Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

wjlapier · Nov 8, 2017

I used a Fujifilm GA645zi this summer in Montana and had a great time shooting with it. More folks came up to me asking about the camera than when I was shooting a Leica M7 years ago.

I like the auto everything for quick photos.

I have a Certo Dolly Super Sport folder that just got new bellows for and it's the nicest smallest MF camera I have. Super sharp lens. I easily use it point and shoot in sunny daylight.

Sirius Glass · Nov 8, 2017

wjlapier said:
I have a Certo Dolly Super Sport folder that just got new bellows for and it's the nicest smallest MF camera I have. Super sharp lens. I easily use it point and shoot in sunny daylight.

I have one too. It took really sharp photos, one of which I had printed 30"x30".

Jim Blomfield · Nov 8, 2017

Fujifilm ga645zi +1

piu58 · Nov 9, 2017

Fujifilm ga645zi +2

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 9, 2017

On Monday I'll have feedback on traveling with an RZ67 internationally. I'm hauling mine down to Mexico City for the weekend.

Michael Stubbs · Nov 14, 2017

TheFlyingCamera said:
On Monday I'll have feedback on traveling with an RZ67 internationally. I'm hauling mine down to Mexico City for the weekend.

How did that turn out?

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 14, 2017

Michael Stubbs said:
How did that turn out?

Other than a tired shoulder at the end of the day, it worked out great. I'll be souping the film tonight and probably tomorrow night.

lantau · Nov 14, 2017

I have a large backpacking style photo backpack. Properly worn the weight is on the hips and the shoulder straps only keep the balance. However, when a tripod is attached to the backpack there is some pull on the shoulder straps, pulling against the chest. Still nothing compared to having all the weight on the top of the shoulders.

Ste_S · Nov 15, 2017

For me, Canon EOS 300x with 40mm EF lens for film , EOS 100D with 24mm EF-S for digital. Plus an EF zoom lens to fit on either.
Both small cameras with the primes attached, and I can fit one in a small manbag for nights out etc

Otherwise, for ultra minimalist, an Olympus Trip 35.

Lachlan Young · Nov 15, 2017

A Pentax 6x7 & a 55mm lens has been my standard camera for travel since the end of 2012, & pretty much never on a tripod - unless you insist on the amateurish landscape photographers' shibboleth that only deep focus will do, or feel a need to torture your back/ shoulders/ neck/ knees by carrying lenses for every situation you think you might encounter.

One camera, one fixed focal length lens, 400 speed film (or 100 or 160 or whatever you like) & those restrictions will more than likely free up your creativity. The Fuji GW670/680/690/GSW680/690 cameras are also fantastic for travel - tough, simple, optically first rate, etc. They also are much less demanding in terms of tripods than the SLRs.

Sirius Glass · Nov 15, 2017

My father used his Mamiya C Series cameras fo over forty years traveling all over the world.

Mainecoonmaniac · Nov 15, 2017

I traveled with a Zeiss Super Ikonta IV to South East Asia. Range finder folders are compact and lighter than 2 1/4 SLRs. I noticed that I shoot slower with it.

Down Under · Nov 15, 2017

Mainecoonmaniac (#137) has raised an interesting point.

For me one of the many advantages (others will think otherwise) of travel with an MF film kit, is that I shoot more slowly and I tend to think out my images before I take them. The result is fewer shots but better images overall. A bit of critical thinking helps me avoid the somewhat static shots I tend to take with 120 film cameras. My #1 rule is to avoid shooting more than one or at most two shots of any landscape I see and like enough to want to immortalise on celluloid. How many rice field shots do I want? Everyone takes them in Bali, Malaysia, the Philippines and wherever else rice grows in Asia, as I've done since 1970. I've yet to sell any and I cannot recall the last time I looked at one from alas, the hundreds I have in my archives. Oh, well.

If one can get past the obvious limitations of one camera/one lens, a smaller, more portable MF camera (my first preference is a Rolleiflex TLR, second choice is my Voigtlander Perkeo I), there is much to be said for setting out on a trip with a light, easily carried about film camera and a few accessories, and some film.

