equivalent of the discontinued Kodak Microdol-X is Ilford Perceptol.

The following PDF gives Ilford’s recommendation for developing T-Max films in Perceptol. Some versions of the document omit the non-Ilford film section. You should preserve a copy for later reference.

https://www.freestylephoto.com/pdf/product_pdfs/ilford/Ilford_PowderDev.pdf

The basic time is given at 68ºF/20ºC. You can use the accompanying temperature/time chart to adjust the developing time to suit your processing temperature. For example, using stock solution, the developing time for T-Max 100 exposed at EI 100 is given as 12 minutes at 68ºF/20ºC. If you develop at 75ºF/24ºC, the developing time is reduced to about 8:18.

Some users prefer the results from using a lower film speed, such as EI 50 when developed in stock solution. Consequently, you should experiment to determine the best EI and developing time with your equipment for the best results before traveling to a distant location.

Perceptol behaves similarly to Microdol-X. As a comparison, here is the October 2007 version of the Kodak T-Max 100 F-4016 PDF. On the top right column of page 3 it recommends exposing T-Max 100 at EI 50 for use in stock Microdol-X. It recommends EI 100 when using Microdol-X at 1 + 3 (one-process-and-discard only). The times given in the Kodak F-4016 are similar to those in the Ilford Perceptol data.

https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/products/tmax100f4016.pdf

 

[Axelwik]

From my light weight practice, my advice:

For a LF look with 35mm I would ditch the FP4 and take TMax-100; develop it in Microdol (TMax film doesn't seem to need the 'X'). TMX/Microdol grain is Tech-Pan fine, though you don't get the same creamy LF look.

You can make your own Microdol from Metol, S. Sulfite and NaCl (it's D-23 with the addition of pickling salt). Recipe in Troop and various WWW nooks and cranies. Ilford sells a work-alike.

If the IIIf has a self timer you don't need the cable release. Another use I have for a ST is when hand-holding at slow shutter speeds. Letting the ST release the shutter lets the camera movement and shake that happen with applying force to the shutter release to die away (admittedly less a problem with a Leica). I set the self timer for the minimum delay - 1 second or so.

Thanks. I don't expect large format results from such a small negative, but already make and use a D-23 derivative (Barry Thornton's two bath developer), so not much of a stretch to make some Microdol. Will have to test it before developing the film from Chile. No self timer. It's a 1946 iiic that was converted by Leica to a iiif. I acquired this camera less than a year ago and had my camera guy go though it - been using it more than any other because it's so small and easy to carry. The M2 seems large in comparison.

 

[Axelwik]

The Ilford equivalent of the discontinued Kodak Microdol-X is Ilford Perceptol.

The following PDF gives Ilford’s recommendation for developing T-Max films in Perceptol. Some versions of the document omit the non-Ilford film section. You should preserve a copy for later reference.

https://www.freestylephoto.com/pdf/product_pdfs/ilford/Ilford_PowderDev.pdf

The basic time is given at 68ºF/20ºC. You can use the accompanying temperature/time chart to adjust the developing time to suit your processing temperature. For example, using stock solution, the developing time for T-Max 100 exposed at EI 100 is given as 12 minutes at 68ºF/20ºC. If you develop at 75ºF/24ºC, the developing time is reduced to about 8:18.

Some users prefer the results from using a lower film speed, such as EI 50 when developed in stock solution. Consequently, you should experiment to determine the best EI and developing time with your equipment for the best results before traveling to a distant location.

Perceptol behaves similarly to Microdol-X. As a comparison, here is the October 2007 version of the Kodak T-Max 100 F-4016 PDF. On the top right column of page 3 it recommends exposing T-Max 100 at EI 50 for use in stock Microdol-X. It recommends EI 100 when using Microdol-X at 1 + 3 (one-process-and-discard only). The times given in the Kodak F-4016 are similar to those in the Ilford Perceptol data.

https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/products/tmax100f4016.pdf

Thank you. Leaving for Santiago right after the new year (summer just started), so not much time to experiment. I've had pretty good luck exposing Tmax at 50, so may do that anyway.

I'll probably still bring the FP4 for walk around and portrait photos.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

From my light weight practice, my advice:

For a LF look with 35mm I would ditch the FP4 and take TMax-100; develop it in Microdol (TMax film doesn't seem to need the 'X'). TMX/Microdol grain is Tech-Pan fine, though you don't get the same creamy LF look.

You can make your own Microdol from Metol, S. Sulfite and NaCl (it's D-23 with the addition of pickling salt). Recipe in Troop and various WWW nooks and cranies. Ilford sells a work-alike.

