Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

Good evening all.

I had some great advice on APUG previously, so thought I'd post again on this particularly topic.

I am looking at a trip to Asia as soon as I can viably take it, and will not be taking my 5x4 setup.

I am in posession of a Nikon F5, which is an obvious contender, and need to either:

a) Add a second F5 for backup and a new lense or two, or
b) Go the 645 medium format route (Pentax or Mamiya, both of which I have researched a lot)

I was under the impression that there was a limit to the detail that could be eked out of 35mm film, even slide film, but then I happened upon this:

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...derimages/d56362/d5636201&IntObjectID=5636201

And this:

http://www.clickittefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Sharbat-Gula.jpg

Even if there's been computer higgeryjiggery involved, there has to be that detail there to start with.

So, is there actually any point in swapping to medium format for travel photography? I understand the size difference in gear can be neglible in some cases, and I see it is all pretty affordable these days, so I'm really looking for insights in how the gear handles in the field (or, more accurately, the streets and fields), whether there are any big advantages or disadvantages you have gleaned from experience.

Any pros/cons on this, or any random thoughts would be appreciated, since I have zero experience of medium format SLRs. I do prefer the 645 image aspect ratio to 3:2, and I know the shots-on-a-roll difference and all, but I thought you medium-format-shooting guys would have a better insight on this especially for travel photography, which would include street and scenery both. I'd be shooting either Provia or the Agfa equivalent slide film, or Kodak Ektar 100, plus Ilford FP4+.

Thanks!!

What are you wanting to do with the final pictures? When I travel, I always take a DSLR and usually a medium format or larger film camera. I shoot lots of landscapes, which in my opinion, often benefit from a larger and sharper prints. With 35mm, 8x12 is the usually largest I can print up to and be happy with the results, provided I’m not wanting grain in my photos. And even to go that big, you pretty much need everything else to go right. Most shots made on 135 film top out at around 5x7 before they get grainy. It’s just not a serious format in my opinion. 135 is great for having fun and posting photos to the internet. But I rarely print from it.

But that’s just me. Everyone is different. If I shot more street photography, I’m sure I’d feel differently, as grain usually isn’t as big of an issue for that as it is for most landscapes. Since you already own a F5, I presume you have experience with it and know what it’s capable of. If that’s good enough for you, then no reason to spend more on another, heavier camera. But for me, I’ve just been disappointed too many times from my 135 cameras in the past to consider them a serious format.

jim10219 said:

What are you wanting to do with the final pictures? When I travel, I always take a DSLR and usually a medium format or larger film camera. I shoot lots of landscapes, which in my opinion, often benefit from a larger and sharper prints. With 35mm, 8x12 is the usually largest I can print up to and be happy with the results, provided I’m not wanting grain in my photos. And even to go that big, you pretty much need everything else to go right. Most shots made on 135 film top out at around 5x7 before they get grainy. It’s just not a serious format in my opinion. 135 is great for having fun and posting photos to the internet. But I rarely print from it.

But that’s just me. Everyone is different. If I shot more street photography, I’m sure I’d feel differently, as grain usually isn’t as big of an issue for that as it is for most landscapes. Since you already own a F5, I presume you have experience with it and know what it’s capable of. If that’s good enough for you, then no reason to spend more on another, heavier camera. But for me, I’ve just been disappointed too many times from my 135 cameras in the past to consider them a serious format.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response!

This was my way of thinking and is precisely why I shoot 5x4 for landscapes here in England. However, I looked at those links, and saw the insane amount of detail, and the fairly huge sizes McCurry has printed at, and suddenly the decision was not so clear after all. I mean, you can see every tiny detail of her skin in that portrait!

I am trying to setup a darkroom, so B&W would be printed optically. The rest would be scanned and printed. I'd like to print up to the sort of size you can see in the link to the gallery display.

