Related Notes:
Table of Lens Weights

*Omega 120 is a 6x7cm rangefinder, military version with magnesium knobs etc, but
sadly, a collector's camera too; but it shows what you can get in a 2 1/2 pound camera!

Introduction

This page got started after seeing several postings in the same day complaining about how heavy their current camera kit was, and how a new camera would be sooo much lighter than what they currently were using. 

Sorry, I had to say, but you will only save 3 ounces on the basic camera kit by switching from your Hasselblad 500c/m 6x6cm SLR to that Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5cm SLR as suggested. In fact, if you opt for the Bronica's rotating prism, as most 645 SLR owners do, you will end up with an even heavier and bulkier 645 SLR camera than your current 6x6cm SLR. Ooops!  

Or telling someone selling off a Kowa 6x6cm SLR and buying a lighter Hasselblad 6x6cm SLR is only going to save them less than a pound, at the cost of thousands of dollars to sell-out and buy into the new brand.  I prefer to look at it that I'm saving so many dollars per time while using the heavier camera, which makes me feel rather well compensated for the minor burden of lugging another pound or two around with me!

Surprise!

As I look over the above tables, I find some surprises:

Pentax Spotmatic 35mm SLR (33 oz.)  vs.  Leica M5 35mm rangefinder (35 oz.)
Yashicamat 124G 6x6cm TLR (38.5 oz.) vs. Leicaflex Sl2 35mm SLR (39 oz.)
Mamiya 7 6x7cm rangefinder (42.7 oz.) vs. Canon F1 35mm SLR (43 oz.)
Hasselblad SWC/M 6x6cm viewfinder (47 oz.) vs. Rolleiflex TLR (45 oz.)
Rapid Omega 6x7cm rangefinder (77 oz.) vs. Bronica EC 6x6cm SLR (86 oz. with meter finder)

Why Many 6x4.5cm SLRs are Heavier than Many Popular 6x6cm SLRs:

How many times have you heard folks praise 6x4.5cm SLRs such as the Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5cm SLR for their light weight? Did they tell you the Bronica 645 SLR was a whopping 3 ounces lighter than some competing SLRs such as the Hasselblad 500c/cm (which can take a 6x4.5cm back or 6x6cm backs)? 

48 oz. -  Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5cm SLR
51 oz. -  Hasselblad 500c/cm 6x6cm SLR
53 oz. -  Bronica SQAi 6x6cm SLR
60 oz. -  Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5cm SLR with AE prism (not WLF)
63.5 oz. -Mamiya 6x9cm rangefinder

Frankly, you really need a rotating prism or other accessory to optimally use most 6x4.5cm SLRs like the Bronica ETRSi.  Most of the 645 SLRs are designed for a prism, and some aren't sold with a waist level finder option or have a fixed prism.  Many of us using 6x6cm SLRs happily use the original waist level finder.  In my case, I prefer the higher magnification chimney finder, which is brighter than the prism finders as less glass and no mirrors are used. So my bet is that the standard Bronica ETRSi with prism configuration is probably heavier than most 6x6cm SLR standard configurations (using waist level finders or WLF).  I also find the cubic shape of most 6x6cm SLRs with WLFs are easier to pack and catch on straps less often while traveling.  And as noted above, I can use a 6x4.5cm back on my 6x6cm SLRs if I want too, but not a square format 6x6cm back on a 6x4.5cm SLR like the Bronica ETRSi!

Lightweight Medium Format Panoramic Surprises

One of my surprising discoveries about medium format has been the light weight and small size of certain panoramic cameras.  For example, my Horizon 202S weights circa 2 pounds, yet takes 24mm x 56mm images covering 120 degrees with a swinging lens system.  The Widelux F7 panoramic camera is also under 2 pounds (29 ounces), yet takes similar ultrawide angle photos, also on 35mm film.  Even if you use a medium format 120 rollfilm panoramic such as my 6x9+cm Plaubel Veriwide, you are still lighter (at 34 ounces) than a "lightweight" Leica M5 rangefinder or Minolta SRT101 35mm SLR (both at 35 ounces).  Yet the lighter Veriwide makes images with nearly six times the film area (and same 2:3 aspect ratio) as the Leica M5! Actually, the Leica M5 with an equivalent 18mm lens and the same viewfinder as the Veriwide would be even heavier than the panoramic medium format kit (offset by a good bit faster lens speed).

I find that I use these light weight panoramic cameras to extend my usual camera carrying kit without adding a lot of pounds.  The Horizon 202S in its own carrying case, plus a few rolls of 35mm film, makes a nice addition to either a 35mm or medium format (6x6cm) SLR kit.  The Veriwide adds medium format panoramic capability when I am out shooting 35mm SLR style, for only a few pounds of extra weight - about the same as another zoom lens. Yet it covers an image similar to an 18mm ultrawide lens on 35mm SLRs, but on 6x9+cm film. And I can also add the panoramic cameras to my medium format kits without much additional back pain too.  Finally, these panoramics are as light as a typical 35mm SLR, so they are just as much fun (and maybe more!) to carry on a walk-about. 

Lightweight Medium Format Folders

For very modest costs, you can find a number of medium format folders and rangefinders which offer great value with very modest weight factors.  Most folders weigh just a few pounds, such as the Bessa 66 or Seagull 203 (6x6/645) rangefinder. You will also find many 6x9cm folders on EBAY and other sources, which are only slightly heavier, while still lighter than a Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5cm SLR (48 oz. with WLF). Even our converted "postcard panoramic" folder cameras of 6x12cm format weigh less than the Bronica ETRSi! 

Many older folders feature uncoated lenses of modest performance and a limited range of shutter speeds and slower apertures. But you can find some models like the $15 Kodak Special Six20 with 100mm f/4.5 anastigmat which scored nearly as well as many pro model 6x6cm SLRs costing over fifty times as much! Wow!  You can't really use cost or weight to argue against adding such a low cost but nice performing medium format folder to your 35mm SLR kit! 

Medium Format Lenses

Earlier this evening I was shooting some sunset shots from atop a new campus building perch using a 150mm f/4 and 250mm f/5.6 lenses for a 6x6cm SLR.  Average weight for each telephoto lens was a kilogram or circa 2.2 pounds each. Most zoom and telephoto lenses for 35mm SLRs are very close to this figure.  The medium format lenses are slow by 35mm standards, but that makes them more compact and lighter.  My corresponding Nikon 180mm f/2.8 lens weighs in at about 27 ounces, while my 300mm Nikkor is nearly 3 pounds. While the 180mm f/2.8 is a bit lighter than either my 150mm or 250mm medium format SLR lenses, it is a good bit more "front-heavy" due to the larger f/2.8 lens element up front. Another side effect is that I can't really handhold the 300mm Nikkor very well, but the 250mm f/5.6 is only 2/3rds the weight and so is less marginal handheld. Combined with lesser enlargement factors from the larger medium format film negatives, the effects of camera shake are less disruptive on medium format. But I do miss those faster 35mm SLR lens f/stops in marginal lighting now and again!

