New to LF, recommended systems for landscape.

[hairyseg]

Could do with some advice from those of you with experience of lf for landscapes.

Having done digital to death and although suitable for some of my work I have recently returned to film. I am sure I dont need to explain my reasoning as all members seem to have a like minded on this topic. I mainly shoot landscape, seascape and sky scapes. I am a keen climber and walker based in the uk but looking to explore the alps, pyrnees in europe. These would involve 3-4 days walking.

My question is this, at last I hear you cry.

on the basis that I will be mainly doing single day walks with minimal personal equipment and occasionally a 3-4 day walk with full camping kit, which Lf system would you recommend?

My thoughts on the 3-4day trips will be to take the RZ67 I have at present.

I am a masochist (?spelling) and am prepared to devise ruck sacks that willl protect and give sufficient space the weight is an issue but not the end of the world as long as it is around 15kg max.

I'm looking to a max format of 5x7.

Any advice on experiences of similar work type or camera use would be greatly appreciated.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I am a lazy walker and non-climber and so feel quite well served by a 4x5" Crown Graphic. The most impressive camera I have seen for climbers and others to whom camera weight is critical is the Toho View Camera, which I think is probably the lightest and most compact 4x5 which will ever be made!
Link:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm
Apparently it comes in 5x7 and 8x10 models too (I've only seen and handled the 4x5).

 

[Troy Ammons]

> which Lf system would you recommend?

Depends on how you shoot. if you stop, take a lot of photos, repack, a folding camera. If extreme lightness is most important, a toho.

I like the Super graphic myself.

> My thoughts on the 3-4day trips will be to take the RZ67 I have at present.

RZ is heavy. It might be okay on its own, but with a 4x5 or 5x7 it will be too much. A lightweight rangefinder would be better.

> as long as it is around 15kg max.

IMO lighter the better. A light folding camera, 2-3 light lenses, a readyload holder and a stack of readyloads.

My camera is a super graphic and the way it is setup with a lens and reflex viewer it weighs 5.25#. I have a light velbon tripod at 4#. A readyload holder is 8oz and readyloads weigh about 1# per 20. My other two lenses weigh around 1.75#.

So just considering that Eq alone, if I pack 100 readyloads, my weight of the EQ above it works out to about 16.5#.

Here is what the camera looks like.

Down the page

Dead Link Removed

> I'm looking to a max format of 5x7.

Nice format, but IMO you will gain about 10-15#, no readyloads, no reflex viewer etc, but nice big negs.

 

[colrehogan]

What is your budget? Do you wish to buy new or used? What sort of lenses do you plan on using? There are a lot more questions that you need to answer yourself, because there are many brands of cameras out there, some more suited for backpacking than others and this might take some time to find the one that suits you best. You may want to browse the Robert White website, as they are dealers for LF gear in the UK. Another place to browse might be the Badger Graphics website. Although they are in the US, they stock a wide range of cameras and there is likely to be information there that might help you in your decision.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Budget is probably the first thing you need to decide on. The options are pretty broad with regard to cameras and lenses even when narrowed down to 5x7. With an idea of how much you plan to spend you will get a more focused response of suggestions.

The other question would be do you plan to contact print or enlarge? If you are set up to enlarge 4x5, that format would provide the greatest array or cameras to fit your need. If you are going to contact print then 5x7 provides a nice negative size. But if enlarging is a future possibility then go with 4x5 because 4x5 enlargers are very affordable (even almost give away cheap) on the used market.

 

[Frank Petronio]

4x5 Quickloads and/or Readyloads are the key to saving weight. Also deciding that you can get by with less lenses and gadgets in general. Using your t-shirt or jacket as a dark cloth for example.

For price and durablity it is hard to beat an old Crown Graphic, although you give up a lot of the movements and versatility that fancier large format cameras have. You may not need those movements 99% of the time but you might not realize what you can do with them unless you get a camera that allows you to experiment with them.

