ndwgolf
Active member
I just looked online and I can get one of these here in Thailand https://fotofile.co.th/think-tank-photo-turnstyle-20-v2-0-blue-indigo.html#tab-product1Looks like this might work............anyone got one?
Neil
Neil
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Ther versatility or PITA of a Medium Format Camera as a travel camera
- Thread starter ndwgolf
- Start date
kdphotography
Well-known member
That's a nice looking case. What is it?
On the hiking bag front, my F-stop Loka doesn't fit me as well as I'd like. I'm looking at the Atlas Athlete. See, https://atlaspacks.com/
This is turning into a dangerous thread among everyone here with First World Problems....
ken
drunkenspyder
New member
I'm sure I am missing something, but honestly I am unclear on what this means: "Register a extra sporting goods bag" and "file camera gear under hiking equipment when I've called it". Just so we're clear, are you suggesting just checking your backpack? And using the "sporting goods bag" as a way to avoid baggage fee? Okay, yeah that's fine, but it's not been my experience; I would never check camera equipment, even the ancillary stuff, without a hard shell [e.g., Pelican] around it. And at that point, who really cares what it's called, unless one is trying to keep larcenous baggage handlers at bay [and I don't think this ruse works there]? FWIW, I would rather call it what it is and get 'FRAGILE" and "TOP STOW" stickers and tags attached to it. Insure your gear. Take photos of your gear. Inspect the bags while still in baggage claim.
But maybe I am misunderstanding.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
The Atlas packs look nice, but they won't fit a 1Dx, GFX100, or other 6" high camera unless it lies flat. And they're heavy. Of course, they may be much better for the long haul than the UL Loka I'm fond of. I'm a weight weenie, so appreciate the f-stop UL series. I have a Tilopa that's bigger and heavier, and I picked up a Satori for $100 at some liquidation sale, but prefer the lighter packs - UL Guru and UL Loka.
What DOES annoy me is the unavailability of >3" wide dividers. The velcro divider systems just about anywhere are designed for thinner lenses. First world, indeed.
Matt
And whilst it'd doing that
I've found the Ortlieb Atrack 25 litre a real benefit here. It carries really well and it's waterproof. We got swiped by the tail of yet another typhoon and it absolutely pissed down. My "waterproof" coat failed, the brolly was next to useless, my shoes filled up and the backpack was exposed to it all. It was completely and utterly waterproof where nothing else would have been. In that sort of situation every other backpack I know of will leak. The water just comes from every direction. That was real peace of mind.
I do think the 35 litre would also pass muster as carry on....one of those might be in my future
ndwgolf
Active member
This is what I am using right now and all my Hasselblad gear fits in it but its heavy for a shoulder bag. The bag is sturdy and looks great but its not practical......not for me anyway.
I think once I get my head around leaving the HC300mm lens at home I will be fine with a streetwalker or that other bag I posted above
Neil
I think once I get my head around leaving the HC300mm lens at home I will be fine with a streetwalker or that other bag I posted above
Neil
kdphotography
Well-known member
Matt---my Loka is the original f/stop Loka (not the newer ultra light model though we did give one away at a Pigs:grin and when I add in the ICU the difference in weight to the Atlas becomes negligible. It's the internal hiking frame and hip belt (retro option) that attracts me. I thought about outfitting a hiking bag like the Osprey but the Atlas seems have done a good job of melding a hiking pack with photo pack. Most photo packs don't seem to concentrate as much on the hiking/support part.
Ken
and when I add in the ICU the difference in weight to the Atlas becomes negligible. It's the internal hiking frame and hip belt (retro option) that attracts me. I thought about outfitting a hiking bag like the Osprey but the Atlas seems have done a good job of melding a hiking pack with photo pack. Most photo packs don't seem to concentrate as much on the hiking/support part.Ken
Mexecutioner
Active member
I used one of those for one trip for a 5D4, one zoom and one prime, batteries and a couple other small items. I doubt all your Hassy gear will fit in it, it’s rather small.
I gave it away as the sling system was not to my liking, but a lot of people love them.
Shashin
Well-known member
For me it depends. But also I like to optimize my gear, rather than maximize it.
When I travel with medium-format gear, it will mostly be with a backpack. That is the most comfortable way to carry the weight. The bag I use is an Osprey Farpoint 40, which works well as carry on, but over the weight limit. My lenses are on a pouch and belt system which allows me to take them out while I am working. The belt is nice because it distributes the weight around my hips.
I also have a Fuji X system. That fits in a Mountainsmith Tour lumbar pack, that works as a shoulder bag as well. I have actually been using that more. The weight of the medium-format is getting me down, so to speak. The freedom of the lighter and smaller system as been really nice. It is certainly more spontaneous and, if you can keep your discipline, just as rewarding. It also lets you shoot in far more situations, not that I have not used big camera in all kinds of situations, but today places and others believe that large cameras equal commercial photography and will ask you to stop.
