P�l,
I haven't put my pack on the scale, but what you write seems very
much in line with my own experience. -Even if I'm not a mountain
goat...:-)
My 645 kit contains the house, A*300/4, A120/4 macro, A75/2.8,
A45/2.8, right angle viewfinder and one spare film holder. This
fits very neatly into a LowePro MiniTrekker. There's room for one
more lens too. Currently, a A150/3.5 sits there, but it will be
replaced by a 35mm as soon as I can afford it.
BTW, the MiniTrekker is a great piece of luggage! Small, but big
enough. Photographic equipment has a tendency to behave like ideal
gases, it eventually occupies all available volume. So keeping the
bag small is importatnt.
Jostein
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: P�l_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:10:09 +0200
>As many among us I'm too overburdened by equipment. I have been
using a LowePro Pro trekker backpack but as the saying goes, when
you fill them up they are too heavy to lift. Since I'm using both
medium format and 35mm format I have been struggling streamlining
my equipment choices for various needs while maintaining low
weight. I have even been toying with the idea of selling off my
medium format equipment but a look at the MF chromes the 645n
produce has made me forget the thought.
>I've more and less turned into a bird and mountain landscape
(that is on top of the mountains; not below them) photographer and
for my landscape use weigth is important. Common thinking says
that MF gear is heavy but....Anyway, I've both a LowePro Orion AW
trekker which is a revelation compared to the Pro trekker. I've
been using the calculator to see what my equipment actually weight
and how best take advantage of it.
>
>1. My "complete" landscape 35mm outfit consist of the MZ-S or the
LX, 18/3,5, A 24/2.8, FA 31/1.8 (not bought yet), FA 43/1.9, FA
77/1.8 and FA 200/4 Macro. This outfit weights 2870g (with the MZ-
S).
>
>2. My "complete" MF/35mm landscape set consist of the MZ-S, 645n,
FA645 75/2.8, FA645 45/2.8, FA645 120/4 Macro, 18/3.5, and A
24/2.8. + converter for using the 120/4 on the MZ-S. This outfit
weights 3620g.
>
>3. A hypothetical "complete" 645n based system: A645 35/3,5,
FA645 45/2.8, FA645 75/2.8, FA645 120/4 Macro, FA645 300/5.6. This
outfit weights 3895g.
>
>
>I'm a bit surprised by the results. MF gear isn't as heavy as
perceived.
>The weight difference between set 1. and 2. isn't really felt in
the field so I could just as well use the 645n. The weight
difference between 2. and 3. is certainly not major so a total MF
set seems to be an ideal setup.
>Ok so the 18mm make you go slightly wider but not enough to
compensate for the vastly better image quality of th 35mm (about
21mm in 35mm terms).
>
>It seems to me that in order to make a 35mm based system
significantly lighter than a 645n based system, you really need to
use those slow plastic zoom lenses. Again this illustrate the need
for compact high quality zooms for quality work when weight is
important. These lenses are mysteriously missing from the
manufacturers line ups. However, the weight of my MF system really
doesn't feel like a burden and question arises whether I have any
need for something significantly lighter.
>I think om going to upgrade to that 645n II and perhaps further
expand my 645 system...
>
>P�l
>
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
