Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have taken my full, RB67 kit (3 lenses, 2 holders) to Japan many times. Worth it each time.

 

[Soeren]

:

not everyone on this forum is a die-hard Hasselblad fan like you and me...

Ahh Hasle blad. Ive heard of it once years ago

 

[Svenedin]

Which is which? Having been web-sized, they're hard to tell apart. I'm assuming the 35mm one is the color one from the aspect ratio, but I could have that backwards and you just cropped both.

Yes you are right. The colour photograph is 35mm. The 6x7 is cropped of some foreground and the 35mm is slightly cropped at the edges.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes you are right. The colour photograph is 35mm. The 6x7 is cropped of some foreground and the 35mm is slightly cropped at the edges.

I like the 6x7.

 

[Svenedin]

I like the 6x7.

Thanks. I can’t wet print colour but I can monochrome. Someday I’d like to take the same scene, same film one in 35mm and the other on 6x7 and print them both on 8"x10" paper. Not to prove a point but so I can hold both prints in my hand and compare. I might use XP2 for that comparison.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks. I can’t wet print colour but I can monochrome. Someday I’d like to take the same scene, same film one in 35mm and the other on 8x10. Not to prove a point but so I can hold both prints in my hand and compare. I might use XP2 for that comparison.

If you're going to do a true accurate comparison, you should use the same film for both formats, shoot the same scene, and print to the same size.

 

[Svenedin]

If you're going to do a true accurate comparison, you should use the same film for both formats, shoot the same scene, and print to the same size.

Yes that is what I had intended to say but somehow typed incorrectly (I have edited the post)

 

[Down Under]

So much good advice, so many choices. Bite the bullet, buy a Zeiss Nettar or a Voigtlander Perkeo from Ebay or a reliable secondhand seller, take a shipload of film, a lens hood and one or two filters, and off you go. Meter with a digital camera or take a small hand meter like a Weston Master (I favor the Euromaster or the V, but I have a 1953 III which meters as good as the day it came out of the Sangamo factory).

You will travel more lightly and consequently more freely, think less about your gear, and free your mind to concentrate on getting the best shots. The way to go, I reckon.

The Buddhists say the journey is more important than the destination in the way of life. They have an excellent point. Many a time at one or another tourist site (Angkor Wat or Borobudur being two examples) in Asia, I've silently spat the dummy at some tourist who blocks everyone's way and fusses with a clunky camera, playing with shutter speeds and f/stops and metering, then moves about to get the perfect shop. Come to think of it, I'm probably that tourist, with my Rolleicord Vb, pockets bulging with roll film and two Westons around my neck. Ah so! as Mr Moto would say.

KISS is fun, applied to all good things in life, even - especially - photography...

 

[Michael Stubbs]

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.

Fuuny you should mention slow film, because it has slowly dawned on me that this could actually make the decision for me.

Without doubt, I'd like to the quality and look of medium format, although I have to say I'd be keen on a sharp lens setup, not this blurry look favoured by some wedding photographers. Anyway, as someone that shoots 35mm on occassion but normally 5x4, I am very much aware that the bigger the system, the more you stop down to get depth of field. The point being, medium format would require longer shutter speeds than 35mm for the same photo because the f stop would be bigger to get the equivalenet depth of field. Since the films of choice would be Ektar 100 or 100ASA slide film, for the colours, and FP4+ for B&W, ould I be correct in thinking that this could throw up problems?

Completely random I know, but I think I read somewhere that Mamiya lenses tend to be cooler, and Pentax lenses a bit on the warm side. Would anyone here agree with that? I was dead set on Mamiya if I ever went medium format, but have noticed the availability of unused Pentax 645nii cameras which, whilst considerably more expensive, is an interesting proposition from the point of view of how long they might last before needing repairs or being chucked out.

Finally, apologies for disappearing and not responding to everyone's recent answers. The system decided not to alert me via email as it did when I first started the thread.

 

[Michael Stubbs]

These situations, you just need to try it out and go by experience. At the end of the day you can leave the big stuff in your hotel and use the lighter stuff, maybe use the heavier stuff strategically at certain times.

Yes, what type of trip is it, are you with others, is it just sightseeing etc ... are you using public transportation and outside all day.

It would be a photography trip and would just be me. Most likely I'd use public transport. I'm a big guy and bigger cameras are no problem for me to carry and use, but in this instance I am weighing up actually transporting the kit, as well as technical issues like needing longer shutter speeds and greater f stops on medium format resulting in potential image blur.

 

[Prest_400]

as well as technical issues like needing longer shutter speeds and greater f stops on medium format resulting in potential image blur.

It's worth noting that. IMO handheld MF down to 1/125 can be OK but of course the technically best way is to shoot on a tripod. So in a way it offsets the advantage of MF's potential higher resolution. Another option is offsetting this by using a Film like Portra 400 instead of Ektar, trading off some qualities...

MF's acreage brings some fantastic tonality and together with the DoF limitations, the "Medium Format Look" has been embraced and widespread.

 

[Michael Stubbs]

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).

In this particular case, it is entirely for photography. However, in many ways, potential issues remain the same: size of kit (for transport purposes), potential issues with having to use slower shutter speeds etc, increased use of film compared to 35mm.

Just weighing it all up because, as someone who likes big prints and loves the 3D look of medium format film, it is obvious 120 is the way to go. However, those other issues need balancing. I am conscious of the comments pointing out that it is no good taking gear of great quality that is inconvenient to use, resulting in missed opportunities. Hence I am not taking the large format kit. Of course, the 'sensible' option would be a D750 and zoom lenses, but I very much prefer the look of film photographs in both colour and B&W. I have to say I prefer the 5:4 ratio and close to it rather than 35mm, but everything is a compromise, isn't it.

 

[Craig75]

Ive never used one but travelwide 5x4 looks very small and lightweight.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Funny you should mention slow film, because it has slowly dawned on me that this could actually make the decision for me.

Without doubt, I'd like to the quality and look of medium format, although I have to say I'd be keen on a sharp lens setup, not this blurry look favoured by some wedding photographers. Anyway, as someone that shoots 35mm on occasion but normally 5x4, I am very much aware that the bigger the system, the more you stop down to get depth of field. The point being, medium format would require longer shutter speeds than 35mm for the same photo because the f stop would be bigger to get the equivalent depth of field. Since the films of choice would be Ektar 100 or 100ASA slide film, for the colours, and FP4+ for B&W, could I be correct in thinking that this could throw up problems?

Completely random I know, but I think I read somewhere that Mamiya lenses tend to be cooler, and Pentax lenses a bit on the warm side. Would anyone here agree with that? I was dead set on Mamiya if I ever went medium format, but have noticed the availability of unused Pentax 645nii cameras which, whilst considerably more expensive, is an interesting proposition from the point of view of how long they might last before needing repairs or being chucked out.

Finally, apologies for disappearing and not responding to everyone's recent answers. The system decided not to alert me via email as it did when I first started the thread.

I avoid these problems entirely by normally using ISO 400 films in all format cameras. That way if I want a large depth of field I use a slower shutter speed; if I want a small depth of field I use a faster shutter speed. ISO 400 allows the flexibility to choose my depth of field. Today's films are much finer grained then those of the past so why not enjoy and utilize the film advancements. Plus using MF especially with Zeiss lenses, I get great optical performance and the advantages of a negative larger than 35mm. My MF cameras are my go to cameras for travel when I want to do serious photography. I drop back to 35mm when I will be in a situation that I will not have the luxury of slowing others down or if photography is relatively minor relative the the vacation goals.

 

[NJH]

Anyway, as someone that shoots 35mm on occassion but normally 5x4, I am very much aware that the bigger the system, the more you stop down to get depth of field. The point being, medium format would require longer shutter speeds than 35mm for the same photo because the f stop would be bigger to get the equivalenet depth of field. Since the films of choice would be Ektar 100 or 100ASA slide film, for the colours, and FP4+ for B&W, ould I be correct in thinking that this could throw up problems?

For me the solution to this problem is monopod, gets me back the 1.5 to 2 stops by allowing surprisingly slow shutter speeds with careful use. Also ideal with 6x6 systems as you don't need to turn the camera on its side and can make a pseudo tripod by pushing the camera into your chest with the monopod leg out front, and your legs making the other 2 legs of the tripod. OK obviously slower than 35mm hand held but its a case of horses for courses for me, I am happy to work this way with MF in the countryside and use 35mm for quick hand held work such as if I was going walkabout in a town or city.

 

[trondareo]

I carried a Mamiya 7 round Iceland this summer. Tri-x400 and 80 and 150 lenses. I was very happy with the setup. No more difficult to carry and shoot than a DSLR. A pocket full of film rolls. Will do it again. Depth of field and speed was adequate down to heavy overcast daylight.

 

[cowanw]

Fuuny you should mention slow film, because it has slowly dawned on me that this could actually make the decision for me.

The point being, medium format would require longer shutter speeds than 35mm for the same photo because the f stop would be bigger to get the equivalenet depth of field. Since the films of choice would be Ektar 100 or 100ASA slide film, for the colours, and FP4+ for B&W, ould I be correct in thinking that this could throw up problems? QUOTE]

I always get confused when I read things like this. I try to remember that with the same magnification factor there is no difference in depth of field. Of course if you go for a greater magnification with medium format then you pay for it

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ive never used one but travelwide 5x4 looks very small and lightweight.

