Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

[warden]

If it's not a financial burden go for medium format and experiment with it before your trip. What have you got to lose?

Since you mentioned starting a darkroom I'll add that MF has been more fun in the darkroom than 35mm for me. A tiny blemish on a 35mm negative occupies a larger percentage of the negative than the same blemish on MF and as such is much more noticeable on the 35mm print.

35mm photography is plenty sharp enough for just about anyone (and certainly has enough detail for me) but why not find your own limit? I'll never shoot beyond MF because I don't need or want it in the darkroom or on the scanner.

Have fun!

 

[Michael Stubbs]

Dear all,

Thanks very much for all the input. Certainly food for thought!

I am currently erring towards a Pentax or Mamiya 645 system for the larger negatives/slides. Now the only thing to weigh up is the cost per photo of having the film developed compared to the additional quality gained. At one reasonably priced lab here in the UK I worked it out as 47p/photo for 645 and 18.3p/photo for 135.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

This sums it up nicely. If your intent is photography then take the MF camera. If photography is secondary, then consider smaller formats.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

Regardless of formats, I do my cropping before I take the photograph. I do not enjoy working with a tiny sliver of any format, especially 35mm.

 

[bsdunek]

While I'm more likely to take my Nikons, I do often take my Rolleiflex on trips. I, too, like the larger negative. If we're driving or flying our own, I take my Mamiya Super 23 kit. I really love that camera and the results are surly worth it.
I will also say, that 11 X 14's and 16 X 20's are fine with 35mm if you use slower film, crop with the camera, focus properly, and hold the camera still. Been doing it for years.

 

[RattyMouse]

Dear all,

Thanks very much for all the input. Certainly food for thought!

I am currently erring towards a Pentax or Mamiya 645 system for the larger negatives/slides. Now the only thing to weigh up is the cost per photo of having the film developed compared to the additional quality gained. At one reasonably priced lab here in the UK I worked it out as 47p/photo for 645 and 18.3p/photo for 135.

For travel photography, the size of the camera can have a great impact on how comfortably and easily you can travel. Some medium format cameras can offer you both larger negative size AND small, very easily carried cameras. What you have to give up to get this is a large variety of focal lengths.

Others have already mentioned the Fuji GA645i. This camera is extremely small, and very light. It shoots at an effective focal length of 38mm (slightly wide). I've traveled all over Asia with this camera. It is a wonderful camera with a extraordinarily good lens. I would couple this camera with a Fuji GA645Wi. Same camera, but with a an effective focal length of 27mm (even more wide). These two together, for me, handle 99% of the focal lengths I have wanted during many years of travel. Typically I'll throw a Nikon FM2n in my bag with a 20mm lens or 50mm lens if I want one last different focal length, but often I just leave the 35mm camera at home and travel with those two focal lengths.

You get big, glorious negatives, and a travel bag that is so light that I can't properly describe it. You have to feel how light it is to believe it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dear all,

Thanks very much for all the input. Certainly food for thought!

I am currently erring towards a Pentax or Mamiya 645 system for the larger negatives/slides. Now the only thing to weigh up is the cost per photo of having the film developed compared to the additional quality gained. At one reasonably priced lab here in the UK I worked it out as 47p/photo for 645 and 18.3p/photo for 135.

Develop your own films it's very easy, and a lot more economic, I began aged about 9 or 10 You don't even need a darkroom !

Ian

 

[Luckless]

When asking "What camera should I travel with", I always end up coming back around to asking "What camera do you do photography with? And why do you choose that?"

If you're typically using a 35mm camera when you're around your home town, then odds are good that a 35mm might be your best bet to travel with. If you're normally using a medium format, then taking a medium format along to continue your photography while you're on vacation is a fairly sensible idea, even if it means dealing with lugging the larger camera along.

If you are considering a switch in formats or even just a switch in equipment, then it is far better to do so well Before you head out on vacation. - Getting home from a once in a lifetime trip is not the time to realize that your fancy new camera has a manual safety gate over the film plane that you forgot to lower, or that you can look through the viewfinder on a range finder camera while the lens cap is still on, or that the shutter on the new-to-you camera that arrived just as you were heading to the airport is lagging or sticking.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’ve demonstrated that a Minox can give as much detail as 8x10.

It was done with tongue in cheek and patently untrue. But it was fun making the comparisons.