Buying film on the road can also be a problem, but this can be easily resolved by pre-ordering and taking your film with you.

One of the many great positive spin-offs about this method is, you will find your mind emptying of the endless concentration (focus?) on all things photographic, and more emphasis on enjoying the cultural, the day to day activity, the people, and certainly the great food.

Those who prefer to hide behind their cameras and look at everything new and culturally different around them through a camera viewfinder, will of course disagree. As you can. To each their own. Isolating oneself with a camera is a tried and true technique to cope with travel anxiety. If you must, please do. Do try not to annoy the rest of us with your endless camera-concentration, please.

moto-uno · Nov 15, 2017

^ But isn't that what this is all about ? . Cheers , Peter

Sirius Glass · Nov 15, 2017

ozmoose said:
Mainecoonmaniac (#137) has raised an interesting point.

For me one of the many advantages (others will think otherwise) of travel with an MF film kit, is that I shoot more slowly and I tend to think out my images before I take them. The result is fewer shots but better images overall. A bit of critical thinking helps me avoid the somewhat static shots I tend to take with 120 film cameras. My #1 rule is to avoid shooting more than one or at most two shots of any landscape I see and like enough to want to immortalise on celluloid. How many rice field shots do I want? Everyone takes them in Bali, Malaysia, the Philippines and wherever else rice grows in Asia, as I've done since 1970. I've yet to sell any and I cannot recall the last time I looked at one from alas, the hundreds I have in my archives. Oh, well.

If one can get past the obvious limitations of one camera/one lens, a smaller, more portable MF camera (my first preference is a Rolleiflex TLR, second choice is my Voigtlander Perkeo I), there is much to be said for setting out on a trip with a light, easily carried about film camera and a few accessories, and some film.

Buying film on the road can also be a problem, but this can be easily resolved by pre-ordering and taking your film with you.

One of the many great positive spin-offs about this method is, you will find your mind emptying of the endless concentration (focus?) on all things photographic, and more emphasis on enjoying the cultural, the day to day activity, the people, and certainly the great food.

Those who prefer to hide behind their cameras and look at everything new and culturally different around them through a camera viewfinder, will of course disagree. As you can. To each their own. Isolating oneself with a camera is a tried and true technique to cope with travel anxiety. If you must, please do. Do try not to annoy the rest of us with your endless camera-concentration, please.

Not only does one tend to take more time to take each photograph, the view finder is much larger and much clear view than 35mm so one can check the composition for unwanted objects, what is in focus and what is out of focus.

sixby45 · Nov 2, 2018

The short answer from my experience is: YES it is

Some explanation: I have used multiple tiny 35mm rangefinder cameras for fun on vacation, or travel, and unless you have a dedicated film scanner, I've always been very disappointed with the results. Medium format even for 6x6cm cameras is not prohibitively expensive vs the 35mm film setup and there are light and easy to carry medium format cameras available from folders to older less known cameras with great glass when stopped down. I would steer to higher than 645 if you like me have a simple flatbed scanner, as I find the scans from 645 to be very close to 35mm compared to giving up a few frames to have a larger film negative to work with. The final use may not be very large, maybe even web use, however there is a definite tonal difference, and 3D depth that exists in my medium format film results that I tried to find using 35mm film, and failed.

Hope that helps, and enjoy MF shooting around the world!

Kodachromeguy · Nov 2, 2018

Hi Everyone, I am glad this thread has been revived. I will also weigh in: Yes, it most certainly is worth taking a medium format camera on travel. The one I like best is the 6×6 TLR. I use a Rolleiflex 3.5E, but any similar one like a YashicaMat would do the same. It, along with Gossen light meter, filters, and film, fit in a modest shoulder bag (a Domke V1 Jr.). Here is an example of an abandoned tuberculosis sanatorium on Mt. Parnitha, outside of Athens, Greece. I propped the camera on a piece of concrete, framed and focussed via the look-down viewfinder, and set the self-timed to trigger a long exposure (1 sec, I recall). The film was Tri-X 400 at EI=320. I think a 35mm frame would not give the viewer as much of a sense of depth. By the way, this hospital has become somewhat of an off-beat tourist site. https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-tb-hospital-on-parnitha-greece.html

Jarin Blaschke · Nov 3, 2018

Hasselblad 501.

