I have a pentax 6x7 and they are bullet proof. The optics are wonderful, you have a choice of 120 or 220 by flipping a switch, and the lenses are reasonable for a med format. Also TTL metering. As you can guess I highly recommnd one.

Speed Graphic! If it can do combat it can do a bike no problem. You loose movement, but it's reasonably sized and 4x5 is SO good!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...844631940&rd=1

Sounds promising. Will check it.

Thanks, Margus

Taking 5x4 sheet film cameras on a bike trip. :rofl: I'd hope they've come to their collective senses since 2004.

If you were going to announce the death of film I'd have gone for the mid-life of this thread, say about 2008 :rofl:

Since then it's come back a bit like vinyl records and brit bikes. No practical reason, it just feels right.

I carry a 35mm FED (1956) rangefinder. My 1953 Ensign 120 is a bit bulky and at 12 frames per roll a bit pricey to run, but is probably the better camera.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FjJ1sRBdScw8amV3A


Andy

If someone can carry a surfboard on a bike trip, they can certainly carry a large format camera! It's all about your passion, and what you're willing to sacrifice for it. Some would say riding a motorcycle around the world is insane, when you could have an air-conditioned car, or better yet stay home where it's warm, dry, and safe!

If it's that important to you and you're happy to dedicate a pannier to packing a Sinar monorail with all the associated bits and pieces, lenses, boards, backs, etc then, yes, it's possible. They're not even that expensive these days.

Even something like an old MPP 5x4 folding field camera is cheap enough and that would only fill a tank bag. But unless you want to produce (a few) images suitable for a billboard I'm not sure of the point.

Unless I've thrown it out there's an old MPP up in my loft somewhere and a no name 10x8 in the store that we used to use for corporate challenge type events. There's also about half a dozen old medium format cameras, including my all time favourite, a Mamiya RB67. I've taken the RB on bike trips but by the time you've wrapped it in a blanket and packed it away carefully you have to leave loads of other luggage out.

For anything smaller than a door sized print I can't see much, if any, difference between 5x4 and medium format - if visual 'quality' is your primary criteria. It may not be of course. Some people just like being hands on with this stuff, coating their own glass plates in the moonlight etc. I can understand that - I spent some time once trying to work out a way of taking an 8" reflecting telescope on a bike (unsuccessfully). Good luck to them but take another camera to show us how you did it.

One of my kids is planning on doing a photography course for the next couple of years and as part of that they will be using film cameras. Part of the reason is so that they can learn about the process and the history of the development of photography but also as it will allow them to offer something very different to the run of the mill photography student. Yes, the majority of the course is digital but this adds another string to their bow.

For example take a look at this recent news item:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-47118130

Has anyone come up with new digital filters?

There are plenty that ape things you can do optically or chemically (Tungsten, pushing film, polarising, casts related to film structures, grain etc) but nothing obviously new. It seems a bit like vegetarian sausages to me. The vegetables are probably lovely but why use them for fake meat.

Andy

Only one that comes to mind straight away are the ‘big stopper’ range of ND filters. Hard(er) to use with film cameras because of reciprocity issues that digital doesn’t have.
Photoshop can fake most other filters but not polarising as far as I know.

Veggie sausages - part of my desperate attempt to lose weight for a year of sporty stuff. Like petrol they come into the category of ‘distress purchases’. :rofl:

There is some debate within the photography world as to whether it’s worth teaching students about film / processing / printing etc., the argument being similar to whether new mechanics should learn about carburettors / points ignitions etc when the world is now FI and electronics. Better to dump carbs and learn about electric motors and batteries.

I couldn’t get rid of my film and paper processing equipment fast enough when I went digital back in 2002. I heard the argument about offering customers something different, ie film, but despite having a section offering it on my website for over 10 yrs nobody has ever asked for it. The reason is money. To do a shoot using film these days costs (substantially) more and you get less - less images, less flexiblbility (you can’t do much with the images unless you scan then, in which case you might as well have shot it digitally).

I fully appreciate the tonal differences between eg a medium format negative and a digital file but very few clients outside the fashion industry do. There are so many downsides to film that the romantic folk revival movement gloss over. I’ve had film snap inside a camera when on a high end shoot, labs process e6 as c41 by mistake, power cuts half way through a film processing cycle, the post losing the negatives from an expensive client shoot when sending them to a lab for printing and loads of others. Goodbye to all that - thank God.

But apart from that....

As much as you can teach photography I'd vote for at least understanding film. If you know Kodak has a yellow tint because of how the film is layered etc. working out why a digital display is or isn't doing the same has to be easier. More like getting your head round a crash gearbox made out of Lego before trying DCT than carbs and FI.

If I want the picture I use my phone. If I want to play I pick up a camera.

Andy