Is medium format worth it for travel photography?

[macfred]

...

Fishing vessel (and seaman-to-be) by Andreas, on Flickr

Bronica ETRSi - Zenzanon PE 75mm f/2.8 - Portra 400

 

[cjbecker]

Given I have traveled extensively with a rolleicord iii, less so a hasselblad 500cm and now a nikon f5. It all comes down to final product. How do you want to view your pictures? Up until recently, I solely traveled with and rolleicord, lightmeter and B&W film, but I seam too niot have the time to print or even do contact sheets. This is why I have started shooting 35mm slide film. Easly projected and a joy to look at on the light box. The f5 that I choose to shoot, is not the small camera most choose as a travel camera, nor do use 90 percent of the features its has, but it is heck of a camera, The other thing is, im really enjoying the lens selection that 35mm offers. I enjoy shooting wildlife, and use a 300 f4 af with a 1.4x. Compare a medium format camera that could offer that reach and speed. The 35mm gives me opportunities that the medium format does not.

My goals do not include scanning to share on the internet, or sell any work. My goal is to have binders of slides for my family down the road to look at and see what this crazy adventure called life my family had.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Given I have traveled extensively with a rolleicord iii, less so a hasselblad 500cm and now a nikon f5. It all comes down to final product. How do you want to view your pictures? Up until recently, I solely traveled with and rolleicord, lightmeter and B&W film, but I seam too niot have the time to print or even do contact sheets. This is why I have started shooting 35mm slide film. Easly projected and a joy to look at on the light box. The f5 that I choose to shoot, is not the small camera most choose as a travel camera, nor do use 90 percent of the features its has, but it is heck of a camera, The other thing is, im really enjoying the lens selection that 35mm offers. I enjoy shooting wildlife, and use a 300 f4 af with a 1.4x. Compare a medium format camera that could offer that reach and speed. The 35mm gives me opportunities that the medium format does not.

My goals do not include scanning to share on the internet, or sell any work. My goal is to have binders of slides for my family down the road to look at and see what this crazy adventure called life my family had.

As with anything, the task you want to accomplish very much dictates the tools you use. If you're looking to shoot wildlife in the field, then absolutely the 35mm makes more sense. Long lenses for medium format are relatively rare, and when they do exist, they're much larger than 35mm lenses of equivalent field of view. But for general purpose "travel", medium format is more than acceptable and more than manageable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I make it an easy decision:

• If I will not have the time to properly take MF photographs, I take 35mm.
• If the MF equipment will not exceed my carry-on weight limit, I take MF equipment.
• If I am driving, not flying, I can and do take my MF equipment, sometimes all of it.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

A simple 501 kit is remarkably small and light; I can find no excuse to not carry it ANYWHERE for wide-angle to moderately long lens photography. Really not much different than a lot of 35mm cameras.

If I am working from home, a car or short walk/hikes, I take the 8x10.

J

 

[Down Under]

A cautionary tale.

35mm, MF, LF, ULF, digital - whatever gear you take on your travels, be sure to check it all carefully before you leave.

Earlier this year I was five weeks in Asia - in Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah. On a whim, I decided to leave my trusty Nikon D700 kit at home and went off with a Rolleiflex T (bought in the 1990s) with a 16 exposure kit and a 35mm kit, and a Perkeo I (acquired in 2016), with all the lens hoods, filters and other odd bits peculiar to these marques, Also a shipload of 120 and 35mm films, this stash alone outsized and almost outweighed the camera kits. Oh - also two exposure meters, a Gossen and a Weston Master V, both purchased new).

Both cameras were serviced in 2016, BTW.

Are you starting to get the idea? If so, you are correct.

In the field, I shot like a madman, often feeling like one of those slightly crazed old characters who (they still exist) refuse to fly or insist on a comfortable steerage cabin on ships like the Lusitania. Got many stares, was posted several times on other tourists' Facebook et al sites (as That Odd Old Thing We Met On Our Trip).

Back home, I sorted out the films, ran the first batch of C41 through my Jobo - and discovered BOTH exposure meters were half a stop under. Yes, I did test them before, sort of - I read a few scenes with the two meters side by side, of course they gave exactly the same readings. So I was fooled.

My negatives are salvageable, but oh my, the extra work I've had in scanning and post processing... At my age, life is just too short for all this angst.

Fortunately, I shoot mostly old architecture, so all of it (well, almost) is still there for me to return and reshoot.

The moral here is, be sure to test equipment. All of it. Shoot a roll in each camera and process it/have it processed before you leave. Buy new batteries. Don't rely on a 40-year old Weston meter or even a 15 year old Gossen meter to read spot-on correctly.

Also, I found having to deal with two film formats rather confusing and at times even tiresome, but that's me.

Next time I travel, I'll take only one MF camera (probably the Rollei T) - and the D700 kit for shooting AND metering.

 

[wyofilm]

MF when I travel if I feel I will have time to shoot. Otherwise, maybe no camera. I can get away with a few, "Wait! Dad is lost in his camera again." on any given trip.

