If you could pick one..

[terri]

None of you people are helping. Stop trying to make this easy!!

I actually saw that Crown listing here, D-Matt. It's not helping, either.

I was reading someone's review....maybe Ken Rockwell? - where he said he accidentally knocked off the focus lock knob, and was grateful because it took off some weight. Weight is important to me, since I've already reached the stage where I'm wrapping my knees and popping NSAIDs on long hikes. So I always struggle with saving a few ounces here and there vs. durability and cost. I'll save and pay more in some cases, if I think the real payoff will be when I'm clambering up some hill and don't blow my knees out.

I'm still drawn to that Tachihara, cause it's sooo pretty.... probably a chick thing.

I don't have to really be logical, do I? :mrgreen:

 

[bigfatbadger]

A mac.

 

[ksmattfish]

Weight is important to me, since I've already reached the stage where I'm wrapping my knees and popping NSAIDs on long hikes.

Another great reason not to spend a lot of money on LF then. There's no getting around it, LF is heavy. You have to carry a very heavy tripod, and of course the film is pretty bulky compared to rolls. My kit has been reduced as small as I can get it, and it still fills a backpack (no room for other hiking supplies), an insulated lunchbox (for the film), and then there's the tripod...

I've always felt that a Rolleiflex TLR hits a sweet spot for film size compared to camera weight and size. I can get that entire kit plus film into one of my smaller camera bags, and the tripod is optional (and it can be a much lighter tripod). Borrow your hubby's or make him buy you one.

 

[LWW]

Nikon D2XS and 400mm f2.8 along with a low APT and extended terms.

LWW

 

[terri]

Another great reason not to spend a lot of money on LF then. There's no getting around it, LF is heavy. You have to carry a very heavy tripod, and of course the film is pretty bulky compared to rolls. My kit has been reduced as small as I can get it, and it still fills a backpack (no room for other hiking supplies), an insulated lunchbox (for the film), and then there's the tripod...

I've always felt that a Rolleiflex TLR hits a sweet spot for film size compared to camera weight and size. I can get that entire kit plus film into one of my smaller camera bags, and the tripod is optional (and it can be a much lighter tripod). Borrow your hubby's or make him buy you one.

You're very logical, Matt. It's highly annoying.

I'm kidding; you're the best! :hug:: My hubby is a Rollei freak. It's his dream to have several more than he does right now. For me, my largest film size is 645. All those 35mm negatives filling the neg sheet suddenly look reeeeeally small.

I can't wait till I've truly done some research and have it narrowed it down to 1-2 models and really start experimenting. I have to move past the "it's so pretty" stage. I just love those big old negatives.

 

[markc]

I only just learned about it, but how about a Galvin 2x3 (6x9cm) at under 3lbs? Though I guess it has its quirks.

 

[sincere]

I am surprised nobody has said anything about a Mamiya, Hasselblad or so.. :mrgreen:

 

[ksmattfish]

For me, my largest film size is 645. All those 35mm negatives filling the neg sheet suddenly look reeeeeally small.

Interestingly, I've found that my Pentax 67II really isn't any faster or lighter to use and carry than a 4x5 field or press camera. The film takes up less space, but that's about it.

Mamiya and Hasselblad make great medium format cameras, but so do a lot of other companies. Medium format film works good for me; I shoot portraits and landscapes. But if I were a sports or wildlife shooter I'd much rather use a DSLR or 35mm rig.

If the absolute best image quality is desired, there's no beating a digital scanning back. But it requires very long exposure times (many minutes, sometimes hours), so it isn't very practical for a lot of subjects. Large format film is the next best, but the cameras are big, heavy, and bulky, and you almost always have to use a tripod. 35mm and digital are light and fast, can be used very successfully without a tripod, and have a huge variety of lens choices. Medium format is somewhere in between.

My "needs" change with the job or project. Sometimes I need the speed, convenience, and flexibility of digital. Sometimes I need the amazing resolution of medium or large format film. Sometimes I need a camera that will fit into my pocket. I have Hasselblad and Pentax (and a bunch of others) medium format cameras, but if someone handed me a Mamiya or Fuji I could do the job with those too.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Canon 5D - a full-frame sensor to really use some of the great lenses that I bought over the last few years. I was always told to buy good lenses, they would last and be the better investment. This has turned out to be true. And now that I have a really good camera body with a big sensor, I'm really quite pleased with my lenses. Check my profile for details.