Medium Format versus 35mm SLR Kits

I have recently reviewed differences between 35mm SLR and medium format lens sales. One of my surprising conclusions was that the average medium format SLR owner probably owns circa 2 lenses (Hasselblad 500c case study).  At least 67%, and probably 80%+ of all medium format SLR owners have only the one normal lens for their cameras.  Only a minority (under 1/3rd) have the "standard" three lens kit of wide angle (50mm), normal lens (80mm), and short telephoto (150mm). Very few medium format SLR owners have more than 3 lenses. For many medium format non-SLR camera owners, there is only one lens which fits on their camera (e.g., most TLRs such as yashicamats, most rangefinders such as Fuji GA645, most folders...).  In other words, medium format users are "lens poor" compared to their 35mm SLR counterparts.  

In fact, many medium format lines have fewer lenses available. There are practically no zooms, fisheyes, shift lenses, lenses faster than f/2, and other specialty lenses available in medium format such as you might find for most 35mm SLR lines.  The 40mm very wide angle lens (only 2% of medium format SLR sales) only corresponds to a 24mm on a 35mm SLR in horizontal coverage. A 500mm f/8 lens (costing $10,000 US on some lines, where available) for medium format SLRs has a similar horizontal coverage to a 300mm lens on a 35mm SLR. So the medium format user often uses fewer lenses, with a compressed range of perspective effects compared to many 35mm SLR owners. 

According to these same studies, the average medium format SLR owner has only two (2) lenses!  So lens weight isn't a really big problem for most medium format owners.  Taking a typical Hasselblad 500c/cm camera body with back and 80mm lens with WLF, plus a 150mm telephoto lens, and you have just over 5 pounds of camera and lenses in an average owner's kit. A Hasselblad 500c/m with 80mm lens and WLF weighs just about a pound more than a Minolta SRT101 35mm SLR with 50mm f/1.7 lens. So medium format isn't quite the heavyweight hobby that many 35mm critics seem to suggest.

The average 35mm SLR owner isn't much better off for lens ownership, according to these same industry statistics.  They also have only one camera body, and circa 2.24 (to 2.4) lenses. But these lenses are more likely to be zoom lenses, nowadays.  So the lens and camera kit weight for the "average" 35mm shooter is likely to be a pound or so less than the "average" medium format shooter kit. But these averages for 35mm users apply to an awful lot of casual shooters. The average number of film rolls shot per family per year is about 4 rolls of 24 exposure or under 100 photos.  While there may be tens of millions of 35mm SLRs and P&S cameras out there, the number of serious amateur photographers who concern us here are much less in number.

So I believe that the typical 35mm SLR serious amateur photographer probably has quite a few lenses, and takes more of them along when shooting or traveling.  My standard 35mm SLR kit is probably 20mm f/3.5, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm macro, 70-150mm or 70-210mm macro zoom, and often adding 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, 14mm ultrawide, 35mm shift lens, and a teleconverter as appropriate.  I may also have a 35mm lens on a portable backup camera (e.g., Olympus XA), as well as a backup 35mm SLR body possibly loaded with a different film type.  I am not a big fan of filters, but often have to bring polarizers and warming filters in several sizes (whereas my medium format lenses often use similar filter sizes on most lenses).  

My bag, like yours, probably weighs as much as I'll carry - and then some!  Medium format lenses are mainly OEM lenses. Such prime medium format lenses cost more than the average 35mm SLR lens (where third party lenses are a popular and money saving option). So the dollar value of the average 35mm SLR camera bag may be similar to that of the average medium format user, but the same amount of money would mean more 35mm lenses (including third party ones and heavier zooms too).  So my bet is that if anything, the average 35mm SLR kit of the typical serious amateur photographer probably weighs more than the typical kit of the medium format types. Mine certainly do. Do yours too?

Large Format Surprises Too!

What about large format? Surely there is a huge weight difference between medium format and large format. Here again, there are a number of surprises.  Suffice to say that there is a line of low weight field cameras for 4x5"users, sometimes made of lightweight wood, which weigh little more than many medium format cameras. We are talking under 3 pounds here.  Some of the Japanese field cameras in 4x5" are even 2 lbs 8 oz. or less! Unfortunately, you often have to add a rollfilm back if you want rollfilm economy and flexibility, or carry a number of film holders which each seem to weigh tons by the end of the day's hiking. 

You often need a pretty sturdy tripod and other accessories in large format work. In 35mm and medium format, you can often get by with a lighter tripod and ball-head.  Most tripods which will hold a 35mm SLR with a heavy zoom or telephoto will also hold most medium format SLRs and lightweight telephoto lenses adequately too. 

As for lenses, the typical 4x5" shooter seems to use fewer lenses than 35mm SLR shooters, and about the same as medium format users.  It is not at all unusual to find a serious amateur large format user who has only two or three lenses too.  The same LF lens(es) can be used as a closeup lens, if there is enough bellows draft. You don't need any specialty shift lenses, since that is inherent in the design and format.  You can readily crop and "zoom" with your enlarger, thanks to the large format negative sizes.  

In short, don't write off large format either solely because of a perception that you need a donkey or a mule to haul your kit around.  Since 4x5" film is hardly bigger than the palm of your hand, you don't really need a huge camera to shoot 4x5" either. 

Conclusions

 Take another look at the tables at the top of this article.  You should find a number of surprises, as I did, especially if you hear a lot of conventional "wisdom".  In fact, many 6x4.5cm cameras are about as heavy and bulky as their 6x6cm SLR counterparts (if more feature rich and electronic). Conversely, the supposed light weight camera kings such as the Leica M5 rangefinder may be heavier than some 6x4.5cm rangefinders (such as the Fuji 645s) and even an older "heavy" Pentax spotmatic SLR.  While medium format cameras and lenses may be a bit heavier than their 35mm SLR counterparts, I believe that the camera bags of serious amateur photographers using 35mm SLRs are probably heavier than the "lens poor" medium format SLR users.  While I often walk around with a single lens and medium format camera, I usually carry at least two and often three lenses when carrying a lighter weight 35mm SLR (e.g., 28mm, 50mm, 100mm). So, like Parkinson's Law, our camera bags end up weighing as much as we can carry whether we are 35mm SLR shooters or medium format shooters...

Related Postings

From: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: more surprises ;-) Re: camera weights, a heavy subject? 