 

[dphphoto]

The 4X5 Shen Hao might be a good choice. You're probably going to be as worried about bulk as you are weight, and in that you can't beat a good folder. You can probably get away with two lenses, a moderate wide angle (90mm to 120mm) and maybe a 210mm.
And what about a tripod? Amvona sells some nice carbon fibre ones cheap on eBay. I just got mine recently, and I'm really impressed with it.
Ready loads are nice, but the film gets expensive, and you have a limited choice of films packed that way. Carrying a lot of film holders will be a bit bulky. Maybe you should consider a changing bag. The domed ones are light but take up some space.
A Shen Hao and two lenses will probably be lighter than an RZ. Dean

 

[Scott-Tx]

i do a lot of backpacking with my 4x5 gear and spent about a year going through LOTS of cameras in an attempt to find the ideal set-up for me. i ended up with two cameras... an arca swiss f-line metric for just about everything except when i need to condiser every inch and ounce, that is to say on very tough hikes and long overnights. on those occasions, i use a linhof master tech 2000. i found the arca to be the finest all around camera of those i went through (tachi, ebony rw and sv, canham metal and wood, and linhof tk45s) and the MT2000 to be the best when bulk is a primary consideration.

good luck, and welcome back to film!

 

[roteague]

Probably the lightest field camera you can buy is the Toyo 45CF - it is made of carbon fibre, and fairly inexpensive. However, it lacks some movements that I consider essential, like the back tilt. I have a Toyo 45AII, which is a traditional metal camera, and at 6.1 lbs is not too bad to carry. A good lens is the Scheider Super Symmar XL 80mm, it is very light, compact and very sharp, although a bit expensive.

 

[raucousimages]

Toyo 45CF. Good price, Light, Carbon fiber not bothered by elements but has limited rear movement.

 

[df cardwell]

Here is what I would do. Depending on how you balance your priorities, you will disagree in varying degree.

1. View Camera: WALKER 4x5 SF. 2.9 Kilos of British ingenuity. A wonderful camera. Possibly, complete overkill for your purpose, but wonderful all the same. Shoot ready-loads.

2. Field Camera: Crown Graphic. A tough-as-nails mahogany and aluminum beauty from another age. Impossible to kill, limited-but-adequate movements, and FAST to get out of the bag and into action. Shoot ready-loads.

3. A Mamiya 6x7 rfdr. When you do the sums, 6x7 can outperform 4x5 in many conditions you'll encounter, besides being more efficient on your back. With the proper choice of film and developer (for B&W) a single, normal development time will suffice for all but the most bizarre situations you'll encounter.

Many shooters first priority is to take the biggest camera they can carry into improbable places and take a picture to document their accomplishment.

Many climbers and walkers will take the smallest camera with them to make souvenirs of their journey.

Somewhere in between is the answer. For me, lugging weight in observence of the doctrinal belief in the virtue of suffering is silly. The best pictures are made in the marginal conditions of sunrise, sunsets, fogs, mists, and ephemeral natural conditions. A ready camera, that can be dampened and survive, is the best answer. How fast you move, how long you like to stop, and why you're out in the first place will shape your choice.

Let's see your pictures !

.

 

[DeanC]

Take a look at Kerry Thalmann's equipment pages. Pay particular attention to the page on the Toho (not Toyo) camera and the lightweight lenses section. He showed off his backpacking system at the View Camera Conference in Monterey a couple of years ago and I'm pretty sure his whole 4x5 system weighs less than the 35mm camera and lens I bring to the park to photograph my kids.

 

[vet173]

For lenses I recommend a compact 135 and a 210. Some will recommend a 90, I have one too. I find though that the mountains on the horizon get small pretty fast. I have found shots while out backpacking that made be wish I had every lens I own, so it's always a compromise. Having only two lenses forces you to look at the shot in ways you might not thought of before. I agree with frank about quick-ready loads. The extra cost is made up for in weight saved and just as important is less dust to worry about. If you want to use holders don't forget to add the weight and bulk of a changing bag.

 

[roteague]

For lenses I recommend a compact 135 and a 210. Some will recommend a 90, I have one too. I find though that the mountains on the horizon get small pretty fast. I have found shots while out backpacking that made be wish I had every lens I own, so it's always a compromise. Having only two lenses forces you to look at the shot in ways you might not thought of before. I agree with frank about quick-ready loads. The extra cost is made up for in weight saved and just as important is less dust to worry about. If you want to use holders don't forget to add the weight and bulk of a changing bag.

You bring up a good point. What lens? Here at home, in Hawaii, I find that I use my 80mm and 135mm lenses the most, but when I was in New Zealand, my 210mm got a lot more use. It pays to think about not only the camera, but what lenses. For my money, the Schneider XL series lenses are the best, but they are also expensive (and require a center filter).

 

[DeanC]

If you want to use holders don't forget to add the weight and bulk of a changing bag.

And box(es) for exposed film.

 

[hairyseg]

Thanks for all your comments they're all realy helpful and help point me in the rite direction. I probably should have given more info. in my original post.

My aim is to print 16x20/20x24 high quality prints from b+w negs. I have an rz67 with 3 lenses etc at present which i purchased second hand. I develop my own negs and have recently purchased an old devere 507 enlarger with cathomag head. ( not sure of the age it is a bench mount with chain driven adjustment from board level via lathe type wheels) It has 5x4 carriers but am told it will take 5x7 negs. I realise the quality of the prints will be reasonable with the rz and on my first few attempts recently I am blown away at the improvement over 35mm and digi. hence it must be further improved with larger negs, or am i missing something.

In terms of cost I am a believer in buying the most suitable tool for the job, cost as always however is a consideration.

I will be looking at all of your sugestions and really do appreciate all your asisstance and you taking the time to help me out.

 

[Frank Petronio]

A light 4x5 will probably be easier to pack and light than an RB, and the quality will be another big step up. I don't think people use 5x7 for the higher image quality (otherwise they'd use 8x10) but more for the rendering and quality of the format itself. Plus 4x5 offers more film emulsions and options, which are useful when you are starting and experimenting.

Kerry Thalman's review of lightweight lens and the Toho camera is probably the best primer for ultralight 4x5 photography, as are his articles in (the otherwise questionable) View Camera magazine.

 

[hairyseg]

just read the review on the toho, looks exactly what I'm after. Thanks for the info on the format, I think overall the 5x7 is the format I would like but there are a few negatives that are putting me off especially for a novice to view cameras.

 

[Ole]

20x24" prints - that's 50x60cm to us "metricals"...

I'm tempted to send you a print from one of my 70 years old folders - a 9x12cm plate camera with 135mm Rodenstock Eurynar lens. It's only a 6x enlargement, from a camera that weight 0.3 kg (0.6 lb) and costs less than $50. If you want a really lightweight LF camera, it's difficult to beat an old plate camera, a changing bag, and an extra box of film.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

For me, the highly restricted choice (and the restriction to 4x5) of ready load films is a very strong argument against ready loads.

 

[hortense]

Tachira 4 by 5 weighs 3.3 lbs. Sturdy. Lens will be the problem. Just take one like a 240mm

 

[vet173]

For me, the highly restricted choice (and the restriction to 4x5) of ready load films is a very strong argument against ready loads.

I agree, the choices are restricted. But the choices are by no means second rate. In this application they are ideal.
John

 

[roteague]

I agree, the choices are restricted. But the choices are by no means second rate. In this application they are ideal.
John

I guess it depends upon what you want to shoot, but I've found shooting landscapes, like you have, what we currently have is ideal. The new Velvia 100, while not as good as the old 50, color wise, is sharper and easier to shoot in low light.

 

[Shmoo]

Just another thing to think about is the availability of film in the two sizes you mention: 4x5 and 5x7. Lately some manufacturers have discontinued the 5x7 film sizes, so you might want to look to see if your favorite films are available. Just a thought...

S