If the IIIf has a self timer you don't need the cable release. Another use I have for a ST is when hand-holding at slow shutter speeds. Letting the ST release the shutter lets the camera movement and shake that happen with applying force to the shutter release to die away (admittedly less a problem with a Leica). I set the self timer for the minimum delay - 1 second or so.

Wouldn't Tmax 400 with a 35mm be better for its faster speed?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Wouldn't Tmax 400 with a 35mm be better for its faster speed?

Not for a "large format" look. Part of that look is extremely fine grain. Think contact prints from 8x10 negatives.

TMax-400 is not fine grain - even 4x5 TMax-400 negatives enlarged to 8x10 look grainy to my eye. Maybe I am just doing something wrong. With age I have taken the position that everything I know is wrong - I like the lowered expectations, they bring inner peace.

I use Microdol 1:3 for developing TMax-100. The received wisdom is that this nullifies the fine grain effect of the developer. I don't find that to be the case; YMMV.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd bring along another small body for colour film, or a DSLR. I've never been happy with my cell phone pics. I'm going back to Japan for a couple of months in the Spring, and I'll probably bring the DSLR (for colour), and one medium format camera...or point and shoot 4x5. But you are right, the less crap, the better!

 

[Axelwik]

I'd bring along another small body for colour film, or a DSLR. I've never been happy with my cell phone pics. I'm going back to Japan for a couple of months in the Spring, and I'll probably bring the DSLR (for colour), and one medium format camera...or point and shoot 4x5. But you are right, the less crap, the better!

Thanks, but I just don't have enough room on the motorcycle for an extra body; certainly no room for a medium format camera in addition. I have an SWC which would take about the same room as the whole setup that I'm planning, but that would limit me to only one focal length with a wide angle of view. The Rolleiflex the same with only its one lens.

I rarely shoot color film, leaving color to my phone. I don't own any kind of serious digital camera. Just got an iPhone 16 with a better camera than my previous one - happy enough with that. Just a note: I've sold several iPhone prints in a gallery - I suppose a good photo is a good photo regardless of the method. Prefer film.

 

[Axelwik]

Kind of a no-brainer when you look at the size difference. Even though the Leica is a smaller format, it's a much more capable system than the one medium format camera with one lens. Some might say that I could crop from the SWC 6x6 for tighter shots, but that's a fallacy because the camera doesn't have a rangefinder and cropped to 35mm dimensions would reveal focus errors. Also not as efficient with film.

I also like that the Summitar has an f2 aperture, giving me the option of shallow depth of field. With the SWC I couldn't do that, and tend to stop down in fear of softness where I don't want it.
SizeComp by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

 

[cliveh]

The more cameras, lenses and kit you take, the more time you will spend thinking about what to use and less time taking pictures. Just take one 35mm camera with a 50mm lens. Job done.

 

[Axelwik]

The more cameras, lenses and kit you take, the more time you will spend thinking about what to use and less time taking pictures. Just take one 35mm camera with a 50mm lens. Job done.

I mostly agree. The 50 will probably be on the camera most of the time, but depending on what I'm doing I also like the option of having something wider. The rest is taken care of with shoe-leather zoom.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is wise to adjust ones choice of cameras and lenses depending where and when one is traveling. I usually use my Hasselblad cameras when I travel to Europe or by car in the USA, however if I will not have as much time as I would like I use my Nikon AF cameras.

 

[Axelwik]

It is wise to adjust ones choice of cameras and lenses depending where and when one is traveling. I usually use my Hasselblad cameras when I travel to Europe or by car in the USA, however if I will not have as much time as I would like I use my Nikon AF cameras.

Agree. I often use the Hasselblad setup, but definitely not on this trip. In the US when using my camper van I typically take a 4x5 or 5x7 (depends what I'm after though). Sometimes it's a draw between the Hasselblad and 4x5 in terms of quality unless I need movements. I've put a lot of effort into lightening the large format load by acquiring lightweight cameras and lenses. My 5x7 and 4x5 setups are lighter and easier to carry than the Hasselblad with 2 or 3 lenses; add the SWC and it's often too much. Of course the workflow is slower with the view camera. In the darkroom a 5x7 negative is wonderful to work with.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Lately when traveling overseas I've been taking an M2 with 3 or 4 lenses (typically 15, 28, 50, and 90mm). Sometimes also a Hasselblad with a couple lenses. Usually Europe, but lately Australia, New Zealand, and a trip to Papua New Guinea earlier this year. If I rent a vehicle I tend to take more since schlepping it isn't as much of an issue.