Just for grins I weighed my GS-1 with a homemade strobe/accessory frame, pro
bellows shade, AE Prism, Speed Grip, 220 6x6 back, 65 mm, Metz 45CT-4, Wein
Radio Slave, and a Bogen tripod adapter, . . . oh about 4.7 kg or 10.34 lbs.
Kind of makes the one extra lb here or there irrelevant. I am doing curls with
it in preparation for an 8 hour wedding shoot. Amazingly stable with the left
and right hand grip, . . . shot some interiors hand held at 1/15th of a sec. 

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Christopher M Perez" <christopher.m.perez@tek.com>
Re: URL Re: camera weight
Date: Wed Sep 26  CDT 2001

Robert,

This is a GREAT page. Illustrates many of the principles often overlooked 
when building a camera kit for the field. I particularly enjoyed your
Mamiya 7 (6x7) vs Minolta 35mm. The joys of the larger negative cannot be
overstated... :-)

It'd be interesting to add Large Format to this comparison. I used to have
the following LF kit:

- Gowland 4x5
- 135mm Fuji-W f/5.6
- 240mm Fuji-A f/9
- four film holders
- loupe
- darkcloth
- Velbon U8000 tripod
- Pentax 1degree light meter

All up weight: less than 10 pounds!

Keep up the good work - Chris 

From: "Christopher M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: URL Re: camera weight
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 

Robert,

This is a GREAT page.  Illustrates many of the principles often overlooked
when building a camera kit for the field.  I particularly enjoyed your
Mamiya 7 (6x7) vs Minolta 35mm.  The joys of the larger negative cannot be
overstated...  :-)

It'd be interesting to add Large Format to this comparison.  I used to have
the following LF kit:
- Gowland 4x5
- 135mm Fuji-W f/5.6
- 240mm Fuji-A f/9
- four film holders
- loupe
- darkcloth
- Velbon U8000 tripod
- Pentax 1degree light meter

All up weight: less than 10 pounds!

Keep up the good work - Chris


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu> wrote 
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/weights.html
>
> I just added the omega 120 rangefinder, at 2 1/2 pounds, but as a military
> camera, they used magnesium knobs etc. to lighten it up ;-) grins
>
> hth bobm
> --


From: Ilja Friedel ilja@blinky.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: URL Re: camera weight
Date: 29 Sep 2001 

Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu> wrote:
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/weights.html

Nice page. Could you also convert and add the weights in gramms?
You have a dead link to the Plaubel Verivide. Should add .html

Ilja.


From: "Tom Bloomer" bloomer@  snip.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya RB/RZ weight consideration
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 

I bought the following on eBay or from dealers that had offered Bronica
equipment on eBay:

Bronica SQA Body . .   227.50
  SQ WL Finder . . . . .    50.00
  SQ 120 Back . . . . . .  175.00
  SQ 105mm F3.5 S . .  365.00
                                      -------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .    830.50

No complaints whatsoever.  I could have got the 80mm F2.8 PS lens for less
than I paid for the 105, but I really like the 105 for the particular kind
of work I do - horses and people with horses.  I sold a Fuji GW670 II to buy
the bronica.  I miss the larger film, but the convenience of the square
makes up for it.  The RB was just too heavy for me to lug around at a horse
show.  I would have rather have gotten the GS1, but never saw a deal that
was within my budget.  Plus you run into a problem with verticals using the
GS1 on a tripod with a flash bracket - requires very expensive tripod head
and/or rotating flash bracket.  By the time you invest in a support system
to manage vertical shots with the GS1 - prism finder, flash bracket, 3way
pan/tilt head, etc. you have added so much to the cost and weight that the
RB becomes a better deal.

The RB is a really fine camera.  I borrowed one along with a big Bogan
tripod for a day back in 1989 - shooting with that camera was a real joy as
long as I didn't have to move around a lot.  The revolving back helps to
maximize your usage of film real-estate . . . but Gawd that thing was big.
If there is any way possible for you to get to a camera shop that has a lot
of MF gear, or befriend some local photographers that would at least let you
handle the systems.  There is no substitute for hands on.  Even if you have
to drive to a big city, it would be worth it to actually hold one in your
hands.
--
Tom Bloomer
Hartly, DE

"Neurula [Sydney]" intelligence@!!!technologist.com> wrote 
Thanks, yea you pretty much summed up my situation there, I was looking for
a 6x6 MF, and thought Id get a Bronica SQ-A, but their prices are not very
good on ebay, still a tad expensive for used gear if you ask me (in fact
many kits listed on ebay are brand new). Then I came across RB, which is
basically perfect in terms of its price on ebay (very soft at the moment)
and quality of the photos. Only downside is its weight. But the thing is im
strictly amateur, so i wont have to carry the beast around with me everyday.


"M P Brennan" mpbrennan@hotmail.com> 
> Kev:
>
> From your smattering of posts I suspect that you've got Hasselblad taste and
> a Kiev budget and are attracted to the very low (current) prices of the RB
> equipment.
>
> The RB is about as fine a camera as you can own.  They're rugged and
> reliable and have optics equal to the best medium format cameras out there.
>
> My business partner shoots an RB67 and it is an absolute pleasure to sift
> through the very large negatives of a wedding that we happen to shoot with
> his cameras.  The difference in size between my 6x6 Hasselblad negatives and
> his 6x7 negs is more striking than you might otherwise think.
>
> Obviously, the Hasselblad is a fairly easy camera to handhold, but despite
> that, I rarely do so.  In the interest of maximum sharpness I almost always
> use a monopod (unless a tripod is called for).  The same goes for my M645's
> and my 35mm equipment.  A monopod makes a big difference in the end result.
>
> If you're looking for "bang for the buck", you should probably buy an RB.
> Yes, it's a little heavier, but it's not like it's a cement block or
> anything.  You certainly don't need to obsess over it.
>
> Make the decision and don't look back.  You'll be glad you did.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> "Neurula [Sydney]" intelligence@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:9qeg3t$one$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
> > Hi does anyone have any experience with carrying one of these cameras
> around
> > for street photography? How long can you hold it for before your arm
falls
> > off?
>


From: Duncan Ross Duncan@DuncanRossPhoto.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya RB/RZ weight consideration
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 

You can look up the various weights of systems on the http://www.mamiya.com
web site.   I suggest you do some research, figure out how much a system will
weigh and carry around some hand weights to simulate the camera's weight.

