Downsizing from Large Format to 35mm/What Camera

[darinwc]

Quite frankly, coming from large format, you will never be happy with 35mm. Even a 5000$ Leica kit you won't be happy.
You will be happy with your Fuji. Even though it's big, it is relatively light weight.
A yashica or Rollei twin lens reflex will also fit the bill. But only if you like that style.
Another option is a 645 camera. The little Fuji af camera makes a great travel camera. Or one of the slr's.

You are serious about your photos, so I'm not going to suggest a medium format folder or a point and shoot 35mm. While they are fun, they are inconsistent.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't totally agree with the "you will never be happy with 35mm" statement. It all depends on how big you want to print? I was is kind of the same boat as Merg only I'm keeping my large and medium format stuff, but was downsizing all my 35mm goodies. I still have many 35mm cameras to unload, but wanted one system that was small enough, light enough, simple enough and most of all, optically good enough. I picked up two Contax G1 bodies for almost nothing and added a flash, 28mm, 45mm and the 90mm. All I can say is I'm very, very satisfied with what I have and the image quality is as good as any Leica I have ever owned and I have owned a few. I went with the G1 bodies as I wasn't sure if I'd like the system or not and I'd have little invested that way. I might get a couple of G2 bodies further down the line, but like I said, I'm a happy camper for now. I have made 11x14 prints that are just fine for my standards. If you use a slow film(PanF+, Delta, Acros, Tmax) you can possibly go larger, but 35mm does start to fall apart, for me at least, above 11x14. The Contax lenses are not the problem, it's the 35mm negative size that is. I've heard people talk about beautiful, grain-free 16x20 or larger prints from 35mm, but I could never manage it. I suppose that if I had only ever used 35mm I might say the same, but I look at the larger formats and know they are just not the same when you are talking a 10x enlargement. Different strokes for different folks I guess!

 

[Hatchetman]

I would think an SLR since you are not used to a rangefinder. I would want a fast lens since likely will be some indoor shots. TMax 100 and a monopod or mini tripod should give very nice prints.

 

[jeffreyg]

I'll throw something else into the mix. Since you are satisfied with your medium format why not stick with that and get an appropriate sized and good quality camera backpack that you will be comfortable carrying. They are easy to organize and fit into the airplane overhead compartments. Personally, I have one that holds two medium format cameras, lenses and other assorted items that also fits in the overhead. In addition I take an empty daypack. In that I will carry the equipment I would use walking around and leave the main pack in the hotel room. This way I cover all the bases. I also take a carbon-fiber tripod. Since we usually drive once we get to our destination I have easy access to the equipment I might use. A properly fitting backpack lightens the load.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[JW PHOTO]

I would think an SLR since you are not used to a rangefinder. I would want a fast lens since likely will be some indoor shots. TMax 100 and a monopod or mini tripod should give very nice prints.

He used a Fuji 6x7 on his last trip. He must be used to a rangefinder?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want to stick to a rangefinder, but don't want the bulk of the Fuji GW/GSW, try the Fuji GF670/Bessa 667 or the wideangle companion camera, the GF670W/Bessa 667W? There you get a compact folding rangefinder that can be fit in a jacket pocket and a brilliant lens.

 

[Hatchetman]

He used a Fuji 6x7 on his last trip. He must be used to a rangefinder?

OK. Then he should be pretty much good to go with anything. I still think a fast lens is the way to go, use 35mm to its advantage. f1.4 or f1.8.

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. No real preference to SLR vs rangefinder. Would prefer a single lens, do not need autofocus. Nikon seems highly thought of and on my list. A "normal" lens has more appeal for my work than wide angle.
Thanks for the kind comment, yes I have always done my own printing, gelatin silver....a process I have no plans to abandon!

Even knowing you don't "need" auto focus I'm still going to suggest an F100 with a 50 1.8 AF/D lens.

 

[cuthbert]

Almost all small SLRs from the 70s would do the job, my recommendation would be a Spotmatic F with SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 or a Fujica St705,705W or 801 with Fujinon 50mm f1.4 (expensive lens I'm afraid).

If you need something smaller the Pentax MX is a good choice, tailed by the Nikon FM.

For rangefinders if you don't mind the bulk the Leica M5 is a good choice, as standard lens now I use a Nokton 1.5 as it's not too expensive.

 

[Alan Gales]

How about one of those Fuji 645 cameras. It will be smaller than your 6x7 but still a larger negative than 35mm.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Nikon FM2n with a 50/1.8 pancake Nikkor AIS (or Series E Nikon version). Combine that with the Fuji 6x7. Use your faster film in the FM2n, since it has shutter speeds up to 1/4000, and the slower film in your Fuji, since it's limited to 1/500, due to the leaf shutter. Both cameras have decent flash sync, something that the Pentax MX and Nikon FM don't have (1/60 and 1/100, respectively - yes, the FM says 1/125, but, it's actually 1/100 when tested on a shutter tester - pretty much every camera with the Seiko Copal Square shutter is that way). The FM2n with the 50/1.8 is small enough to fit a larger pocket and won't be very heavy.

-J

 

[TheRook]

Another vote for the Olympus XA, superb quality images, slips in a small pocket, unobtrusive, easy to use, inexpensive. If I was considering SLR I would go with a Nikon FE, but now you also have to carry a bag of lenses :-(

The Olympus XA is certainly great for color photography, but for black & white (what the OP plans to do), not so much. Its lens lacks threading for screw-on filters, and push-on filters are not possible with it either. An ideal camera for black and white photography should at least give you the option for easy filter attachment.

 

[ac12]

You might take a look at the Olympus OM series; OM1 or 3 (mechanical shutter) or OM2 or 4 (electronic shutter).
As I get older, I have come to realize and appreciate the light weight of the Olympus OM cameras compared to my Nikon Fs. I can't carry a heavy camera bag like I used to when I was in high school or college. Today my heavy stuff has to be within easy walking or carting distance from the car. The best gear is of negative value, if I hurt hauling it around. So despite having several GOOD cameras in different formats (35mm, 6x6 and 4x5), I just started building an OM kit, to have a LIGHT weight kit to carry.

 

[Malinku]

A Kodak Retina. I have a IIa and love it. Small, fully manual and comes with a great 50mm lens.

 

[gone]

Well, all you're going to get are other people's opinions. Nothing wrong w/ that, but the thing is, what I like you may not. In any case, even if cost were no object (and it always is to one extent or another), my recommendation is for a Nikkormat w/ an H 50 2 non AI lens to get you started. Very dependable, good build quality, and they are fun to shoot and take excellent photos. It's the camera I most miss from all the cameras I've owned. A little unconventional on the shutter speed adjustment, you have to get used to it being in a different place, but after a while it seems like they all should be this way. Great value for the price too.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Long time (60 years) with large format. Making short trip to Europe, want to shoot film. Last trip used Fuji 6x7, excellent results. However, looking for something less bulky, thinking 35mm. Small enlargements, no landscapes, black and white. Camera, suggestions? Thanks.

www.mergross.com

Mamiya6

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, all you're going to get are other people's opinions. Nothing wrong w/ that, but the thing is, what I like you may not. In any case, even if cost were no object (and it always is to one extent or another), my recommendation is for a Nikkormat w/ an H 50 2 non AI lens to get you started. Very dependable, good build quality, and they are fun to shoot and take excellent photos. It's the camera I most miss from all the cameras I've owned. A little unconventional on the shutter speed adjustment, you have to get used to it being in a different place, but after a while it seems like they all should be this way. Great value for the price too.

I agree and like mine but no match for MF

 

[Les Sarile]

Well you are in for a treat as there are some pretty capable 35mm cameras. Here are a few of my own that can meet your requirements for less bulky, non-autofocus variety.

• The Olympus OM-3 is a completely manual camera that only requires batteries for it's spot/averaging meter.
• The Pentax LX has fully interchangeable viewfinder system with aperture priority capable of the longest autoexposure.
• The Minolta XD-11 has aperture and shutter priority as well as full manual mode exposure mode.
• The Nikon FM3A has a full hybrid shutter. It has aperture priority mode exposure but has all shutter speeds available when batteries die.

Coincidentally, I live in the area and have been looking to get into large format cameras so if you are interested, we can exchange ideas.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Quite frankly, coming from large format, you will never be happy with 35mm. Even a 5000$ Leica kit you won't be happy.
You will be happy with your Fuji. Even though it's big, it is relatively light weight.
A yashica or Rollei twin lens reflex will also fit the bill. But only if you like that style.
Another option is a 645 camera. The little Fuji af camera makes a great travel camera. Or one of the slr's.

You are serious about your photos, so I'm not going to suggest a medium format folder or a point and shoot 35mm. While they are fun, they are inconsistent.

Have you tried 5K USD Leica kit? I have tried 500$ M4-2 camera with 500$ 50mm Cron lens. After printing on 8x10 I was nicely surprised.
But it all depends. 8x10 is my regular large prints size. Who knows, maybe for OP it is the small one. "Small enlargements, no landscapes"...

 

[RattyMouse]

Thank you very much to all of you for the informative replies. I have noted the suggestions if I decide to go with 35mm. I say "if" because of concerns about print quality from downsizing. Coming from a lifetime of large and medium format films, it may be best for me to stay with the bulkier Fuji 6x7. I need to give more thought to the concept of downsizing.

Bill Barber, I am most appreciative of your kind offer. Thank you.

Best regards,
Merg

Fujifilm GA645....light as a feather...not large at all, extremely easy to carry. It's an autofocus camera so that's a downer to some. Not silent either with the film advance. It has a nice built in flash for those occasions that call for it. Gets 16 shots per roll of film. Epic image quality. Comes in a W version if you like 28mm angle of view....38mm is the regular version.

Not expensive cameras too.

 

[baachitraka]

Olympus OM-2n with 35-70mm f/3.6
- or -
Olympus OM-2n with 28mm f/3.5

 

[baachitraka]

Rolleicord V with some bright screen.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It doesn't get much more compact in the SLR world than the Pentax LX or MX, with a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. That's an awesome combination for travel photography that is light and weighs very little. The 40mm lens should be stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller to give its best. The 35mm f/2 lens is also superb, but if you really want a normal the 55mm f/1.8 is amazing (and far less costly than the other two I mentioned).

 

[Les Sarile]

It doesn't get much more compact in the SLR world than the Pentax LX or MX, with a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. That's an awesome combination for travel photography that is light and weighs very little. The 40mm lens should be stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller to give its best. The 35mm f/2 lens is also superb, but if you really want a normal the 55mm f/1.8 is amazing (and far less costly than the other two I mentioned).

I agree that the LX and MX are the smallest of their kind with the largest viewfinders.
However I have fully tested my 40mm f2.8 and it is sharp wide open and only gets better which is inline with it's reviews. I believe the only thing it get's dinged for is that it takes a little getting used to due to the proximity and size of the focus and aperture rings.

 

[Down Under]

I am solidly with Nikkormat for travel photography.

Coming from LF, you surely want a true minimalist kit. In which case, consider a late model (1970s) Nikkormat (EL or FT2) with a 35mm f/2 lens. For travel imagery, the 50mm is not really an ideal lens, not wide enough, altho' sharp as a needle. The Nikkormat even with a 35 f2 is as cheap as chips nowadays. Nikkormats have outlasted most Nikons from that era, and they will do everything you want it to. Trust me on this.

If you are a more than one lens person, go 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/2, and 85mm f/2 or 105mm/2.5. Or the 35mm in place of the 28mm. For architectural shoots, the 24mm f2.8 AI or AIS will give you the extra coverage you often need, without too much distortion. Again, a lens hood is important, indeed vital.

Add lens hoods and clear filters If using B&W, a yellow or yellow-green Nikkor filter. Shoot Tmax 100 or Ilford FP4. Process with care.

The GA645 is a true gem (I own one) but it is nothing like a Nikkormat. Much more limited, and after much shooting with both formats, I have decided it really isn't much better than the 35mm format. Sorry, Ralph L, but.

35mm is not LF, and your images will never be as sharp or detailed as, but the Nikkormat/Nikkor images will astound you. Once returned home and done with the post-process processes, you will be truly liberated, and you will never, ever look back.