The last time I went to Tokyo, I took my MFD system and shot for 30 days straight. For that particular project, urban landscape, it was the right choice. But I was exhausted at the end of it. Part of it was the weight, part of it was how slow it was working with the style, which required a lot of tripod work--I have used MFD handheld, but smaller cameras are better for that work. However, I am traveling more for work and the Fuji is far more practical. I am sure I could figure out how to take a MFD system, but there is more to photography than just hauling equipment.
These are the questions I asked myself--what is the characteristics of my images that I enjoy the most? What contributes to the quality I enjoy? This is where technical criteria only work to a certain point. The small stuff we photographers seem to stress over, noise, resolution, dynamic range, etc., where not the deciding factor. When I looked at some of the medium-format work I had done in the past, smaller digital cameras compete on many different levels. They are not the "same," but rather reflect the characteristics of the quality that matter when standing alone, especially when printed (100% monitors views are just not a condition with which to judge photographic quality). This is when I started thinking about how to optimize my equipment, rather than just maximize it.
And part of that is not feeling like a donkey...
When I travel with medium-format gear, it will mostly be with a backpack. That is the most comfortable way to carry the weight. The bag I use is an Osprey Farpoint 40, which works well as carry on, but over the weight limit. My lenses are on a pouch and belt system which allows me to take them out while I am working. The belt is nice because it distributes the weight around my hips.
I also have a Fuji X system. That fits in a Mountainsmith Tour lumbar pack, that works as a shoulder bag as well. I have actually been using that more. The weight of the medium-format is getting me down, so to speak. The freedom of the lighter and smaller system as been really nice. It is certainly more spontaneous and, if you can keep your discipline, just as rewarding. It also lets you shoot in far more situations, not that I have not used big camera in all kinds of situations, but today places and others believe that large cameras equal commercial photography and will ask you to stop.
The last time I went to Tokyo, I took my MFD system and shot for 30 days straight. For that particular project, urban landscape, it was the right choice. But I was exhausted at the end of it. Part of it was the weight, part of it was how slow it was working with the style, which required a lot of tripod work--I have used MFD handheld, but smaller cameras are better for that work. However, I am traveling more for work and the Fuji is far more practical. I am sure I could figure out how to take a MFD system, but there is more to photography than just hauling equipment.
These are the questions I asked myself--what is the characteristics of my images that I enjoy the most? What contributes to the quality I enjoy? This is where technical criteria only work to a certain point. The small stuff we photographers seem to stress over, noise, resolution, dynamic range, etc., where not the deciding factor. When I looked at some of the medium-format work I had done in the past, smaller digital cameras compete on many different levels. They are not the "same," but rather reflect the characteristics of the quality that matter when standing alone, especially when printed (100% monitors views are just not a condition with which to judge photographic quality). This is when I started thinking about how to optimize my equipment, rather than just maximize it.
And part of that is not feeling like a donkey...
I've been thinking of adding one of the new Shimoda's X-Series (X50 to be exact) to list of kit. Considering it uses ICU's like the F-Stops but has adjustable Torso-Height and removable belt. I like to change things up when hiking or on trips with the kit sometimes being film+digital based (RZ67 + IQ or 4x5), other times its the DF+ or RM3Di (yes I'm very tempted but I'm holding firm on not doing an upgrade) paired with a rented small format, along with the occasional 8x10 trekking.
To accommodate all these variations I have lots of backpacks (ex. Crumplers, Pac-Safe, RetroSpective, F-Stop) but really want to find one that can size back and forth in that intermediate range (filters, light meter, film + MF digital, snacks, phone, jacket, tripod, head, etc. - no 8x10). So, going to give the Shimoda a shot for a trip to the UK next year - pair it up with the X1D II (21 / 45 / 90) and Mamiya 6 (50 / 75 / 150), still can't decide if I want to drop a lensor two to take the TechCam + MFDB + 1 lens on that trip but, we'll see. In either case thinking it might work for what I need.
Back to Neil's original question for me the location is what dictates what I bring. This may include how often I plan to visit a location and how much hiking I'll be doing but, if I can fit it in the MFDB does come for the ride.
To accommodate all these variations I have lots of backpacks (ex. Crumplers, Pac-Safe, RetroSpective, F-Stop) but really want to find one that can size back and forth in that intermediate range (filters, light meter, film + MF digital, snacks, phone, jacket, tripod, head, etc. - no 8x10). So, going to give the Shimoda a shot for a trip to the UK next year - pair it up with the X1D II (21 / 45 / 90) and Mamiya 6 (50 / 75 / 150), still can't decide if I want to drop a lensor two to take the TechCam + MFDB + 1 lens on that trip but, we'll see. In either case thinking it might work for what I need.