"Neurula [Sydney]" wrote:

> Just out of interest, how heavy is your RB setup?
>
> "Martin Jangowski" m.jangowski@phoenix-ag.de> 
> > Neurula [Sydney] intelligence@technologist.com> wrote:
> > > Hi does anyone have any experience with carrying one of these cameras
> around
> > > for street photography? How long can you hold it for before your arm
> falls
> > > off?
> >
> > It depends a little on your size and weight. I'm rather un-small (190cm
> and
> > wide built) and used a RB as a handhold camera on several occasions
> without
> > any problems, even for extended times. However, my wife is just able to
> lift
> > the RB and uses it with tripod only. She prefers the Mamiya 7 and likes
> the
> > small size and weight of this system. It really depends on you.
> >
> > Martin

--
Duncan Ross
http://DuncanRossPhoto.com
 



Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
Subject: do kowas fail value/weight/acquirability test? ;-) why prices are dropping on med fmt used gear etc.
To: Kowa6x6slr@yahoogroups.com

Mike suggests the Kowas fail a value/weight acquirability test ;-) Let's see:

Weight: Just measured my Kowa 6 body/wlf/lens;
it doesn't seem far from competitors:

6x6 SLR bodies with WLF, normal lens (75-85mm)
rollei 6008i "   51 oz
bronica sqA "    52 oz
hassy 501cm "    53 oz
kowa 6/85mm/wlf  60 oz*
rollei SL66 SE"  67 oz
hassy 553 ELX "  75 oz

re: value?
I have previously checked ebay and posted some example final sold-at prices:

                 Kowa 66 body/back/wlf/lens for $300, 
                 normal 85mm lens for $46 and $42,
                 kowa 6MM (mirror lockup body) with 85mm and grip for $390, 
                 a 150mm lens for $183.50 with case and caps
                 kowa 6 with 85mm for $205
                 a (dented filter ring) 150mm for $150
                 kowa 6 with 85mm for $249
                 kowa 6 with 55mm wide angle for $280
                 kowa 6 with 85mm, 55mm, 150mm, grips cases 45 degree prism $611
                 kowa super 66 with 150mm lens $415
                 kowa 110mm ("rare") macro lens $305
                 kowa 55mm wide angle $185
                 kowa prism $99.99

Availability: 
some of the Kowa accessories and lenses are rare. But then, so are some of
the other brands out there ;-) from mf/mffaq.html there were only 50 of
the 24mm hassy fisheyes made (closest to kowa 19mm, also very rare). Less
than 1% of the hassy C lenses sold were 500mm. Only 3% were 120 macros.
only 2% were 40mm.  If you think hassy lenses like these are rare, try
Rollei SLX/SL66/600x lenses for rarity and prices. You can't even rent
them in most regions of the USA! 

re: ownership of lenses Kowa vs. Blads
Circa 2/3rds of the hasselblad 500 series owners only have the 80mm lens.
A survey of 40 hasselblad 500 series owners showed only 55 lenses other
than the 80mm (among 45 bodies owned), or just 1.375 accessory lenses per
owner.  Over 85% of the hassy lenses sold were 50/80/150 trio, rest under
15%! This same trio on Kowa can be had for $600 or so ($611 on ebay with
grips and prism plus kowa 6 and 55/85/150). Compared to bronica SQ or
hassy 500c/cm this would seem to be rather good value for the money IMHO
see mf/lenssold.html pages 

re: rarity "warnings" 
On the Kowa price guide pages (mf/kowapg.html) I suggest a number of low
cost workarounds for some of the rarer and pricier items in about 8 pages
of suggestions. I do feel that I have provided considerable "warnings"
about which items are rare and pricey (IMHO). from the mf/kowafaq.html I
noted under main disadvantages of kowas: 

quote: A related disadvantage is that some of the accessories and lenses
are relatively rare. As you might expect, the higher cost items like the
19mm fisheye lens, the 35mm, 40mm, and 500mm lenses are also rare and hard
to find. A few accessories such as the Kowa Super 66 Polaroid backs and
microscope adapter are not quite rare, but still take a bit of searching.
endquote: 

In my mf/value.html pages, I describe how I "mix and match" 
bronica S2/EC (long telephotos, cheap macro with focal plane shutter, 
cheap tilt/shift bellows and tubes) with kowa 6 (lots of short telephotos 
for fillin flash, low cost lenses against leaf shutter competitors like 
blads). I think this overlapping system strengths to avoid system 
weaknesses is a good approach if you are in macro or long telephoto, 
where leaf shutter advantages are not so compelling and costs are higher.

re: parts/repairs
My mf/nofix.html pages now notes that you can't get many parts for older 
bodies and lens shutters from hasselblad, nor lens elements (if 
scratched) from zeiss, nor for older bronica ETR or mamiya 645 etc., nor for 
many other rigs more than 10 or so years old. So don't feel so bad about 
the Kowa repair situation, you and I have lots of company forced to use
donor body parts and independent repairers now too. The real "problem" 
with kowa gear is that the lenses and body are so cheap, it is hard to 
justify repairing them. But there are worse problems out there ;-)...

re: dropping prices on med fmt gear
Pros are switching to digital, having to buy digicams, computers, 
printers, scanners, software, courses/training, and storage etc. Avg cost 
$8,800 to go digital (mf/semipro.html). To raise that money, they are 
dumping their old medium format backup gear. People with gear in their 
closets have discovered EBAY too, and not just in the USA. Supply goes 
up, demand is dropping, and so prices are dropping too...

In japan in 1999, medium format market collapsed, sales of new gear
dropped 36% (25,000 to 16,000 units made in japan, LF/MF) (see
third/economics.html). As USA goes digital, expect lower MF sales. But
even I was surprised to see hasselblad drop $2,500 on its 20x series
bodies (45% price cut) in USA recently. Wow! They also cleaned out stock
and moved it to raise cash etc. 

Sam Sherman has called this the "golden age" of medium format used gear 
buying, between ebay & flood of cameras from overseas (strong dollar, weak
local currencies from New Zealand to Russia). Not so good, if like Mike, 
you are trying to sell kits of older gear in the face of 45% price cuts 
for newest gear and dealers dumping old shelf stock to raise cash in face 
of dropping sales ;-( 

conclusions: I think the Kowas are not much heavier than other 6x6
competitors, perform as well optically, and are a bargain _if_ you stick
to the standard lens kits which are common and cheap (55/85/150). Since
this covers 85% of hassy lens kit owners, including many pros, it should
be a capable kit for typical semipro and amateur users shooting moderate
amounts of film. 

For the majority of users, the Kowas would seem to pass the value, weight,
availability tests when compared to the leaf shutter alternatives out
there. Actually, you would be hard pressed to buy a bronica S2 with 3
lenses and prism for $611, or even a kiev 3 lens kit for much less....

regards bobm

From: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: camera weights, a heavy subject? Re: Entry level Med fmt

I got my weights from the B&H; catalogue which are as follows: (body, back, wlf,
normal lens)

Bronica GS-1             64.6 oz.
            SQAi             53.4 oz.
Hasselblad                 41.3 - 48 oz.
Mamiya RZ67             84.8 oz.

The GS-1 is 1 lb. heavier than the Hassy. Remember though, when you add a
prism, the C330 Porrofinder is much, much lighter.