It all depends on what you want to achieve..... Technical perfection? Then the larger the format, the better. But if you want to capture impressions, emotions or interpretations rather than registrations it becomes a different game. I shot my best travel photo's using a 1954 Zeiss Ikon Contessa 35mm folder that fits in my pocket. Often blurry (night shots) and grainy but fascinating images. On my latest trip - Romania - I used a 6x6 Mamiya C330f but that wasn't much of a success; technically perfect but rather traditional images. Photo's like we've all seen 1000 times before. For whatever reason the Contessa seems to work much better for me.

When travelling my typical kit is a Leica D-Lux 109 for digital and a Leica M2 with 50mm for film. Travel is more about enjoying the moment and capturing memories. For this 35mm is perfectly adequate.

But, sometimes I travel for the scenery with the intent to take photographs, in that case I will take a Yashica 6x6 and a 6x9 folder.

Decide what you are going for then decide what you want to carry, are you going for fun or are you going for photography?

In the last decade, I have taken Hasselblads with me through out the western US and the middle Atlantic states. I traveled to France and Greece with the Hasselblads among other places. Why? I like the optics, ease of use, the feel of the cameras. I also like the improved results that I get over 35mm when I enlarge the film for prints. Naturally the larger film size is easier to handle than 35mm.

hi michael:
it is about what you going to want to do. you can get beautiful results no matter what you use for an obscura
will you want to make giant enlargements ? you can do that with 35mm, do you want bleeding sharp optics? you can do that with 35mm
modern coated lenses? youcan do that with 35mm, vintage glass? you can do that with 35mm, petzval lenses? you can do that with 35mm
... some will say there really is no real difference no matter what you use because the differences are found by the operator of the camera.
hand a hasselblad, or mamiya or pentax MF to someone who has experience with them
they will produce because they know how to make the camera sing... same with a lomo, or rolleicord from 1927, or a vest-strut camera or a holga or a 4x5
hand these things to someone who is timid, or hasn't used them and knows how to eek/coax imagery from them they will give you something less ...
if you will have time before your trip to use the "new camera" i would by all means get it and have a blast with it, but if you will acquire it and 2 days later
go on your trip .. fumbling and getting acquainted is no fun... i'd humbly suggest you use what you have experience with and you will enjoy your expedition more...

have fun on your trip !

^Just last year I was visiting Thailand and VietNam , with me was my Bronica Etrsi with 50 and 150 lens . Used Provia 110F and
Fuji 160 c-41 film . Loved the pictures and any good ones seemed to make carrying the kit around worth while . I had my trusty
Minolta Hi-Matic E with Provia 100f also (great little backup !). Some of the good pics with the Minolta made me wish I had the
Bronica with me (at that time) , lovely pictures , but couldn't stand much enlarging .The changeable backs were nice on occasion.
But if you're not too practiced with what ever you get , it may be for not . Next time I'll take my Mamiya 7 (bigger has it's place),
YMMV

I usually print on 11x14 paper, and for that size from my perspective the medium format negative produces a much nicer print than 35mm. I own a Mamiya 645 outfit with a number of lenses and have travelled with it, using a tripod most of the time. My last trip I took and used a Fujifilm ga645zi and shot without a tripod. It has a slight zoom lens. What a pleasure it was to carry and use the Fujifilm rather than my Mamiya system, so much more freedom and fun. Of course, which camera you use depends on what you want to shoot.

It depends on whether or not the travel itinerary is driven by photographic, or other reasons. If the travel is primarily, or solely, for photography, bring the highest quality gear you own and capture the best images possible. For me this would mean a 4x5 rig, or at minimum the RB67 system.

But if the trip is for business or other reasons where photography is a by-product, I would bring a smaller setup. A few days ago I returned from 9 days in Europe. I brought a Canon AE-1 Program, 2 lenses and 1 roll of film. It was enough. I generally don't print photographs and the AE-1P suited my purposes.

For a week+ long business trip to another continent where I bring only carry-on luggage, a medium format rig does not fit in priority scheme.

As a contrast, I am leaving tomorrow for a several day trip to the US midwest, and I am bringing the 4x5 setup. However, the travel will be by car and I have flexibility in the itinerary, although it is primarily driven by business.