Detail, in fact, is what larger formats give. Smaller film formats have grain where larger formats have real image detail. When the subject is of nature, one can hardly be distinguished from the other.

If you want to bring home the detail, bring the larger format.

 

[mhanc]

If your intent is photography then take the MF camera. If photography is secondary, then consider smaller formats.

+1... in my experience going back a long time, the number of photos made on a trip is inversely proportional to the size / weight / complexity of the camera taken. its just easier to take a photo with a 35mm camera than it is with a bulky MF camera; therefore, you simply end up with more shots. however, the best photos i have take while traveling have been made with a MF camera.

 

[M Carter]

These discussions are always interesting to me, since they say a lot about why a given person shoots film and what their uses are. Some folks shoot dozens of rolls of 35, some take a 4x5.

Me, I only do darkroom printing of anything other than "chase the grandbaby with a DSLR". I'm at the point that when I look through the VF, I ask myself "am I sure I'll want to print this??" and often just move on. But I do want the biggest neg possible for making masks and so on (and I like big prints). So for me, a backpack, RB67, a wide lens, a spot meter, filter wallet, couple backs, and my 6x6 pinhole tends to do it. I may do a really photo-centric overseas trip next winter, but really just a lighter tripod should be all I'll upgrade to. Happily for me, my ratio of negs to final prints has gotten pretty high - I have a backlog going now. And I use a lot less film than I used to.

 

[etn]

I think there is no right or wrong answer here, and the amount of different (good) advice and opinions in this thread proves it.
It all comes down to what you want to achieve and how much you want to carry.

In my personal case, it comes down to 3 distinct cases:
#1 I go on a trip whose main purpose is photography. I take the Hasselblad and 3 or 4 lenses, tripod, 2-3 film backs, close-up rings, B&W filters, and a bunch of film. The primary issue is not carrying but "political": my Girlfriend doesn't (always) mind me taking time for setting up the tripod, working 30 minutes on a picture etc., when she does the same. Fortunately she likes photography too. We just need to define in advance, are we going to shoot or are we going to do something else today. The secondary issue is weight. My Girlfriend's not that strong. (joking ) I wouldn't make a 10-mile hike with it but with a good backpack it is quite manageable, though.

#2 The purpose of the trip is not primarily photography, but I know there will be nice landscapes and some time to take pictures.
I take a Rolleiflex and either Velvia or Tri-X (depending on the mood and destination), or a 35mm rangefinder with a few lenses.
The Rolleiflex was my one-and-only camera for 10 years and went everywhere with me on the planet during that time, by the way. I have been experimenting with an SWC as a single travel camera recently. It is a very interesting piece of kit when you try to do "everything" with that ultra-wide angle lens. No cropping allowed. It makes for a very nice challenge! but really good especially in urban environments.

#3 The purpose is not photography but hanging around with friends, party, etc. Here I want something small, quick and inconspicuous, typically a small rangefinder and one lens (e.g. Leica M3 + summicron 50 + Tri X. Love that combo! Actually, I love all the previously mentioned cameras too! Am I a gearhead?? )

 

[Jacob Weiss]

I can't travel anywhere without my Bronica ETRSi honestly. I usually take the speedgrip off and store it in a front pocket, then the camera even with the finder barely takes up space in my bag (less then my Canon A2e). Also, with a good undermount screw in strap you can sling over your shoulder while hiking or walking through the town

 

[k.hendrik]

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!!

Dear M. if this is your problem, there are only two answers: stay at home don't travel or travel and leave your camera's at home...

 

[Johnkpap]

My advice is:- Keep it simple and light, and if you are going anywhere remote or hot you want to be as non battery dependant as possible, for medium format there are a number of small 645 rangefinders I have a Fuji gs645s that has traveled all over the world. For 35mm most major brands made a mechanical compact model, last trip I took my Pentax lx the trip before a Nikon FE. You really need to pack no more than 3 lenses. A Nikon F5 is a great camera but it is big loud heavy and sucks battery's, I just pack 6 button l44 battery's , some basic filters (Pentax and Fuji use 49mm) a lot of film and you are done.

Johnkpap

 

[Alan Gales]

I don't even shoot 35mm anymore except for my Stereo Realist.

