Searching for the perfect 'travel camera' - the ongoing mission...

[Matus Kalisky]

Well - there are not 'pocketable' medium format cameras, so to say. If you want it really small - get the GA645 or the GS645 (depends on your preferences) - both weight around 800g. The new Bessa III is large, but rather flat when folded - about 1000g (similar as the lighter Rolleiflexes and Autocords). Plaubel Makina 67/670 - seems to have really nice lens with smooth bokeh. Similar in size to Bessa III (not same shorter and taller) and heavier - at around 1250g. The RF645 and Mamiya 6 are very similar in size - I would choose the RF645 between these two (I have the Mamiya 6) - the Mamiya have not particularly useful meter - meters VERY large area and so gets easily fooled by the stuff that is outside the frames.

So - it all depends how fast the camera needs to be. But one way or another you will need to do some compromises. It may make sense to get a camera that gets closest for that part of photography you want to do most and then learn to use it the most effective way. You will always loose shots for one or other reason. Just concentrate on the shots you will be able to get.

 

[EdSawyer]

Mamiya 7, it has the best lenses for the format, and is quite light and reasonably fast to shoot with. The other camera I travel with a lot is a chamonix saber 4x5 rangefinder, with grafmatic and 6x12 backs.

 

[Dr. no]

If you just want highest quality/convenience of carry, a folder is the best bet. On my last trip to Europe my only camera was the Moscow-5 (Super-Ikonta clone) 6x9. Slips in a pocket so you can enjoy the surroundings without making the family feel like they brought too many people, and 6x9 is a big enough negative. Of course, being a folder it's not fast, and I have a tendency to make double exposures; it is nice to have a serious enough camera in the pocket on a family trip or mountain hike when I also carry the rescue gear (school trips).
On my own, however, I'd carry at least the Kiev 88, and if not too far from the car the Technika gets to come too, and they have to bring lenses and holders and tripods and filters and . . . .



Paris by moonlight, Moscow-5 6x9

 

[filmamigo]

The Fuji GW690 (version 1) was nearly the perfect travel camera for me. The huge negative is astonishing, it made playing with 4x5 seem unneccesary. Though the camera was a bit big for my taste, it really attracted a lot of attention because of the size. More problematically, none of the Fuji GW/GSW 690 I, II or III have a meter!

I solved both problems by switching up for a GS645S. It has a handy meter, and is half the size of the GW. Unfortunately, I need to get it CLA'd and have the sticky rangefinder repaired before it becomes my travel camera.

 

[Vaughn]

Those giant Fuji viewfinders are great! Did they ever build them with a self-timer? I had to use the lens cap to end long exposures, as 'T' requires the shutter time to be changed or the film advanced in order for the shutter to close.

But my biased opinion lies with the Rolleiflex. Simple brick that works wonders. Eye-catchers these days, too. A bit more discreet than the Fuji 6x7 viewfinder. The Fuji just about blocks the view of all of one's head when used vertically -- one looks like a walking camera! LOL! Tiniest of a click with the Rolleiflex...and not many assesories to fill a pack.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I had a travel mate that shot with a Mamiya 7. He uses a 43mm lens on that 6x7 camera. The lenses are sharp.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/7.htm

 

[dnjl]

I'd take a Zeiss Super Ikonta 532/16: compact yet robust, sharp and fast lens, awesome looks. And no fiddling with lens caps!

By the way, the shutter on the Fuji GW series isn't loud, it's a whispering leaf shutter. What makes the clunking noise is the roll counter on the bottom of the camera. If you want the camera to shut up, have it decoupled by a professional repairman (it's reversible if he knows what he's doing).

 

[munz6869]

I'd heard that said before.. but now I kind of like the noise - it's the polar opposite of the 'have I actually pressed the shutter?' lack-of-noise of the GF670, which I didn't like at all!

'ping'...

Marc!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Even though they're a little heavier, a Rolleiflex 2.8. I found a 2.8 E which has a working (but inaccurate) meter for $500. Just had it cleaned and adjusted and I'll be taking it out and about with me as soon as it gets back from the shop. I'll still use a hand-held meter with it because I can't trust the built-in anywhere but broad daylight.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

2. Rolleiflex MX circa 1954 - great 6x6cm negatives, but often slow to focus in crappy light - nice quiet/covert shutter, can use as a periscope, gets lots of attention.

May be you should invest in a new mirror and a bright ground glass. The finder of my Automat 3.5A (1954) is much brighter than that of my 3.5F with the original ground glass. I came across a 2.8F lately but still think about getting a Maxwell glass for it, as I still use it beside the other camera and it is such a joy to look through the finder of the 3.5A. Most of the mirrors on these older cameras are deteriorated on the edges. You can see that if you look through the finder lens.
A Rolleiflex is *the* optimal traveling camera IMHO.

Ulrich

 

[ZackR]

I'm getting in on this late in the game, but I love my Fuji GS645 wide (60mm). I know all the bad things people seem to say about them, but the only one I really agree with is it does have a dim focusing patch. I have had mine for about a year and have already taken it on many trips, most of which involve stuffing it in a pack and I have not found durability, or lack there of, to be an issue. I also like getting 15 shots from a roll, plus I have had very good luck with the meter.

If there is ever an actual auction on ebay, instead of way to high buy-it-nows, they can be had for $300-350, which is a bit more than I paid, but knowing what I know now, I would happily pay $350 for a good working one.

 

[rolleiman]

With travelling, everything is a compromise. You have to be practical and realise that carting a full kit of body/lenses etc. is not only going to make you like an overladen donkey, but is also going to quickly destroy your enthusiasm and make you a worse photographer. My answer after years of travelling around is to travel light with straightforward, reliable, all mechanical gear...i.e. my twin lens Rolleiflex.
The 6x6 neg covering a wide area, helps to partly make up for lack of lens interchangeability. Once you start using it, there's a lot you can cover on that 75mm Tessar lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A Blad with 80mm lens is an excellent travel camera. The lens is not fixed, but it is small and you can pretend it is fixed.

Compact and lighter than most other MF candidates.

 

[munz6869]

It's interesting all this, because before this recent trip I would swear by my Rolleiflex - but the Fuji rangefinder is also light, mechanical and simple, and the proof of the pudding is that the number of negatives I actually want to print is significantly higher (and they are all in focus, and soooo sharp!) - clearly this beast suits me!! (I do agree that the Rolleiflex is 100x more charming though).

Marc!

 

[removed account4]

the perfect travel camera is for sale right now in the classifieds
in expensve 10 film holders, a 12 sheet bag mag, beautiful tessar lens,
and compact camera. i travel with its big brother whenever i go on a trip
and have taken it overseas a few times ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

perfectly balanced, easy to repair + work on + get shutter timed .. and built like a tank.