I've traveled to Europe, around the US, and to Mexico with medium format gear (primarily a Rolleiflex). It's a no-brainer to me. Unless your medium format camera is a Fuji GX680 or some such that's not hand-holdable, there's no real good reason not to. I'm about to go back to Mexico, and bring an RZ67 with me this time.

Michael Stubbs said:

Thanks for the response!

This was my way of thinking and is precisely why I shoot 5x4 for landscapes here in England. However, I looked at those links, and saw the insane amount of detail, and the fairly huge sizes McCurry has printed at, and suddenly the decision was not so clear after all. I mean, you can see every tiny detail of her skin in that portrait!

I am trying to setup a darkroom, so B&W would be printed optically. The rest would be scanned and printed. I'd like to print up to the sort of size you can see in the link to the gallery display.

Click to expand...

The first link isn’t loading for me. So I have no idea what that is. But remember, computer screens run at 72ppi, and your brain knows this and compensates for it. Prints are usually around 300dpi. So images tend to appear sharper on a screen than they do on print when viewed at the exact same size and resolution. In other words, don’t believe everything you see online, even if they are being completely honest.

The second is of course a famous photo that I’m well familiar with (Afghan Girl with Green Eyes). It was shot on Kodachrome 64, which is one of the sharpest and finest grain films ever made. Unfortunately, that film hasn’t been around in a long time. Beyond that, it’s a slide film which means it was likely printed with cibachrome, which also isn’t available. Furthermore, it’s of a person’s face. When viewing a face, you don’t get up close to look at the details. What are you gonna see? Pores? With a landscape, you likely will want to get up close and look at the fine details. Trees, rocks, wildlife... all of that stuff invites closer inspection. That photo is pretty much the best case scenario to show off how a 35mm shot can be blown up. Its not a good example to go by. It’s technical perfection every step of the way on an image that doesn’t require much to look good. It also isn't likely made through a process or with tools available to you in today’s world. You have to consider what your results will look like. Not what someone else’s would.

But, if you want, take your best 35mm film and lens out and shoot a couple of test shots and see what kind of results you can get before you leave on your trip. If they look good enough, it would be a lot cheaper and more convenient to carry a couple of 35mm’s instead of a heavy medium format.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I've traveled to Europe, around the US, and to Mexico with medium format gear (primarily a Rolleiflex). It's a no-brainer to me. Unless your medium format camera is a Fuji GX680 or some such that's not hand-holdable, there's no real good reason not to. I'm about to go back to Mexico, and bring an RZ67 with me this time.

Click to expand...

I was just reviewing a few photos I took in Arizona and throught out Death Valley. I used a Bessa R2a, 35 f1.7 Ultron, and Fuji Astia 100F. Scanned at 4000 ppi on a Nikon 5000. With a tiny bit of sharpening in Lightroom, the 16x24 prints I've produced have a decent enough amount of detail. Grain is visible, but pleasing and natural to the eye.

I now mainly carry around an F5 as well. While 35mm wont match MF, the results with a good scan and proper processing can easily produce prints out to 16x24.

Lots of good advice in this thread, so many differing viewpoints, but hey, all good ideas. One has to select what suits.

For me, WilmarcoImaging (#10) hit the nail on the head particularly hard. What is your main purpose in traveling? If it's photography, take as much gear and film with you as you can sensibly carry. If you are going for other reasons, be selective - keep it simple.

Your Nikon F5 is a fine camera and will most likely do everything you expect of it. But if you must go MF, think not too heavy - for me the best landscapes camera would have to be one of the Fuji GA645s, the 'i' model (which gives you 16 exposures to a roll of 120 film, one more shot than the earlier model GAs which only gave 15), eiher with the 'standard' (60mm = 38mm in '35') or wide angle (45mm = 28mm). The GS645 cameras are smaller, lighter to carry and manual. Bear in mind, however, that the GAs and GSs are old cameras, the GS is manual focus and the GA is autofocus, which may mean problems with the 'lektrikals' when you are somewhere out in the field.

Many other MF models (think Rolleiflex, Rolleicord, or one of the many brands of very basic 6x6 folders) are available and not heavy to carry.