Interesting that the difference in weight between a Hassy and the GS-1 is
identical to the gain in negative size. No argument that the Hassy system and
lens blows the GS-1 away. 
            

            
From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: camera weights, a heavy subject? Re: Entry level Med fmt
Date: 9 Sep 2001 

which bronica?

let's see; C330 is 3 lbs 13.5 ounces, etrsi with battery/wlf/80/120 back
is about 3 lbs, but the AE finder adds about 12 ounces or so, so lighter
than C330 by 1.5 oz. The SQAi is 3.3 lbs or 3 lbs 5 oz with wlf, 15 1/3 oz
for AE prism, or maybe 5 ounces heavier than C330 or so? And the GS1 is 4 
lbs (wLF), still in range of the C330 really tho' 6x7cm

The old bronica S2A is 4 lbs 2 oz, not too bad either, again only 5 oz 
heavier? The hassy 500cm, which I often recommend as a travel camera, is 
only 3 lbs 3 oz for basic kit, only half a pound more than the mamiya 7 
with 80mm f/4 (but a f/2.8 SLR).  

I think I'll have to put up a page of camera weights, pretty amusing ;-)

grins bobm




Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Siu Fai siufai@dds.nl>
Subject: [Rollei] Weights; was:  Initial Results with the 3.5T, bending film
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

> On the other hand due to the L-shaped design an fixed lens panel, the
> reduced size and weight of a R-T vs. a Mamiya 220 or 330 is
> significant.

I finally bought a scale and weight some of my cameras. The weight
difference between the C330 (non-F/S version but with a type 2 WLF) with the
MS 80/2.8 lens and the 2.8F is about 0.5 kg. That's about 50% more than the
2.8F. I haven't measured my C220 but this camera weight significantly less
than the C330.

(BTW: the weight difference between my 3.5F and 2.8F is about 70g)

> However having used a mamiya 220 once I find it a very
> pleasant camera to use, a bit like a small technical view camera with
> its nice built-in bellows and less automated operation. Not mentioning
> the capability to change lens panels, something Rollei considered in a
> prototype but actualy never brought into production. (see Prochnow
> volume 2).

It is a great camera. It doesn't have the same feel ("Deutsches qualitat
^_^) as the Rollei but they are much easier in handling when using a
hammerhead type of flash, and/or when using a eye level prism/porro finder.

Siu Fai


From: tgeusch@nildram.co.uk (Timo Geusch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: leica M weight and size surprises was Re: lens sales stats (1.2)
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 

Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu> wrote:

 
> the collapsible lens leica III series cameras and the like were truly
> pocket sized cameras with light weight and small size. But frankly, the
> Leica M5/M6 are not quite so lightweight or small as you often see
> claimed.

*polite cough*
M5 body shape != M6 body shape. An M5 body is quite substantially bigger
than an M6 body. But I agree, they are fairly heavy for their size.

> So when folks here start saying that they have multiple M bodies
> and lenses, the weight and size of their kits must be very similar to a
> 35mm SLR user who uses fixed lenses (as I prefer to do), right?

The weight maybe, but the size isn't - for some reason the lenses are
smaller than the equivalent SLR lenses. To stay with one of your
examples, the SRT101 standard lens (50 or 55/1.7 or 2.0) is bigger than
a Leica 50/2 or 50/1.5.
 
> Again, this was another leica prejudice and misinformation that I found
> surprising when I saw these actual numbers (hence in part the weights
> pages).

But they are complete flyweights compared to my S2A (aka the brick) :-).


From: mkirwan@nospampacbell.net (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF and Hiking
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002


I know how you feel. My large format outfit (Wista 45DX, 90mm, 150mm &
210mm lenses + readyload holder and 40 reayload packets) is way
lighter than my C330 or Hasselblad outfit.

But if I am out for a few days and I want to shoot MF I take my
hasselblad with 80mm lens and an extra back.

Mike

"kauai82" kauai82@earthlink.net wrote:

>I have been trying out different cameras in Medium Format for the last
>couple of months. I am concentrating on the TLR because of price and have
>bought several on ebay. My first camera was a Seagull 105-A and after
>shooting a few rolls I decided that I needed a camera that had a better lens
>and focus system. I got a Yashica D and liked the feel of the camera and the
>weight. I do a lot of hiking and my sole reason for going into Medium Format
>is to enlarge some landscape shots up to the 20X30 inches. I had the chance
>and purchased a Mamiya C33 that takes good pics but is heavy as hell. I use
>a tripod on my hikes, but in the next few months I will be doing a lot of
>hiking in the Sierra Nevada in California up to 9,000 to 13,500 feet
>elevation. Is there a camera that is light like the Yashica D that has a
>great lens that is really sharp details and is about the same weight ? I
>just can't see me lugging the C33 on these longer hikes. Thanks, Matt



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Tourtelot tourtelot1@attbi.com
Subject: [HUG] OT Leica M7

Actually got to put my hands on one the other day at my local shop.  Wow!
With the motor, it weighs a ton, but it is unbelievably beautiful.  I'd make
room in my Hasselblad case for one (if I could afford it).

D.



Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Rollei] SL66 or SLX, opinions? (was Rolleiwide? Who cares?)

>  Philippe Tempel at ptempel@home.com wrote:
>
> > The Hassy gets the nod for lighter weight.
>
> Not if you add a motor drive, which is built-in on the Rolleis.
>
> Bob

Hi Bob,

Actually, it's still lighter...but not my much!:

Rollei 6008 w/ 80/2.8, 120 back, "speed grip", hood and UV - 4lb 15oz
Hasselblad 205FCC w/ 80/2.8 CFE, E12TCC back, winder, hood and UV - 4lb 14oz

measured on a very accurate Pelouze 1050 digital scale, lense caps removed.

Austin



From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: field camera recomendations
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 


Stephe wrote:

> Another point is the lenses that have a large enough image circle to use
> these movements are also large and heavy and for someone interested in
> traveling any distance on foot, they aren't what is wanted. Then one has to
> consider why have a camera that has more movement than the lenses you would
> want to carry.

As someone who has a strong affinity for small, lightweight lenses, I
must disagree - see:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

I find there are far too many examples of small lightweight lenses with
generous coverage to make such sweeping generalizations.  Some of these
lenses are among my all time personal favorites.  An extreme example is
the 450mm Fujinon C.  This lens, in Copal #1 shutter weighs only 270g (9
1/2 oz.), yet has a 486mm image circle - that's enough to cover 11x14
with movements.  This lens is clearly small enough and light enough to
carry in the field, but has coverage far in excess of the limits of any
4x5 field camera currently on the market.