This time however since I'll be on a motorcycle space is limited, and photography isn't the primary goal. Heading to Chile for a ride from Santiago down into Patagonia. To save a little space and lower the weight I'll probably take a iiif (screwmount Leica) with only two lenses; Summitar 50 and a Voigtlander Snapshot 25mm. I'll probably shoot FP4 and some Tmax 100. The rest of the "kit" will consist of a tiny little tripod, cable release, and a couple filters - yellow for more sky contrast and a ND 8 to open the aperture with the Summitar or slow the shutter speed with either. Even though a miniature format it should be fun to capture some of those iconic landscapes. Prints won't be any bigger than 8x10 or maybe 11x14. I also have the option of taking a Rolleiflex which isn't too much bigger, but gives me a bigger negative. The Rollei is limited to only one focal length though, and I can almost match the quality of the Rollei with 35mm by using Tmax and a good Pyro developer.

I'd love to take a large format view camera, but that just ain't happening. As I get older (and maybe wiser) bringing less crap is the way to travel. What does the collective think? I have a cellphone for color shots.

I struggled with similar issues and first settled on less equipment by limiting the lens choices to a normal, a moderate wide angle and a moderate tele. In 35mm-term, that would be 50, 35, or maybe 28 and 85mm. You rarely need more than that! Later, I discovered that there are ver good MF travel cameras (the Mamiya6MF is a very good example). It gives you the larger format and three excellent lenses are available for it (50,75 and 150mm). It also has a collapsible lens mount, which makes for a small package with a reasonable weight. Just an orange or yellow filter, a small tripod and a cable release and you're ready to go all day!

 

[Paul Howell]

I think you should go with what you know and is tired and true. But if you are willing to rethink a travel kit, I would go with a Minolta 5, a 28mm, 50 1.4 and a short zoom like a 24 to 85 3.5 to 4.5. The Minolta 5 is a consumer grade camera, but seems to be holding up. Uses 2 standard CR 3 batteries, has a nice set of features, a spot meter button on the back along with a back button AF. In terms of film, I would take both Tmax 100 and 400. Freestyle sells a version Kodak Microdol X under their Legacy brand. If you want to carry a MF then a Mamiya 6 automate, the folder version. You can use the Minolta 5 as a meter. Just one camera one lens, Minolta 5 or 600SI wilh the 24 to 85 and Tmax 400 along with a light tripod.

 

[loccdor]

I usually travel with only a bag that fits under a plane seat. That needs to fit all my changes of clothes and cameras. If I had to pick only a single camera, lens, and film type for maximum versatility and quality, it'd be:

Canon EOS Elan 7E or another 2000s film SLR
Tamron 45mm f/1.8 image stabilized lens
Scala 50/HR-50 high resolution film

You get autofocus. Decent weather sealing. Effective 400 speed with 50 speed film due to image stabilizer. 1:3 near-macro ability. Mirror lock-up. Multiple-exposure capability. High resolution and low grain. It can take portraits, landscapes, and pretty much everything else.

 

[Axelwik]

I struggled with similar issues and first settled on less equipment by limiting the lens choices to a normal, a moderate wide angle and a moderate tele. In 35mm-term, that would be 50, 35, or maybe 28 and 85mm. You rarely need more than that! Later, I discovered that there are ver good MF travel cameras (the Mamiya6MF is a very good example). It gives you the larger format and three excellent lenses are available for it (50,75 and 150mm). It also has a collapsible lens mount, which makes for a small package with a reasonable weight. Just an orange or yellow filter, a small tripod and a cable release and you're ready to go all day!

Thanks. I played with a Mamiya 7 several years ago when I helped Lee Marmon sell his, and it seemed like a pretty good camera. Could be wrong, but the only thing I'd worry about is a dependence on electronics that may not be repairable. I assume the Mamiya 6 is similar, but have never had a chance to use one. The 7 seemed like a capable camera. Maybe I'll look more into a Mamiya 6 for a future trip - I like the square format and usually print square when using a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.

 

[Axelwik]

I usually travel with only a bag that fits under a plane seat. That needs to fit all my changes of clothes and cameras. If I had to pick only a single camera, lens, and film type for maximum versatility and quality, it'd be:

Canon EOS Elan 7E or another 2000s film SLR
Tamron 45mm f/1.8 image stabilized lens
Scala 50/HR-50 high resolution film

You get autofocus. Decent weather sealing. Effective 400 speed with 50 speed film due to image stabilizer. 1:3 near-macro ability. Mirror lock-up. Multiple-exposure capability. High resolution and low grain. It can take portraits, landscapes, and pretty much everything else.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Your solution seems practical.

I'm pretty well invested in the old Leica stuff which has served me well so far. My kit has to take no more room than about a third of my motorcycle tank bag, so limited on space. The iiif is more compact than any SLR, and I do better with rangefinder cameras anyway. Most subjects don't take an old rangefinder very seriously, enabling me to get better candid photos. Also very silent.

The lenses are compact - the Summitar collapses into the camera when not in use, and the 25 is tiny and weighs almost nothing even with its viewfinder. Without a mirror box there's no need for a retrofocus lens with its extra glass, bulk, weight, and the optical gymnastics needed to get a wide angle image past a mirror box.

Some say take only a nifty-50 to keep it simple (in your case a 45), but that's not how I shoot. I use a 50 or a 90 for a lot of things, but I also like getting close, and into the middle of the action. Here are some photos that I recently shot with a 15mm lens in Papua New Guinea. I couldn't have made these with a 50.
img20240530_14531904 (1) by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr
img20240530_14032281 by Marco Wikstrom, on Flickr

 

[reddesert]

You probably already know this - everybody I know who's been to Patagonia, including a person who just finished one of the standard treks a few days ago, says the wind can be unbelievable. Smaller cameras are likely an advantage. I would also consider ways to beef up your camera support when needed. For ex, I sometimes travel with this dorky Ultrapod micro tripod that has a velcro strap, so instead of setting it up as a tripod one can velcro it to a fence post, bike handlebar, etc. A velcro strap or Voile strap might do the same for your tripod - maybe you already carry similar things in a motorcycle emergency kit, I dunno.

 

[Axelwik]

You probably already know this - everybody I know who's been to Patagonia, including a person who just finished one of the standard treks a few days ago, says the wind can be unbelievable. Smaller cameras are likely an advantage. I would also consider ways to beef up your camera support when needed. For ex, I sometimes travel with this dorky Ultrapod micro tripod that has a velcro strap, so instead of setting it up as a tripod one can velcro it to a fence post, bike handlebar, etc. A velcro strap or Voile strap might do the same for your tripod - maybe you already carry similar things in a motorcycle emergency kit, I dunno.

Great minds think alike. An Ultrapod is the one I'm bringing. Don't have room for anything else. We're planning to take a break from the bikes and take a hike in the Fitz Roy area on the Argentine side. Hopefully the wind won't be too much of an issue. One of the guys going with us was literally blown off the road on his heavy BMW bike last year in Argentina.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I agree with the suggestions of an LTM Leica with one lens and a small tripod for two wheeled travel (a bicycle back in the day in my case). Which lens and which tripod is largely a matter of familiarity. I find that a 50mm lens usually results in fewer instances of wishing I had a different lens than a 35mm. One of my friends is so enamored of Gorillapods that he recently gave them to several of us as gifts. I tried to get on with it but after 60+ years of using a Leitz table top tripod with a large KGOON head they just work better for me. And the whole kit, including a Digisix meter and two or three bulk loaded FILCA cassettes fits nicely in a little Domke F-5XA bag.

 

[Axelwik]

I agree with the suggestions of an LTM Leica with one lens and a small tripod for two wheeled travel (a bicycle back in the day in my case). Which lens and which tripod is largely a matter of familiarity. I find that a 50mm lens usually results in fewer instances of wishing I had a different lens than a 35mm. One of my friends is so enamored of Gorillapods that he recently gave them to several of us as gifts. I tried to get on with it but after 60+ years of using a Leitz table top tripod with a large KGOON head they just work better for me. And the whole kit, including a Digisix meter and two or three bulk loaded FILCA cassettes fits nicely in a little Domke F-5XA bag.

I think a 50 with "shoe-leather zoom" will work pretty well for tighter compositions (less need for a 90), but I also like to go wide so a good compromise to me is somewhere between 24 and 28mm. 28 has always been a favorite. If I need to go ultrawide my new phone has that - yeah digital with a phone, but we sometimes have to make compromises - my 15mm is only M mount. For wide I'll take the little LTM Voigtlander Snapshot 25 which is light as a feather and doesn't take much room. So, 50 and 25 with the iiif will do it.

Thanks all for the suggestions. I'll post some photos upon my return.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

If you're after the absolutely smallest and lightest LTM wide angle, there's the Chroma "Double Glass". It's 24mm with a fixed f/11 aperture and fixed focus at the hyperfocal distance, claiming 1.5m to infinity in focus. It weighs well under an ounce and isn't much bigger than a body cap when mounted on a camera. It's obviously not everyone's cup of tea, but if you can find one it might be handy to have in your kit.

This would be redundant since you've got the more-flexible Voigtlander 25mm but might prove of interest to someone down the road.

Chroma's web site shows it as currently sold out, I don't know if there are plans for another production run.