Taking too much gear when one travels is a great temptation that can easily turn into a major problem. Back in 1985 (so stop me now if you've heard this before, ha!) I went to Indonesia with a Nikkormat kit (two cameras, four three lenses), a Rolleiflex and a Linhof 6x9 with three lenses and two film backs. Also a Linhof tripod. To this day I cannot work out how I managed to carry all this around Java and the outlying (and isolated) islands, but I did. The Nikkormats were loaded with Kodachrome and Ektachrome (ah, the good old days) and did most of the shooting, next the Rollei with B&W, and finally by a very long shot, the Linhof, I think I put four rolls through it in two months. to this day I detest those Linhof film backs with a fierce passion, but the message here is that I learned a valuable lesson on that trip, if not exactly well.

This week I'm in Ipoh, Malaysia, on a three months trip in Southeast Asia, shooting mostly colonial architecture. I have with me, safely under lock and key in my hotel room, 1. a Nikon D700 with four lenses, 2. a D90 with the kit 18-55, and 3. a Rolleicord with a lens hood, UV and yellow filters, and 25 rolls of film (20 rolls of Fuji B&W, five rolls of Fuji color neg). So what did I learn from my 1985 trek? Not much. This trip the D700 is used every day, sometimes the 'cord and one or two rolls of film, and rarely the D90, this latter camera being especially good for candids when I'm out and about on a city stroll. This trip I didn't take a tripod. So why not just travel with the D700 and a few lenses? I'm wondering this too...

The 'cord produces very fine B&W negatives but if I shoot all my film, I can then look forward (ha! again) to at least four processing sessions in the darkroom at home and then too many hours of scanning. At my age, this is not the way to go, but there you have it.

I'm tempted to say we live and we learn but then I have to ask myself - what if anything have I learned about travel and photography in my (almost) seventy years on this planet and a half century and more of playing with cameras? Not very much. In summing up, the D700 with a 28mm and 85mm would easily let me shoot everything I want and need. So why didn't I...? Never again. I hope.

For me the first keyword is now KISS - keep it simple (insert your own choice of word for the last 's' - in my case, I favor "stupid").

jim10219 said:

The first link isn’t loading for me. So I have no idea what that is. But remember, computer screens run at 72ppi, and your brain knows this and compensates for it. Prints are usually around 300dpi. So images tend to appear sharper on a screen than they do on print when viewed at the exact same size and resolution. In other words, don’t believe everything you see online, even if they are being completely honest.

The second is of course a famous photo that I’m well familiar with (Afghan Girl with Green Eyes). It was shot on Kodachrome 64, which is one of the sharpest and finest grain films ever made. Unfortunately, that film hasn’t been around in a long time. Beyond that, it’s a slide film which means it was likely printed with cibachrome, which also isn’t available. Furthermore, it’s of a person’s face. When viewing a face, you don’t get up close to look at the details. What are you gonna see? Pores? With a landscape, you likely will want to get up close and look at the fine details. Trees, rocks, wildlife... all of that stuff invites closer inspection. That photo is pretty much the best case scenario to show off how a 35mm shot can be blown up. Its not a good example to go by. It’s technical perfection every step of the way on an image that doesn’t require much to look good. It also isn't likely made through a process or with tools available to you in today’s world. You have to consider what your results will look like. Not what someone else’s would.

But, if you want, take your best 35mm film and lens out and shoot a couple of test shots and see what kind of results you can get before you leave on your trip. If they look good enough, it would be a lot cheaper and more convenient to carry a couple of 35mm’s instead of a heavy medium format.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree on one point. While K64 was indeed sharp...it is no where near the finest grain film. K64 had a grain RMS of 11. Provia 100F is at 8. Astia 100F is at 7. The old Ektachrome 100 is around 8 as well. K64 is beautiful...but it isnt a fine grain film by modern standards.