I can totally see taking my Minolta Autocord on vacation.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Whether it's practical to lug a 4x5 camera and lenses about on a trip to Asia is best asked after the second or third day. In my own personal experience traveling to Canada with several cameras I would now limit myself to one SLR and a couple of lenses. If you are concerned about resolution with 135 film then use a slow film.

In some countries if you have too many cameras you may be forced to pay duty as customs may believe to intend to sell them. Also US customs on your return may ask for sales receipts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1... in my experience going back a long time, the number of photos made on a trip is inversely proportional to the size / weight / complexity of the camera taken. its just easier to take a photo with a 35mm camera than it is with a bulky MF camera; therefore, you simply end up with more shots. however, the best photos i have take while traveling have been made with a MF camera.

More than once I planned on printing 16"x16" prints when I was taking the photograph but ended up printing larger, up to 30"x30".

 

[DREW WILEY]

When I'm traveling with my wife, I try to strictly limit view camera use, or don't bring big slow gear at all. So instead I'll tote either a P67 system, or a Fuji 6X9 RF, which hand-holds even better than my Nikon, and still provides a larger neg than 645, but has only one lens.

 

[johnalever]

I am primarily a digital shooter (the horrors!) and I'd not take only film cameras on a trip. I don't consider my film skills adequate to capture a location that I may never see again. But for a second camera, I'm thinking of a very small Agfa Isolette that I purchased from Jurgen years ago. Medium format in a portable package. For a more modern camera, I'd go for a Fuji MF rangefinder.

 

[MattKing]

You may find that you would be happier using one format while you travel, but happier with the resulting negatives or transparencies from another format when you return.
Or maybe not - it depends a lot on what you want and like and like to do.
I like the results from all my formats. I'd rather travel with two Olympus OM bodies and three lenses.

 

[mikemgb]

Dear all,

Thanks very much for all the input. Certainly food for thought!

I am currently erring towards a Pentax or Mamiya 645 system for the larger negatives/slides. Now the only thing to weigh up is the cost per photo of having the film developed compared to the additional quality gained. At one reasonably priced lab here in the UK I worked it out as 47p/photo for 645 and 18.3p/photo for 135.

Develop your own films it's very easy, and a lot more economic, I began aged about 9 or 10 You don't even need a darkroom !

Ian

As Ian said, start developing your own, it really isn't difficult, you have total control and you usually get better results than a lab.

 

[etn]

a) Add a second F5 for backup and a new lense or two,

Do you absolutely need a backup? The F5 isn’t particularly known to be unreliable...
Or do you want to have a 2nd kind of film? e.g. one color one B&W? (in which case it’s not exactly a backup)

As a side note, I love the following write-up, well worth a read IMO:
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.de/2012/05/what-i-learned-when-i-dragged.html

 

[tomfrh]

Regardless of formats, I do my cropping before I take the photograph

What I meant is 645 tends to fit better with common paper sizes (e.g. 8x10) than 35mm does. I often find I'm governed by the vertical dimension with 35mm negs, which leaves the ends of the image overhanging the paper. This doesn't happen so much in 645 in my experience. 42mm vertical is a lot more than 24mm vertical dimension.

 

[Down Under]

Or you could go uber-minimalist and take only the simplest possible gear.

Some years ago purely on a whim I went to Bali for two weeks with a Voigtlander Perkeo II (the Color-Skopar lens model), a Weston Master V, a yellow-green filter,a lens hood, and (mostly B&W) film. That's all. Nothing else.

I had a wonderful time, for once photography wasn't my main (and major) preoccupation to the detriment of everything else to do and enjoy in beautiful Bali. The 12 on 120 square format isn't my preferred format (I'm more a 645 sort of person), but I didn't let that deter me, and I took some truly gorgeous images, mostly of static subjects - temples, statues, beaches with fishing boats in the foreground, rice fields framed by gently swaying palms, jungle scenes with smoking volcanoes in the background. Several shots were sold and published.

Another great thing about taking so little gear, was I didn't worry about gear, where it was,did I have it with me,or was it secure. I just went out and shot and shot and shot,about 40 rolls IIRC, mostly B&W but also some color negative film.

I've not repeated that experience since, but I often think I should take my own advice and take the least possible amount of equipment when I travel next time.So here I am today in Sibu, Sarawak, with a D700 and four lenses, a D90, and a Rolleicord. At my age. Old dogs, new tricks? Huh. .