 

[aoresteen]

My last trip I left the MF kits at home and took 35mm film and two DSLRs. The trip before I took my Mamiya 645 1000s kit and a small Lumix digital. Next March I'm going to Asia and I will take the Mamiya MF again. Heck in 2011 I went to San Juan and took my Baby Rollie 127 camera and 15 rolls of B&W 127 film. It just depends what I want to photograph.

What I won't travel with is my Pentax 6x7 or Cambo 6x9 view.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Heck again. I carry a couple of P67's when I don't feel like taking a view camera system. The 6x7 system really isn't any lighter, but it's faster to shoot and doesn't test my wife's patience if she's along. That's my idea of a mini-camera.

 

[moto-uno]

 

[moto-uno]

And this was with an old Welta Weltur 6x6 with an uncoated Tessar lens and Fuji Provia 100 f . 35 mm rang finder size and medium format results .
Kinda the best of both worlds for traveling . Just sayin' . Peter

 

[aoresteen]

Heck again. I carry a couple of P67's when I don't feel like taking a view camera system. The 6x7 system really isn't any lighter, but it's faster to shoot and doesn't test my wife's patience if she's along. That's my idea of a mini-camera.

A couple of P67s??? Wow!! You must be young! I love my P6x7 but with the TTL prism, the 45, 105, and 200 (and i really like the 135mm macro as well) that's more than I can carry all day. But the fun begins when you have the negatives to play with in the dark room. You make a great point about the wife's patience. I took my Cambo view with me on one trip. 2004. Never again.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, I'm not young. I'll be 70 next year.

 

[cobbu2]

Last year I spent a week at Grand Teton and Yellowstone NPs with a single P67 body and 2 lenses, the 55/4 and the 35/4.5 fisheye. One lens stayed on the camera and the other in a vest pocket. With fast film using wide angle lenses, all my shots were hand held with great results. It was all very easy to manage and extremely portable.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP, no one can answer that but you. Are you a serious shooter or a snapshot shooter?

MF gives superior results than 35mm. If you are needing small size, weight is an issue and need candid possibilities then go with 35mm. Personally, I would use MF for set up / tripod shots and use 35mm for fast shots.

 

[Sirius Glass]

OP, no one can answer that but you. Are you a serious shooter or a snapshot shooter?

MF gives superior results than 35mm. If you are needing small size, weight is an issue and need candid possibilities then go with 35mm. Personally, I would use MF for set up / tripod shots and use 35mm for fast shots.

The only time I used a tripod while traveling in Europe and shooting MF was taking night photographs of the Eiffel Tower. And that is the only time I took a tripod to Europe in over twenty trips. And I took the tripod that time because I planned to take the Eiffel Tower photographs at night. Most of the time I do not need no stinkin' tripod for 35mm, MF and 4"x5".

 

[film_man]

Ah, tripods. The best way to ruin a holiday.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ah, tripods. The bigger the better. Best way to whack poison oak vines and nettles off a trail, and whack obnoxious tourists and gawkers out of the way too!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!!

definitely.if weight or bulk is a concern, check out the Mamba 6MF!

 

[Ste_S]

OP, no one can answer that but you. Are you a serious shooter or a snapshot shooter?

MF gives superior results than 35mm. If you are needing small size, weight is an issue and need candid possibilities then go with 35mm. Personally, I would use MF for set up / tripod shots and use 35mm for fast shots.

I think there's a danger of associating a format with particular cameras, medium format isn't just larger manual cameras.
Fuji did a range a of compact MF cameras with auto focus, auto wind, auto exposure - some even with a zoom and built in flash. Perfect for holidays.

As long as you've got the right tool for the job, the difference between 35mm and MF comes down to the cost and portability of the film itself. You'll be taking on average triple the number of rolls for MF vs 35mm with all the associated costs and space that entails.

 

[aoresteen]

On my bucket list is a trip to Cambodia to photograph Angkor Wat. I want to use my Cambo 23SF and that means taking a TRIPOD. My wife won't go - flights are way too long for her. And then to have to watch me use a view camera is not her idea of fun.

 

[Huss]

...

Fishing vessel (and seaman-to-be) by Andreas, on Flickr

Bronica ETRSi - Zenzanon PE 75mm f/2.8 - Portra 400

Beautiful photo Andreas.

 

[cowanw]

On my bucket list is a trip to Cambodia to photograph Angkor Wat. I want to use my Cambo 23SF and that means taking a TRIPOD. My wife won't go - flights are way too long for her. And then to have to watch me use a view camera is not her idea of fun.

Beware, the guards would not let me use a tripod one day but did another, with no apparent consistency (or avenue of appeal).

 

[macfred]

Beautiful photo Andreas.

Thank you!

 

[tommyboy]

When I traveled to Australia, I brought my Mamiya 645 1000s, and it was awesome. It was just the right size too. Yeah, it's a bit heavy but it's not that bad. I recently purchased the Mamiya RZ67 and there's no way I'd bring that sucker anywhere abroad. It's SO heavy and bulky. I mean, it's a professional camera and probably best used in studios.