I have an F5 and it's a tank. Add lenses to it and I am much further ahead to take my Blad traveling. I will be going on an international trip in Dec and will be taking my Blad, 50mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses. In addition I will be taking my Panasonic G85 and one lens. Image quality of a 35mm with something like a Delta film is good but not near as good as MF. I wouldn't bother with 645 as in my experience it's just a super 35mm. A bit better but at the end of the day you might as well as gone full 6x6.

Put me on the list of "yes, absolutely". Just recently was the first time that I have NOT travelled with my Broinca SQAi in a very long time. In reality, the camera is no bigger than your average high end DSLR. The only downside is the need to carry multiple lenses (3).

The only reason I didn't take it with me the last time I travelled is I had a freezer full of 35mm film, so I decided to burn through that for a change.

Keep forefront in the mind that the level of automation in the Nikon F5 is much higher than what can be found in most medium format cameras, of which many rely on a hand-held meter for exposures out-of-range e.g. beyond 1 second, and for many rudimentary Hasselblads, competency with hand-held metering is essential.

The 6x7 format, which I use, is 400% bigger than the tiny and relatively insignificant 35mm, and image reproduction is much, much easier than for 35mm. I know this from decades of experience, and can say that reproduction of detail from 35mm was fine in the Ilfochrome Classic era, but not really as eye-opening with any type of RA-4.
It just does not have the same impact and clarity.

Michael Stubbs said:

Even if there's been computer higgeryjiggery involved, there has to be that detail there to start with.

Click to expand...

There isn't that much fine detail to speak of — it is 35mm, and shows. The image has always looked a bit soft (except the eyes), but fast-forward to latter-day reproductions that have created a travesty of the enduringly simple yet powerful image — sharpening, HDR, saturation adjustment, hue, re-colouring ... whatever else! McCurry himself has also notably tweaked the image (among others that has brought him both scorn and derision for his blatantly obvious digital tweaks).

Other than brilliant, spur-of-the-moment composition and the famously startling expression centre-staged by those hauntingly beautiful eyes, there is nothing particularly remarkable detail-wise about the shot of Sharbat Gula — to generations of viewers it has always been her eyes. Vintage Kodachrome colour is there. Could MF have created a better image? Probably. In the same situation it could well provide a more outstanding quality in the image that is the hallmark of MF, all things else falling into place (remember though this was a quickly arranged shot, almost against the girl's will, and which McCurry did not have a lot of time to complete).

Choice is thus a personal matter based on current and projected need, making do with some things while sacrificing others.
If you need spontaneity and ever-readiness of the automation afforded by 35mm, and are prepared for the inherent limitations in printing and enlargement, then that would be a good choice. Medium format will slow you down with manual focusing and fewer exposures necessitating irritating reloads at quite possibly the most inconvenient moment.

David Luttmann said:

I'll disagree on one point. While K64 was indeed sharp...it is no where near the finest grain film. K64 had a grain RMS of 11. Provia 100F is at 8. Astia 100F is at 7. The old Ektachrome 100 is around 8 as well. K64 is beautiful...but it isnt a fine grain film by modern standards.

Click to expand...

Yes, K64 is most remembered for being grainy. Kodachrome 64 was one of the films I used when submitting stories of bicycle touring to magazines for publication. In 1988 I switched to Kodachrome 200 and that continued until at least 1994 when I switched to Velvia and Provia.

I prefer 35mm unless you intend to make bigger prints.

In my experience you can happily print fine-grained 35mm up to 12” or so. (Similar to what many people say about it being ok up to 11x14)

Despite what the detractors say, 645 is significantly bigger than 35mm. You have to generally crop the sides of 35mm, and once you’ve done that, it’s barely half the length and width of 645

I'd go for a 645, I've had mine over 30 years. As your a 5x4 user you expect a high level of image quality and you'd almost certainly regret shooting 35mm. the quality just isn't there.

Ian

You already had many good thoughts above.
I add my 2 cents:

Personally I think depends what you want to achieve. Couple of months ago I went for a 3 weeks trip in a pretty remote part of Indonesia (Maluku). My goal was to print the negatives up to 16x20 and avoid a tripod because often it slows me down far too much for quite dynamic subjects. I had your same dilemma: 35mm or Pentax67?