I have a Travelwide, which I use as a pinhole camera. In that configuration it is extremely light-weight, but since the f-stop is roughly f/200 iirc, it's too slow to use hand-held. Even at bright sunny conditions with FP4+ loaded, you're at more or less 1-2 seconds. It's also EXTREMELY wide in that setup - 65mm focal length (18-19mm-ish). I have a 100mm lens I've put in the focusing helical and will try that out one day. Regardless, it's a specialty camera, not a general-purpose camera. Maybe someday I'll take it with me on a trip, but I'm not seeing it as the primary/only camera.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's worth noting that. IMO handheld MF down to 1/125 can be OK but of course the technically best way is to shoot on a tripod. So in a way it offsets the advantage of MF's potential higher resolution. Another option is offsetting this by using a Film like Portra 400 instead of Ektar, trading off some qualities...

MF's acreage brings some fantastic tonality and together with the DoF limitations, the "Medium Format Look" has been embraced and widespread.

Eh- that depends. I know that the 1/125th gets tossed around as a rule for hand-holding medium format, especially with reflex cameras, and maybe I'm freakish this way, but I routinely pull off 1/30th or even 1/15th hand-held, even with my RZ 67. In my Rolleiflex which doesn't have a moving mirror, I can pull off 1/4 without hesitation, and have been known from time to time to successfully attempt 1 second exposures if I can brace myself well. I could do the same (1/15th) with the Hasselblad back in those days.

 

[Charles S]

I use a monopod with my Blad. Small enough to fit inside my suitcase, light enough to carry around, it gives me the little extra support to shoot at 1/15th in a pinch.
When I am on vacation with the family, the MF gear stays at home, but when I travel for photography, it is all about image quality; weight and inconvenience don't matter

 

[Prest_400]

Eh- that depends. I know that the 1/125th gets tossed around as a rule for hand-holding medium format, especially with reflex cameras, and maybe I'm freakish this way, but I routinely pull off 1/30th or even 1/15th hand-held.

True. You just made me realise, I mostly think 1/125 as I often take the camera after some effort (bicycle, a slight overpowered walk to get to a spot) and the higher pulse brings more trembling. I have a couple frames with trepidation at 1/125 because of being rushed.
When Relaxed and with some technique 1/30 and 1/15 can be fine. Texas Leica ain't got a Mirror that slaps.

 

[FujiLove]

Eh- that depends. I know that the 1/125th gets tossed around as a rule for hand-holding medium format, especially with reflex cameras, and maybe I'm freakish this way, but I routinely pull off 1/30th or even 1/15th hand-held, even with my RZ 67. In my Rolleiflex which doesn't have a moving mirror, I can pull off 1/4 without hesitation, and have been known from time to time to successfully attempt 1 second exposures if I can brace myself well. I could do the same (1/15th) with the Hasselblad back in those days.

Totally agree. I took a handheld shot of the inside of an abandoned factory in Tallinn a couple of years ago with a Pentax 6x7 at 1/15th (or 1/30th, can't remember), and it came out just fine. Yet according to the Internet the 6x7 has such a huge mirror slap that it requires a tripod for anything slower than 1/500th.

I've taken 1/2 second shots handheld with my Rolleicord that look just fine when printed...and that was pre-service when the slow speeds were really slooooooooow

 

[Craig75]

Eh- that depends. I know that the 1/125th gets tossed around as a rule for hand-holding medium format, especially with reflex cameras, and maybe I'm freakish this way, but I routinely pull off 1/30th or even 1/15th hand-held, even with my RZ 67. In my Rolleiflex which doesn't have a moving mirror, I can pull off 1/4 without hesitation, and have been known from time to time to successfully attempt 1 second exposures if I can brace myself well. I could do the same (1/15th) with the Hasselblad back in those days.

Exactly. The smaller the camera the quicker the shutter the speed in my experience. Lot easier to shake a very small light camera than a bigger heavier one!

 

[andy_shoots_]

Hello,

My 2 cents: Couple months ago I took a short road trip were i brought a 35mm and 4x5. Personally the 35mm just missed the mark with the level of detail i can pull using a Epson scanner. The speed of 35mm was very convenient but for my controlled and methodical approach these benefits seemed negligible. The 4x5 was great but without a car the system is cumbersome, i am a young guy but after carrying it for half a day i would lose the enthusiasm to shoot.

I have two trips coming up so i decided to invest in a Mamiya 7, Which i feel is a bit of the best of both worlds. My biggest concern is if it decides to stop working the repair bill will be hefty, but its a gamble i though was worth taking.

 

[NJH]

I like rangefinders but one has to ask oneself if you want to do telephoto work or any form of closeup photography, for me the answer was yes so despite loving Leica Ms I bypassed the two Mamiya MF systems. Its often overlooked but high quality telephoto photography was one of the big use cases for MF SLR systems in domains such as aerial photography for example. OK some of those lenses will be a bit much for travel but the 250 Sonnar for Hasselblad, and its optically identical cousin for Rollei are reasonable size and weight, I carry mine and wouldn't consider travelling without it.