Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

[johnnyh]

If you don't mind looking amongst older cameras, there are plenty of 6x6 or 6x9 folders with decent-to-excellent lenses and which will slip into a jacket pocket. For landscape I like a wide-angle 6x9 camera; I've hacked myself a pocketable one that can take a pancake lens in the F=60 to 65mm region, but you should be able to find one of the Fuji 'Texas Leica' models more easily.
[CLARIFICATION following comment] Relaxing the 'pocketability' criterion,you should be able to find one of the Fuji 'Texas Leica' models more easily.

 

[BMbikerider]

Medium format for travel photography is a wonderful thought. Set aside the cost because med format equipment apart from later models of Hasselblad is quite affordable. What cannot be compromised with travel photography is weight.

If you think about say a Bronica SQA with a 50mm 80mm and a 150mm lens the weight can be (is several kilos). Add to that a reasonable tripod, ball and socket head, (add another 3-4 kilos). for me a good travel photography kit would be a good camera body say from Nikon or Canon either 3 prime lenses, a 28mm, a 50mm and a 105 or 135mm. They can be either manual or AF, it doesn't matter There is very little that you cannot photograph with that outfit. Add a medium weight tripod with a B&S head and you can do almost anything. If your forte is close up, a 105mm macro is as good as a normal focus 105mm.

Loading your self down with equipment that you will in all probability not use can only hamper your choice of where you go. As it was said a good few posts back a 35mm colour neg will give you a good 12x16 print without really struggling. If you prefer B&W then use than. Even adding a 2nd body will still weigh less than a medium format outfit.

I have not even mentioned film, filters, batteries or flash, because in the greater picture they are very little to carry.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I have a Hassy with the full complement of lenses but I generally use only the 80mm. One body with an 80mm lens, some film and a tripod is a pretty compact kit. It also helps to be selective about what you shoot, meaning have a project or series in mind. That helps narrow down your lens selection as well as the subject matter.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you don't mind looking amongst older cameras, there are plenty of 6x6 or 6x9 folders with decent-to-excellent lenses and which will slip into a jacket pocket. For landscape I like a wide-angle 6x9 camera; I've hacked myself a pocketable one that can take a pancake lens in the F=60 to 65mm region, but you should be able to find one of the Fuji 'Texas Leica' models more easily.

Those "Texas Leicas" are NOT pocketable. The lens on it is quite substantial, and does not collapse. On the earliest models (the Fujica GL 690 series) they did have interchangeable lenses, so you could put the camera body in one pocket and the lens in another (provided they were large and durable pockets).

 

[johnnyh]

Those "Texas Leicas" are NOT pocketable. The lens on it is quite substantial, and does not collapse. On the earliest models (the Fujica GL 690 series) they did have interchangeable lenses, so you could put the camera body in one pocket and the lens in another (provided they were large and durable pockets).

Ah, I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote. I did not mean to suggest that the 'Texas Leica' are pocketable, I just mentioned them as a candidate for 6x9 wide angle photography, not linked to the 'pocketability' of the previous text.

 

[mhanc]

more or less, the consensus here seems to be 120 is the preferred format... however, the size and weight make 120 less than optimal for traveling. there have also been a number of suggestions for minimalist 120 kits.

my minimalist [and only] 120 kit is a rolleiflex. its not that much bigger than a 35mm slr or even RF camera and the weight is comparable. if one shoots handheld, its not necessary to take a tripod.

what are others' minimalist 120 kits? a few that i can think of are a number of the RF type 120 cameras and various folders... and of course holga!

 

[Prest_400]

I got a texas leica GW690 and it wasn't that cumbersome while traveling. It is large and 8 exp per roll makes you slow a bit for reloading. Last trip was 3 days around and it wasn't that cumbersome, it is just like a larger 35mm with less exposures per roll. Could do much worse as a travel camera... The fun part is ask some LF shooters who would respond that a MF is a snapshot camera, heh. IMO 645 or 6x6 is a nice travel format as it would require less reloading than 6x9; though 645 SLRs are heavier. My ideal would be a GF670 or Mamiya 7.
As of digital, I carried a borrowed large sensor compact. Good for the snapshooting. At the end it depends of each person.

 

[Craig75]

Depends on what you are doing, if you will be on your own and where you are going. Some places i wouldnt like anything bigger than a minox. Other places anything goes. Some places its good to have small medical kit, water, sunscreen / insect repellent. Other places you wont need anything.

 

[wiltw]

Medium format for travel photography is a wonderful thought. Set aside the cost because med format equipment apart from later models of Hasselblad is quite affordable. What cannot be compromised with travel photography is weight.

The difference can be substantial with film.
But the difference of medium format film vs. the digital SLR an be not so significant for comparable outfits

• Olympus OM-1 + 35-70mm f/3.6 = 2 lb. 3 oz.
• Canon 40D + 17-55mm f/2.8 = 3lb 10oz,
• Canon 1DsIII + 24-70mm f/2.8 = 4lb 10oz,
• Bronica ETRSi + prism + magazine + speedgrip + 45-90mm = 5lb 9oz

 

[RattyMouse]

My ideal would be a GF670 or Mamiya 7.
As of digital, I carried a borrowed large sensor compact. Good for the snapshooting. At the end it depends of each person.

A Mamiya 7 with a set of 3 lenses would indeed be ideal. I went with the Fuji GF670 and paired it up with a GF670W. Both cameras fit into a very small bag and are easily carried during an entire day out. I get two focal lengths of medium format goodness. Manual focus too!

For an even smaller, lighter kit, the same set up can be replicated with the Fuji GA645 & GA645W.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I am not a great fan of the shape of 35mm nor 645. Additionally, I make the print, mat and frame fit the composition and do not as a rule force my work to fit a paper format.

 

[Alan Gales]

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.

Stay far away from a Stereo Realist camera then. They produce two small images on 35mm slide film. You then have to cut and mount the "chips" in special slide mounts. It can get tiresome if you mount a lot of slides at once. I love the images viewed in a 3D viewer but slide mounting isn't my favorite thing to do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not a great fan of the shape of 35mm nor 645. Additionally, I make the print, mat and frame fit the composition and do not as a rule force my work to fit a paper format.

Stay far away from a Stereo Realist camera then. They produce two small images on 35mm slide film. You then have to cut and mount the "chips" in special slide mounts. It can get tiresome if you mount a lot of slides at once. I love the images viewed in a 3D viewer but slide mounting isn't my favorite thing to do.

I gave up stereo photography because I could not figure out where to plug in the head phones.

 

[tomfrh]

I am not a great fan of the shape of 35mm nor 645. Additionally, I make the print, mat and frame fit the composition and do not as a rule force my work to fit a paper format.

Makes sense.

Makes sense. I'm more of a casual shooter and tend to print to standard sizes. The vertical dimension is what seems to govern in my experience, so I find 645 gives me more advantage than the difference in diagonal dimensions would suggest.

If 645 negs onto 3:2 ratio paper it would be the other way around of course, with the 645 provide less advantage...

 

[pbromaghin]

After really getting hooked on 6x6 folders and Mamiya tlrs, I picked up a Zeiss 645 Super Ikonta last year. It is smaller, lighter, more pocketable, and the image area is about what a square format would yield when cropped for printing.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

My film camera requirements for a trip like this would include interchangeable lenses, interchangeable film backs, and between-the-lens shutters. I would probably consider taking a Mamiya Universal Press camera. While a little on the large and klunky side, they can be good for spontaneous photography. I have the "G" adapter back so as to use Graflex film holders for mine. Add a tripod and the ground glass on the back, and they can be suitable for more careful, fine-art work.

In medium format, I would not want to use any of the Mamiya 645 cameras, because of their focal plane shutters. While they have fast shutter speeds, it still takes the slit quite a while to traverse the film format. (Not for me.)

 

[Svenedin]

Personally I find taking too much photographic equipment can spoil my travel experience (and that of others with me). Less is more for me. I don't want to be encumbered and I also don't want to be worrying all the time about theft. Having lots of camera equipment can be a way of drawing (unwanted) attention to oneself. It's all very well to crave the nice big MF negative over 35mm but to take two system cameras in different formats and associated lenses and accessories is too much for me. There's such a thing as enthusiasm for a hobby and going too far. For travel I use 35mm and occasionally a 6x6 or 6x7 folder for landscapes. I try to keep the number of lenses as low as possible and to use lenses that take the same size filters. It is usually possible to just walk closer or move further away rather than reach for yet another focal length. IMHO it is more important to enjoy travelling and to actually take some great pictures rather than be too concerned with which format they are in and perhaps not take the photograph at all!

 

[wiltw]

Personally I find taking too much photographic equipment can spoil my travel experience (and that of others with me). Less is more for me. I don't want to be encumbered and I also don't want to be worrying all the time about theft. Having lots of camera equipment can be a way of drawing (unwanted) attention to oneself. It's all very well to crave the nice big MF negative over 35mm but to take two system cameras in different formats and associated lenses and accessories is too much for me. There's such a thing as enthusiasm for a hobby and going too far. For travel I use 35mm and occasionally a 6x6 or 6x7 folder for landscapes. I try to keep the number of lenses as low as possible and to use lenses that take the same size filters. It is usually possible to just walk closer or move further away rather than reach for yet another focal length. IMHO it is more important to enjoy travelling and to actually take some great pictures rather than be too concerned with which format they are in and perhaps not take the photograph at all!

^^^
In the past I have divided my travels into

1. those holidays on which photography is a primary motivation of the trip
2. those holidays on which photography is a secondary motivation of the trip

It seems that all too often guys mention travel to a theme park with their family, yet they lug along a whole SLR kit, so they can worry about their gear or skip going on fun rides upside-down and/or thru water. They miss half the fun of being at the theme park!

I have gone on extended trips to faraway lands with a medium format kit because photography and getting the best possible shots was my primary motivation.
I have gone on business tripos turned holidays, with a 135 format kit, because photos were very important but not quite to important as to bring medium format
I have gone on business trips with nothing but a compact P&S (with wide angle-thru-tele zoom and manual exposure capability) because photography was totally incidental to the trip

 

[Svenedin]

^^^
In the past I have divided my travels into

1. those holidays on which photography is a primary motivation of the trip
2. those holidays on which photography is a secondary motivation of the trip

It seems that all too often guys mention travel to a theme park with their family, yet they lug along a whole SLR kit, so they can worry about their gear or skip going on fun rides upside-down and/or thru water. They miss half the fun of being at the theme park!

I have gone on extended trips to faraway lands with a medium format kit because photography and getting the best possible shots was my primary motivation.
I have gone on business tripos turned holidays, with a 135 format kit, because photos were very important but not quite to important as to bring medium format
I have gone on business trips with nothing but a compact P&S (with wide angle-thru-tele zoom and manual exposure capability) because photography was totally incidental to the trip

The OP hasn't really said which of those categories he fits into. I can't say I've ever been on holiday with photography as the primary motivation but it is always a secondary. If I was going to a theme park (I've never been to one) I would be leaving my camera at home (and my sense of taste and sanity).

 

[Louis Nargi]

If you think as if the camera is a tool then you have to ask what I intend to shoot. if its street photography then a 35mm is a must if its landscapes and architecture then your medium format is the tool, if you plan on both then take your 35 mm and your medium format cameras.

 

[Prest_400]

A Mamiya 7 with a set of 3 lenses would indeed be ideal. I went with the Fuji GF670 and paired it up with a GF670W. Both cameras fit into a very small bag and are easily carried during an entire day out. I get two focal lengths of medium format goodness. Manual focus too!

For an even smaller, lighter kit, the same set up can be replicated with the Fuji GA645 & GA645W.

Indeed, or just a single camera with one lens. Better to take more film than another lens if going with limited space (air travel).
I forgot Rolleiflex, which has to be the most classy and elegant way to travel with MF.

Personally I find taking too much photographic equipment can spoil my travel experience (and that of others with me).

IMHO it is more important to enjoy travelling and to actually take some great pictures rather than be too concerned with which format they are in and perhaps not take the photograph at all!

That's well said! I think that even 2 cameras can be stressing if being too much into it (depends of the kind of trip too).
I don't carry my Fuji on a Strap, but rather in a bag and take it out when I see a shot. Slower but works ok and doesn't call attention of having a huge camera strapped Snapshooting tends to be on the digital.
Something that I tend to do before shooting 120 is doing a bit of location scouting, but that's on closer places.

I have an acquitance (shoots digital) who carries everything in a rather awkward backpack and is so slow in everything. Plus with 3 lenses, it's almost change time always. He went travelling to africa and his bag (together with SD card and a wide lens) got stolen.

 

[Craig75]

You could probably do a decent sized kit if you were on organised trip or renting a car. If you are getting around on back of moped or public transport then that shoulder is going to take too much punishment with multiple formats or a bag full of primes.

 

[chris77]

I have a Hassy with the full complement of lenses but I generally use only the 80mm. One body with an 80mm lens, some film and a tripod is a pretty compact kit. It also helps to be selective about what you shoot, meaning have a project or series in mind. That helps narrow down your lens selection as well as the subject matter.

+1

 

[RichardJack]

This is only my opinion:
If you enjoy shooting it, then it is worth it. It's not as flexible as far as lens choice and exposures and more work to carry, but if you love it, that does not matter.
For me, I would of considered it 20 years ago but these days I would never travel with a film camera, for hundreds of reasons than make more sense.
If you decide on MF, I hope you own a top notch film scanner and live close to a professional photofinisher you can trust.

 

[Svenedin]

Indeed, or just a single camera with one lens. Better to take more film than another lens if going with limited space (air travel).
I forgot Rolleiflex, which has to be the most classy and elegant way to travel with MF.


That's well said! I think that even 2 cameras can be stressing if being too much into it (depends of the kind of trip too).
I don't carry my Fuji on a Strap, but rather in a bag and take it out when I see a shot. Slower but works ok and doesn't call attention of having a huge camera strapped Snapshooting tends to be on the digital.
Something that I tend to do before shooting 120 is doing a bit of location scouting, but that's on closer places.

I have an acquitance (shoots digital) who carries everything in a rather awkward backpack and is so slow in everything. Plus with 3 lenses, it's almost change time always. He went travelling to africa and his bag (together with SD card and a wide lens) got stolen.

Absolutely. I've had 2 cameras stolen whilst out taking photographs over the years.