Very light, very small (to me), versatile, extremely sharp optics for big enlargements , direct viewing. Ideal handheld camera.

Only downside: so so bokeh for portraits. This is where my RZ system wins.

Alentejo · Nov 3, 2018

Yes I agree with You all. I'm just preparing a 3 month travel to Portugal. Besides my EOS 5D IV I decided to take aa M camera with me. My TLR Mamiya 330 lost. The winner is: My RB 67 with a 37mm, 50mm and 180mm. It will be fun.

sixby45 · Nov 3, 2018

Thats a great kit! Enjoy

dodphotography · Nov 12, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
A Pentax 6x7 & a 55mm lens has been my standard camera for travel since the end of 2012, & pretty much never on a tripod - unless you insist on the amateurish landscape photographers' shibboleth that only deep focus will do, or feel a need to torture your back/ shoulders/ neck/ knees by carrying lenses for every situation you think you might encounter.

One camera, one fixed focal length lens, 400 speed film (or 100 or 160 or whatever you like) & those restrictions will more than likely free up your creativity. The Fuji GW670/680/690/GSW680/690 cameras are also fantastic for travel - tough, simple, optically first rate, etc. They also are much less demanding in terms of tripods than the SLRs.

Great reading this. I traveled to France with two Rolleiflexes (GX and 2.8E) and I loved the results but had a hard time with nailing focus. Some great moments are just off but acceptable in print.

However, with my 67 I almost never miss focus. My second hand copy came with an upgraded screen and it’s super bright and accurate.

I’m headed to China in March and need to figure out what I’m going to do.

RalphLambrecht · Nov 12, 2018

Michael Stubbs said:
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!!

It's easy: nothing beats the flexibility and speed of 35mm gear but nothing beats the image quality of medium format; tough decision!

jeffreyg · Nov 13, 2018

I am on the last day of a trip that included the Smoky Mountain National Park. I took two Hasselblads and the 150 and 50 also a lumix zs100. Basically nasty weather but I still managed about eight rolls. Since I intend to print medium format and film were my choice. The LUMIX came in handy in the caverns and where I couldn’t use a tripod especially since it fits in a pocket. Go with your medium format and a good camera backpack as someone mentioned.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

abruzzi · Nov 13, 2018

This past summer, I took a 10 day motorcycle trip though Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and left my digital camera at home. Instead I brought my Bronica ETRSi, three film backs, 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm lenses, a Sekonic meter, and 40 rolls of film. It was surprisingly compact and fit in a Crumpler 6 million dollar home (my ETRSi setup has the waist level finder, and no grip, so its pretty small.)

I ended up taking about 13 rolls--about 6 Velvia 50, 5 Ektar 100, and 2 Fomapan 100. The interchangeable back was brilliant. I had one loaded with each film, and popped on whatever suited the photo I wanted to take. I also did some experiments, taking the exact same scene with all three films.

macfred · Nov 13, 2018

abruzzi said:
Instead I brought my Bronica ETRSi, three film backs, 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm lenses, a Sekonic meter, and 40 rolls of film. It was surprisingly compact and fit in a Crumpler 6 million dollar home (my ETRSi setup has the waist level finder, and no grip, so its pretty small.) ...

This was my setup when I travelled the Netherlands and Belgium in summer 2017 by bicycle (though I never had the 150mm - I bought the MC 105mm f/3.5 a few months ago - a nice little lens!).
I also own the Speedgrip and a metered AEIII Prism but I prefer the WLF for the same reasons you described.

Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

wjlapier

Sirius Glass

Jim Blomfield

piu58

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Michael Stubbs

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

lantau

Ste_S

Lachlan Young

Sirius Glass

Mainecoonmaniac

Down Under

moto-uno

Sirius Glass

sixby45

Kodachromeguy

Jarin Blaschke

Alentejo

sixby45

dodphotography

RalphLambrecht

jeffreyg

abruzzi

macfred

Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency