Hello everyone! I'm thinking about taking a trip to Europe early next year and wanted to pick up a lightweight mechanical MF camera; ideally 6x7 (but anything 6x6 or up is fine), ideally letting me put in 35mm adapter spools, and ideally having a 35mm equivalent lens of 50 mm or wider (wider much preferred). I was thinking about picking up an old Soviet folder honestly as those are super duper cheap or some kind of TLR, but honestly this is uncharted territory for me and I don't actually know how much any of these weigh or any of the problems they might have. I already have an RB67 but I am not keen on lugging that thing around while on holiday
I imagine there are probably not many (any?) cameras that meet all of my preferences (I realise "lightweight" and "mechanical" are often mutually exclusive! so I would still be open to hearing about electronic cameras for example), but it would be nice to hear recommendations from all of your experiences and any tradeoffs and pitfalls to watch out for with any particular make of camera. The only absolutely necessary requirement is that it's relatively light/easy to travel with, and medium format. I'm already covered in the 35mm department. Thanks all for any advice!
As suggested earlier, a baby crown graphic could be a good choice. Here are some weights for comparison:
2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Grafamatic holder (6 shots, sheet film) 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg
2 by 3 Crown Graphic, 65-mm lens with Horseman 6 by 9 roll film back (8 shots) 3.125 lbs 1.42 kg
Voigtlander Bessa II 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg
Nikon F with Photomic T finder and 50 mm f1.4 lens 3.0 lbs 1.36 kg
Nikon F3 with 45-mm pancake lens 2.125 lbs 0.96 kg
Rollei 35S 0.78 lbs 0.35 kg
The Crown Graphics are relatively cheap. The roll film back adds some bulk, but the 120 film is cheaper than sheet film ($1.37 per shot of 2 by 3 roll versus $3 per shot 2 by 3 sheet). The roll film back gives a little bit bigger negative. The 65- to 100-mm lenses are all quite small. The 90 mm is slightly wide, and for 6 by 9, similar to a 40-mm lens on a 35-mm camera. An 80-mm may be ideal for you (equal to a 35-mm lens on a 35-mm camera). The 65-mm lens on 6 by 9 is close to a 28-mm lens on a 35 mm camera.
A downside to the graphic is that with wider lenses (< 75 mm) the sport finder cannot be extended and used at infinity, and small viewfinders for 65-mm or wider are harder to find. Usually, I use a Graflex finder on top of the camera for a 90-mm lens and imagine the rest beyond it. I don't use a rangefinder. The wider lenses need to be stopped down around f11 or so, anyway, so zone focusing is not that difficult. A homemade distance scale can be fastened to the standard's rail for wide lenses (the cameras usually have one for a 100-mm lens already).
I am pretty sure I get better resolution with the 2 by 3 than a 35 mm. I often take my baby graphic on mountain trips with lots of hiking/easy climbing. I switched to it from the Voigtlander because the Bessa viewfinder is so small and the lens and bellows blocks some of the view. It's much handier to carry though. I use an old army canteen holder on my belt.
More important than the weight, I think, is the ergonomics. The Crown Graphics take some getting used to. I wouldn't bother with the 35-mm adapter spools. Keep it simple.