At the end I packed my Pentax67 system with AE prim and a lot of film (mainly TMAX 400). I had around 4-5 kg of stuff on my shoulders. In a nutshell I was very happy with the results (http://www.fbolla.com/thespiceislands.html). The 120 format allowed me to print crisp and nice 16x20 by using a rather fast film (ISO400) without using a tripod.

For another small week project I made this summer I focused on more landscape/static subjects. This time 1-day hike, max a couple of hours walk form the car. I decided to carry a tripod, a spot meter, use a hood viewfinder and a slow film (Acros 100). The quality of the negatives is of course amazing and print can be made up to 20x24 without losing quality.

So yes. It depends. My 2 cents in Set your goals and pack accordingly

Cheers,
Ferru

PS: Last advantage of 120 format: the rolls don't have any metal part! In Asia they seem to love the x-ray machines so in my trip to Maluku I was sticking them around my legs! In total I passed 24 scanners! Now, I know that should not be a problem...but why should I risk?

Most of my thoughts on this thread have already been expressed but I would like to add a few observations. While the laws of chemistry and physics can not be altered, I have seen very large sharp pictures taken with subminiature Minox cameras that can rival much larger formats. For me, such quality has only happened very, very rarely by accident and quite unintended. I admire Serious traveling far from home with a Hasselblad. A Hassy or 4x5 goes with me only by car until I reach my destination . A quality 35mm is convenient for most travel but the smaller the camera the better. For a trip to the dentist I slip an XA, Rollei 35 or Minox into my pocket.
But while traveling camera equipment should not be a burden or a constant worry.

David Luttmann said:

I was just reviewing a few photos I took in Arizona and throught out Death Valley. I used a Bessa R2a, 35 f1.7 Ultron, and Fuji Astia 100F. Scanned at 4000 ppi on a Nikon 5000. With a tiny bit of sharpening in Lightroom, the 16x24 prints I've produced have a decent enough amount of detail. Grain is visible, but pleasing and natural to the eye.

I now mainly carry around an F5 as well. While 35mm wont match MF, the results with a good scan and proper processing can easily produce prints out to 16x24.

Click to expand...

Great that you can get the results you are happy with from the gear you carry. That's the important thing. To me, having the bigger negative means I can get a smoother, richer tonal range than I can from 35mm. Sometimes pore-counting isn't what I want to be doing.

I would say that you have to do your own testing and make a decision that suits you. Sharpness as described by most people here is a subjective measure, what they really mean is 'it was sharp enough for me'. I am also a 5x4" user and I don't think there would be many situations where 35mm film would be my media of choice now. That Steve McCurry shot looks soft compared to what I am used to producing with LF or digital. Furthermore the F5 would seem to be the worst of both worlds for travelling. Almost as heavy as a Hassleblad or similar but with 25% of the quality. Of all the cameras I have at the moment (Olympus XA, Eos 3, TLR, Pentax 67, 5x4 and pro canon DSLR's) I would be most inclines to take a TLR and a DSLR with standard zoom. I have take the Pentax 67 away a few times and I have always found it's weight to be a constant drain on my enjoyment of the trip. A TLR is light enough that you can take it everywhere with you and not feel burdened, A DSLR is a good addition that provides flexability and a modern reliable back up.

To a large degree my travel kit depends on where and how I am traveling. If I am driving, either a road trip or renting a car I will travel with MF and LF. If I will be on public transport, bus, metros, or will be climbing a lot of stairs I tend towards 35mm and DSRL. If I'm not driving but do want to take a MFL, I don't have a 645, I take a 6X6 folder or a Yashica D TLR. In terms of 35mm I agree with Tobes71, a full boat pro level body is over kill. I have a Minolta 9 but travel with a 600SI, lighter, somewhat smaller, if something happens to do, costs less an $40 to replace. Are there are times that I would Minolta 9? Yes if I plan on shooting wildlife or sports faster FPS.

If you decide on MF then a 645 system is an option, if you want to stick with 35mm then I would get 2 N90s, 3 lens, and a high light weight tripod and leave the F5 at home.