Here's a few more examples of some truly tiny lenses that can actually
cover 8x10 (and exceed the capabilites of many 4x5 field cameras):

300mm Fujinon C - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 380mm IC, 250g
300mm Nikkor M  - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 325mm IC, 290g
240mm Fujinon A - Copal #0 shutter, 52mm filters, 336mm IC, 225g

Here's a few more that cover 5x7 (and push the limits of some 4x5 field
cameras):

210mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 49mm filters, 260mm IC, 285g
180mm Fujinon A - Copal #0 shutter, 46mm filters, 252mm IC, 170g
150mm APO Sironar-S - Copal #0 shutter, 49mm filters, 231mm IC, 225g


So far, I've only listed lens in the 10 oz. or less range (the truly
ultralight).  If you are willing to consider lenses up to about 16 or 17
oz. (~480g) in Copal #0 or #1 shutters, there are many more - inluding
just about every current or recent standard 180mm - 210mm plasmat.  A
few more notables:

360mm Fujinon A - Copal #1 shutter, 58mm filters, 504mm IC, 465g
300mm Fujinon A - Copal #1 shutter, 55mm filters, 420mm IC, 410g
305mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 67mm filters, 381mm IC, 460g
270mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 58mm filters, 335mm IC, 375g
240mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 298mm IC, 330g
150mm APO Sironar-W - Copal #1 shutter, 72mm filters, 252mm IC, 380g
110mm Super Symmar XL - Copal #1 shutter, 67mm filters, 288mm IC, 425g
90mm Nikkor SW - Copal #0 shutter, 67mm filters, 235mm IC, 360g

I'm sure there are others I have missed, but I think that's enough to
get the point across.  I'm not trying to say that each and every user
will need all that coverage, just trying to show that just because a
lens has generous coverage doesn't necessarily make it too heavy to
carry in the field.  In fact, in my entire lens repetoire, I don't have
anything that weighs more than 17 oz., yet many of my lenses will exceed
the capabilities of many 4x5 field cameras.

Again, I'm not trying to say anyone or everyone needs all that coverage
and generous camera movements.  It will vary from individual to
individual.  I do, however, think it might be a bit short sighted to
chose a camera with very limited movements soley on the premise that all
lenses with generous coverage are too heavy to carry in the field.

Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/



From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: field camera recomendations
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 

> Kerry L. Thalmann wrote:

> http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm
> ----------------
>  The lightest modern example is the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW.  It's a great lens
> (see Future Classics and Lenses - General Purpose - 90 - 125mm for more
> information on this fine lens), very sharp and contrasty with huge
> coverage.  However, at 355g with 67mm filters, it's doesn't really qualify
> (IMHO) as a compact, lightweight lens.
> -----------------
>
> I have a 90mm SA f8 (00 shutter model with 67mm filters 370+g?) and it's
> the ONLY lens this size/weight I carry and sometimes I use a 100mm WF ektar
> so I don't have to haul that big 90 with me. I have NO interest in taking
> several lenses that heavy on a day hike! The 90 SA is not a small
> lightweight lens. If anyone thinks it is then yes they can use a camera
> with tons of movements for hiking!


I suppose it's all relative.  Compared to a 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL
(665g, 95mm filters) the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW (355g, 67mm) would be
considered small and light.  Not so compared to the 90mm WA Congo (145g,
43mm filters).

BTW, that above quote pre-dates the introduction of the 80mm f4.5 Super
Symmar XL - a lens that has similar coverage to your 90mm f8 SA, but
weighs 100g less (271g, 67mm filters).

Again, this is all relative.  The recommendations on my lightweight
lenses pages are specifically written as recommendations for the
absolutest lightest lenses to carry on multiday backpacking trips.  I
carry slightly heavier lenses for general purpose use and long dayhikes
(and sometimes backpacking, too).  Still, in the past I have carried
many lenses in the 12 - 17 oz. range on backpacking trips up to a week
in length.  At one time, my 4x5 lens kit for backpacking consisted of
75mm Nikkor SW (435g), 90mm Nikkor SW (355g), 135mm Nikkor W (210g),
210mm Nikkor W (475g) and 300mm Nikkor M (270g).  While certainly not
the lightest kit possible, the total eight of those five lenses was less
than 4 lb.  Not at all unreasonable.  In fact, I doubt if you could
assemble a kit of comparable medium format lenses that doesn't weigh
considerably more.  Again, it's all relative.

> Which aren't what I (or you?) would call lightweight lenses either.

I certainly wouldn't call them too heavy to carry in the field either.
They aren't the lightest lenses made, but they are also far from the
heaviest.  I can and do carry such lenses in the field on a regular
basis (see above), and so do many others.

> My normal kit is a 90mm SA, a 135mm WF ektar and a 210mm Geronar, none of
> which has a giant image circle (around 210-220mm). These make for a nice
> light lens choice for hiking. If I take the 100 WF ektar instead of the
> 90SA, all three of these weigh less than one big plasmat!


Depends on which "big plasmat" you are referring to (maybe a 300mm in a
Copal No. shutter??).  Certianly not a standard 210mm f5.6 plasmat.  The
three lenses you mention total 710g  (175g + 290g + 245g).  For
comparison, the actual weight of my 210mm APO Symmar (the heaviest large
format lens I own) is 475g.

> In the long lengths over 240mm there are some light lenses that have big
> coverage. But in the lengths many landscape users prefer, the image circle
> is limited and lenses that do have more coverage are generally bigger and
> much heavier.

Again, it comes down to the individual user.  I shoot 100% landscapes
and happen to like the "longer" 240mm and 300mm focal lengths more than
the wide angles 90mm and shorter.  In fact, the 240mm Fujinon A is one
of my all time favorite backpacking lenses and often the most used lens
on any given trip.  Doesn't mean others will or won't have similar usage
patterns.  Who knows?  Highly personal.  I chose not to assume one way
or the other.

We've drifted a bit from the original question at this point (but
hopefully helped the original poster in some round about way).  Camera
choice, focal length preferences, movement and coverage requirements -
these are all highly subjective and vary from person to person.
However, I still stand by my basic assertion that there are far to many
lightweight lenses with generous coverage make blanket statements like:
"lenses that have a large enough image circle to use these movements are
also large and heavy and for someone interested in traveling any
distance on foot"  - and to select a camera based on this criterion. It
doesn't take a 15 lb. Linhof or Sinar to exploit the capabilites of such
lightweight, generous coverage lenses.  Remember, the two cameras being
discussed in this context were the Toho FC-45X and the Shen Hao
HZX-45AII.  Certainly two reasonable choices for cameras to use in the
field.


Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/

Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/



From: for7@aol.com (FOR7)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 May 2001 
Subject: Re: What is the smallest Medium Format Point and Shoot?

>Mamiya has been making excellent 6x6 and 6x7 rangefinders.  I have never
>played with them, but I have never heard anything bad about them at all.
>
>Jman wrote:
>
>> What is the smallest Medium Format Point and Shoot that I could buy
>> now?
>> Are the Fujis the only thing going?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jman
>> Thanks,
>> Jman


Fixed lens, then the Fuji has the smallest. They are basically modern folders
since the lens automatically  retracts into the body. My Fuji GA 645 fits into
a very small bag that no one would think could hold a camera of its capability.
Looks more like a little bag for my wifes makeup. Without the bag it could
easily fit into a larger jacket or coat pocket.

Interchangeable lenses, then it would be the newer Bronica and the Mamiyas 6
and 7. All are non AF comapred to the Fujis.

I love my Fuji and use it when I want to travel light along with my pocket
Olympus Stylus. People always ask, what the hell kinda camera is that.

E.T.
for7@aol.com


From russian camera mailing list:
From: "Parlin 44" parlin44@hotmail.com
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 
Subject: [Russiancamera] Which Lubitel?

All the talking and yodeling about lubitel in town got me curious.  Which is
the "best" (user) model to get?  My cursory research points to Lubitel 2
(the one with 1/15-1/250 speeds) - at a mere 550g (about zorki-1 body
weight) you get an SLR 6x6! (well, TLR)

parlin


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: which MF to choose
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002

"Stan Randle" stanman2171@hotmail.com wrote:
> David J. Littleboy davidjl@gol.com wrote:
>
> > The cost of that is heavier, slower, and (often) more expensive lenses.
>
> Not at all. 645 lenses *are* 6x6 lenses -- they cover the 6x6 circle.

Sounds exceedingly unlikely; it would be quite dumb if they did, since all
that extra light could possible do is bounce off things and reduce contrast,
or at best stress test one's flocking at every shot.

> Most 6x6 lenses weigh no more  than 645 lenses.

Like the 785 gram 150mm/4.0 Hassy lens and the 740gm 150/2.8 Mamiya (420gm
for 150/3.5)? Or the 2910gm 300/2.8 Mamiya and the 3800 gm 300/2.8 Hassy?

For the wide angle lenses, the differences are major. The 35mm, 45mm, and
55mm Mamiya lenses are _much_ lighter and faster (usually a whole stop) than
the 40, 50, and 60mm Hassy and Bronica lenses. Cheaper too. With similar
stories for Pentax, Contax, and Bronica.

(The Hassy 50mm/2.8 FE lens is three times heavier than the 45/55mm f/2.8
Mamiya lenses and over twice as heavy as the Mamiya 55/2.8 lens that
includes a shutter. And the 110/2.0 comes in at twice the weight of the
Mamiya 80/1.9, although it is a longer lens.)

Of course, since the Mamiya doesn't fly without a grip and a prism, the
all-up weights are about the same. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan  



From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: which MF to choose
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002

"Daniel Brown" dbrown@noemail.net wrote:
> davidjl@gol.com says...
>
> >The cost of that is heavier, slower, and (often) more expensive lenses.
> >We've been through this before: 645 requires a 70mm diameter coverage, and
> >6x6 requires 80mm.
>
> Thats because of the leaf shutters in most cases.

Mostly it's because I'm looking at wide angle, where the 645 lenses actually
are quite a bit smaller. You're right, though, the shutter aggravates
things.

> But if you need leaf
> shutters, you need them regardless of whether or not they weigh more than a on    
> LS 645 lens.

The Mamiya 55/2.8 leaf shutter lens is lighter than any Hassy lens, and the
Hassy shutterless lenses are some of the heaviest lenses for their focal
length in photographic history, but that's Hassy, not reality...

(The shutter adds 215 grams to a 305 gram lens. Ouch. But the Mamiya 35/3.5
is 445gm vs. 510 for the Bronica PE 40/4.0.)

> Someone might want to check the specs, but I'd be surprised if
> there was a tremendous weight difference in a Bronica 75PE and an 80 PS.

Good idea. I was comparing Mamiya and Hassy, which was, well, silly.

At normal and longer lengths, the PE lenses are 10% or more lighter,
noticeably smaller, take smaller filters, and are cheaper. They are
different lenses, but the differences are not large.   

Wide angle lenses show somewhat larger differences: the PS 40mm lens is 20%
heavier (the Bronica PS is one of the lightest 6x6 40mm/4.0 lenses around,
but still strikes me as a large lens), requires a 95mm instead of a 62mm
filter, and is more expensive. And the PS 50-100 zoom is twice the weight of
the PE 45-90mm zoom.

Of course, the Mamiya wide angle lenses are lighter, faster, and wider than
the corresponding PE lenses, but that's the shutter issue. Given the costs
in weight and speed, it seems that seriously reconsidering one's need for a
leaf shutter might be advisable.

(Do I sound like someone who has almost persuaded himself to buy a
Mamiya{g}.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: Randy info@holgamods.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lightest MF extant?
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002

The Diana weighs in at 4.6 ounces without a take up spool.
The Holga weighs 6.4 ounces with a take up spool

Randy
www.holgamods.com


From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lightest MF extant?
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002

I don't know about Holgas and Dianas, but a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta A
weighs about 575g or a smidge over 20 oz.

Godfrey


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002


"Jeremy 1952" jeremy@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Without trying to start an online war, may I bring up the fact that modern
> films have become much sharper, somewhat narrowing the gap between MF and
> 35mm?

That doesn't narrow the gap, it _widens_ it. The difference in area between
the largest acceptable 35mm print and the largest acceptable MF print gets
_larger_ as the quality of the film goes up.

> BUT: is the extra margin of MF quality important TO YOU, based on YOUR
> unique requirements?  That is the issue that you must decide for yourself.

Don't forget that one's "unique requirements" can change quite quickly: if
you have a camera that'll make exquisite 20x30s (and you have the wall
space or customers) you are going to find yourself interested in 20x30s. And
35mm is going to look quite pale. Especially when you consider that a Fuji
GSW690 III is about the same price and weight as any decent 35mm kit.


> In an era when cameras fit into shirt pockets, will you be happy lugging
> that MF machine on your hiking expeditions?

My Agfa Isolette fits in a jacket pocket and at under 700 grams, my Fuji
GS645S produces better images than any 35mm. While the 1500 grams of a Fuji
GSW690 may seem heavy, it'll produce gorgeous prints with 4 times the area
of the largest 35mm print you consider just barely unacceptable.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: HELP : CHOOSING LENSES (and MED FORMAT brands too...)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
> hasselblad 500cm and rolleiflex 6008i weigh the same, 3 lbs. 3 oz ;-)

Hmm. The numbers I found on the net  were 15xx grams for new Hassys and 20xx
grams for the rollei. You might want to check those numbers. (Maybe your
Rollei number is without lens.)

> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/weights.html and mf/available.html (on lens
> weights, close focusing etc. newly added table)... hth bobm

You could add the Agfa Isolette III (630 gm, 22 oz)  Olympus OM-1n (740 gm,
26 oz with f/1.8) Fuji GS645 folder (820 gm, 29 oz) GS645S (820 gm, 29oz)
and the Mamiya 645 ProTL (1805 gm 64 oz with motor, 1500 without) to that
table.

Oh, now I see why the Kowa's called the 66 {g}.
 
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 
From: "Joe B." joe-b@clara.co.uk
Subject: [Rollei] TLR weights

I've been looking in two books to see what the weights of the
different Rollei TLRs are. But there is some confusion. The two books
are Evans' Rollei Collectors' Guide, and Parker's Rollei TLR
Collectors' Guide. Where the weights given are different I don't know
who to believe.

Joe B.



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR weights, Prochnow !!

> I've been looking in two books to see what the weights of the
> different Rollei TLRs are. But there is some confusion. The two
> books are Evans' Rollei Collectors' Guide, and Parker's Rollei TLR
> Collectors' Guide. Where the weights given are different I don't
> know who to believe. Joe B.

I've reported in this document

5 different weights for 5 major post-1957 Rollei TLR cameras. Now
there are variations: 12/24 option, with/without plane glas kit,
with/without film inside ;-);-) with/without exposure meter (yes I've
seen one 3.5F whiteface model stripped off from the meter or was it an
option also ??)

weight (without film) 'cord Va 875g,     Vb 940g,      R-T 1020g,
                      3.5F/2.8F 1220g,   2.8GX 1235g


http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/text_pages/rolleiflex_compare.html

My source is Prochnow. You can cross-check with other authors but
usually Prochnow is reliable.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr


From hasselblad mailing list:
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
> > Obviously 35mm became more popular and that's where most of the research
> > and advancements were directed.
>
> And, strangely, this has led to present day 35 mm cameras that are as
> heavy/large as most medium format cameras.

Bob has the theory that the natural weight for the total kit is the max one
is willing to carry.

Maybe the natural weight of the fully-evolved camera in any format is just
shy of the weight the average middle-aged male can lift to his eye...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 
From: Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net
Subject: [HUG] Camera Kit Weight

I was really bogged down on a recent trip with the Hasselblad.  So I decided
to weigh my cameras to see what I could save using my other camera...
The 201F with 110F lens weighs about 1 pound more than my 500C with the
80CF, The additional advantage is that all my leses except the 110F use B60
filter threads.  SO I can cut down on the B70 adapter ring and probably use
only the 2 plastic Hoods rather than the heavier Pro Compendium.

Guess I will use the 500C more often!

Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net



Medium Format Site Startup Date: Feb. 14, 1998





From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format Camera Recommendations; ideas; flames ; whatever
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002

sherman@dunnam.net wrote:

>My Kiev kit (1 body, 2 backs, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm, 1.4 converter, a
>couple lens hoods, short extension tubes, spot prism finder and misc stuff
>like cable release, notebook etc.) weighs substantially more than my 3 lens
>4x5 kit with Tachihara.  I use the same Bogen 3021N/3030 tripod and head for
>both.

Yep, I've found my 4X5 isn't any heavier than a medformat "kit is,
just bulkier. The main advantage with medformat is the fast/long
lenses and macro work. Oh and using roll film, I can't bring myself to
use roll film on a 4x5.  ;-)

Stacey


From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Weight of Commercial (and other) Ektars
Date: 14 Apr 2003 

Kerry L. Thalmann largeformat@thalmann.com wrote:
>I'd like to know the weight of a couple of the lenses in the Commercial
>Ektar series.

10in. f/6.3 Commercial in No.4 Acme Synchro Shutter - 17oz.

This was weighed on a Pitney Bowes postage scale. I don't have the
original flange. The weight above is with a Steve Grimes flange that
weighs 0.5oz. on the same scale.

--
Brian Reynolds
reynolds@panix.com 


From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Weight of Commercial (and other) Ektars
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 

I'd like to know the weight of a couple of the lenses in the Commercial
Ektar series. I am particularly interested in the weights of the 12" and
14" Commercial Ektars in original factory-supplied Ilex shutters. Since
this thread will be archived at google.com, it might also be worthwhile to
include the 8 1/2" and 10" models as well for future reference. What the
heck, for completeness sake, we might as well include the Wide Field and
plain Ektars, too. I'll start the ball rolling with a couple that I have
handy.

100mm f6.3 Wide Field Ektar in Supermatic shutter - 175g
135mm f6.3 Wide Field Ektar in Supermatic shutter - 290g

127mm f4.7 Ektar in Supermatic shutter - 165g
203mm f7.7 Ektar in Supermatic shutter - 180g

So, if you have any of the other Kodak Ektar large format lenses, and access
to a reasonably accurate scale (within 5g or 1/4 oz.), please post the
weights of your lenses here. The weights I posted do not include lensboards
or lens caps, just the lens, original shutter and retaining ring/mounting
flange. To keep the comparisons apples:apples, please weigh your lenses
without caps or board and with flange/retaining ring. Also state which
model shutter, as some lenses came in more than one brand of shutter.

Thanks,
Kerry



From: "Lynn Bisha" lbisha1@rochester.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Weight of Commercial (and other) Ektars
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 

Kerry,


Ektar 152mm f4.5 in Supermatic (X) 274.4g
Ektar 101mm f4.5 in Supermatic #1 142 g
Ektar 101mm F4.5 in Synchro Rapid 800 168.3g ( includes built in
series 5 holder,

no filter)

Regards

Lynn


From: Drew Saunders dru@nospamme-stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moving up to medium format ... 6x4.5 or 6x7?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 

"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote:
> To reiterate: if you think using a 645 SLR is going to be like shooting an
> N80, you are in for a nasty surprise.

It's not necessarily a fair comparison, but according to their
respective specs pages on B&H;'s website, the Mamiya 645E body is 1340g
w/o battery, and the Nikon F5 is 1211g (doesn't specify battery or not).
True, the Nikon has lots o' motors and stuff and is probably their
heaviest model, and the Mamiya is manual wind (and the rapid winder
really helps on the 645E) and is probably the lightest 645 SLR out there
now, but at least the weight difference between the heaviest 35mm and
lightest 645 SLR's isn't quite as much as folks might expect, especially
if you stick with just one or two lenses.
--
Drew W. Saunders
dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you


From: Andrew Price ajprice@free.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moving up to medium format ... 6x4.5 or 6x7?
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 


rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
[---]
>The trick with weight is to
>avoid the prism weight, and go with WLF or chimney finders (lightweight
>and brighter).

I wish I'd not been so thick, and found that out sooner. It took me
months before I realised that I was lugging around 400g of glass I
could quite well do without.




End of Page