Back to Neil's original question for me the location is what dictates what I bring. This may include how often I plan to visit a location and how much hiking I'll be doing but, if I can fit it in the MFDB does come for the ride.
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
Neil and R---,
The case is made by Manfrotto. In its empty state it's about six ins. deep, but is flexible enough to bulge to about 8 ins. I have to lie the XF on its side, as in the pic, because it would be too wide to sit next to the 150 lens. It's very well made and has been around the world with me. My particular model may be discontinued, but I found what I believe is its successor at B&H. It's called "Manfrotto Advanced Gear Backpack M (Medium)". It's very good value for money. Comes with a rain cover as well.
Of course, like tripods, I have several other bags - but this the one I use most.
darr
Well-known member
I buy smaller size backpacks on purpose. One reason, I am petite (5'2"), but the biggest reason is to force myself to take only the absolute necessary gear.
I travel via camper van a lot these days for projects. I use multiple camera systems, but I do not have a lot of storage area to stow everything out of sight.
Once a location has been determined, I usually have to walk a lot and shoot quickly bc being a petite female with expensive camera gear can cause anxiety.
Sometimes my significant other travels by my side, but a lot of the time I choose to go solo. I never like shooting in front of people.
To be honest, I can be quite the private soul that requires space to create, so my gear must not get in the way.
I think having minimal gear is good for the creative soul.
Kind regards,
Darr
I travel via camper van a lot these days for projects. I use multiple camera systems, but I do not have a lot of storage area to stow everything out of sight.
Once a location has been determined, I usually have to walk a lot and shoot quickly bc being a petite female with expensive camera gear can cause anxiety.
Sometimes my significant other travels by my side, but a lot of the time I choose to go solo. I never like shooting in front of people.
To be honest, I can be quite the private soul that requires space to create, so my gear must not get in the way.
I think having minimal gear is good for the creative soul.
Kind regards,
Darr
drunkenspyder
New member
I hate to admit how often this happens with "just one little thing."
stngoldberg
Well-known member
Being a believer of having the correct tool for each job, I cannot count the number of times that I have viewed what I perceived to be a great image while not having the perfect camera/lens combination for that scene.
I suspect that I am not alone having that experience! My thoughts at those moments are about how I can “make do” with what I have or can I come back at a future time and hope for the same light or the same interaction of circumstances that I had in front of me at that moment.
You can’t carry everything; so some of time you just have to be lucky
Stanley
I suspect that I am not alone having that experience! My thoughts at those moments are about how I can “make do” with what I have or can I come back at a future time and hope for the same light or the same interaction of circumstances that I had in front of me at that moment.
You can’t carry everything; so some of time you just have to be lucky
Stanley
What is this bag Mexecutioner?
Mexecutioner
Active member
It is a Think Tank Photo Video Workhorse 19
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
One of the advantages of a 150 mpx back is that you can often shoot with a wider lens than would be ideal (like the 80mm when you'd wish you'd bought the150mm) and crop extensively - and still end up with a pretty big file.
I have found this using the 240 mm for wildlife where I'd prefer a 480 mm lens - I can crop to the equivalent of roughly 500 mm and still have a 37.5 mpx file. This is adequate for wildlife where one would rarely want to make a giant print. See my polar bear picture in the Fun thread - it's a fraction of the original frame and makes a very nice 16 by 20 print.
Of course none of this helps if you wish you'd brought a wider lens!
When I started to use my S-system I used it for all kinds including family, travel etc.
What I usually do is bring maybe 4 lenses on the trip but only 2 max. 3 on a hike, so some lenses stay in the room. I think one of the big good things about the S is that it is not that much bigger than a DSLR. The x1d is even better (in regards of size). I dont know if I wanted to schlepp around a big Hassy or phase.
With the L-mount cameras I sometimes prefer the flexibility of the zooms - for example the 16-35 or the 24-90 or the Telezoom, and also the SL primes are exceptional. I feel the IQ gap is not as big as it was 6 years ago.
Lately I have used the S more often again. I do not only like the IQ but also the solid feel , simple user interface and optical viewfinder.
What I usually do is bring maybe 4 lenses on the trip but only 2 max. 3 on a hike, so some lenses stay in the room. I think one of the big good things about the S is that it is not that much bigger than a DSLR. The x1d is even better (in regards of size). I dont know if I wanted to schlepp around a big Hassy or phase.
With the L-mount cameras I sometimes prefer the flexibility of the zooms - for example the 16-35 or the 24-90 or the Telezoom, and also the SL primes are exceptional. I feel the IQ gap is not as big as it was 6 years ago.
Lately I have used the S more often again. I do not only like the IQ but also the solid feel , simple user interface and optical viewfinder.
Shashin
Well-known member
I simply make stitched panos... :toocool: