How many stone is an RB?

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by fparnold, Apr 16, 2003.

  1. fparnold

    fparnold Member

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hello,

    As part of my annual, I like big color (negs/chromes) but *ouch* on the cost of color sheet film, I pose the following question:

    In real terms, what does a Mamiya RB weigh in the field? The unit of comparison should be a B&J 5x7 with reducing back + Calumet C2, or a Mamiya C220 + lens. Can you hike with it without wishing you had Vikings in the gene pool? This is semi-idle speculation, as I like the C220, but wish it had wider wide angles, and like the 4x5, but the ouch factor returns. I suppose that building a short body 4x5 + C2 would be an option as well, and notably cheaper. (though that's a topic for the Large-Format list)
     
  2. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ..
     
  3. LFGuy

    LFGuy Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Then again, some of us who weigh about 10 stones backpack with an 8x10. The camera, tripod and film holders and a lens put that at a little over 1 stone. But then I need to add water and other stuff, and the backpack weighs a few pounds as well. Not that bad, but if you go back 4 generations in my family, I get some of those Viking genes!

    Bottom line is, you can get some pretty light setups if you plan accordingly, though you may have to make some sacrifices (like bring only one lens or two, and use your legs to get closer or farther away).
     
  4. bmac

    bmac Member

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I use my RB in the field all the time. I do wish I had a group of vikings with me (to carry everything). I end up bringing the camera, two backs, and two lenses most of the time. It isn't too bad, but I'm not taking it to the top of half dome either.
     
  5. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ..
     
  6. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,004
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    If you want an ultralight 4x5" on a budget look for a Gowland monorail (used around $350 typically) or an Ikeda Anba, if you prefer a folding field camera.
     
  7. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    While I'm not in the habit of going backpacking, I have two versions of camerapack for longish walks in the mountains:

    Heavy: Linhof Color, 4 holders, 5 lenses, spotmeter, changing bag, wooden tripod with heavy ball head.

    Light: Perkeo I, an extra roll of film.

    I have no idea what a stone weighs, but my gene pool is all viking [​IMG]

    Ole
     
  8. fparnold

    fparnold Member

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for the replies. My wife's family is from the Four Corners area of CO, and we've noticed when hiking there that the 4x5 + holders + tripod begins to weigh one down in the thin air. I wonder if Steve Grimes's shop could adapt a biogon or such to the C220 as an alternative?

    Time to hit the weight room, I guess.

    In Illinois, where I currently reside, the legs to get closer or farther away works. In Colorado, that's a good way to cause a sudden adjustment in both distance from the object as well as relative vertical positioning.

    Ole, a stone is 14lbs (~6kg). I first encountered it in english literature, and then on a physics test (convert the force from question 3 from SI units to Stone Furlongs/Fortnight^2)
     
  9. LFGuy

    LFGuy Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    They should just list the mass in slugs... (1 slug = 14.6 kg)
     
  10. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,242
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    O.K....how does one convert slugs to ergs? Or is it the other way around?
     
  11. LFGuy

    LFGuy Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Ergs are for energy... slugs are for mass. You talking about E=mc^2? [​IMG]
     
  12. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,242
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    It seems to me that what I am expending in hauling around mass (RB) is energy. So how much energy will I expend in this endeavor. Just trying to make light of a serious subject.
     
  13. Aggie

    Aggie Member

    Messages:
    4,925
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Location:
    So. Utah
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ..
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. fhovie

    fhovie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,247
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Port Hueneme
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    My camera contribution is 1.2 Stone (16lbs) A Tachihara 4x5, 210mm Sironar 5.6, Caltar 75mm 4.5. One graphmatic, darkcloth, loupe, release, box of film and changing bag, spot meter and filters/shades and of course - Tripod. I can't do it for less. My Rollei SL66 system is just as heavy and I forget all about the pain when I look at the prints. The Rollei/Zeiss is good but 6x6 vs 4x5 - I like my prints large - It probably wouldn't matter if I only cared about 8x10. Now - what about the rest of the indespensables - tent, backpack, sleeping bag, stove , food water and other misc gear. - Yep - 55 to 60 lbs. Now - where is the good scenery? Mt Whitney? Kearsarge Pass? .... Nothing there under 13,000 feet. I think it might kill Sven! Then it would be 60lb pack and a 160lb dead Sven. - Way too much for an area you have to "pack it all out." I guess I'll leave Sven at the camera store. BTW - I did to this hike with even more gear last summer and - yes - it doe's need to get lighter. ---- Do I really need the tent? -- the sleeping bag - ?? Will I have time to cook anyway? Well I am working on it. I do have a LOW gear going up the hills. - I can no longer eat the junk food on a trip like this! (maybe 15 years ago) -Frank
     
  16. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,242
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Aggie,
    I think that your equation is excellent. I vote for a sherpa to carry the photo gear, the Doritos, and my panting butt. Of course he would probably get smart and drop me, eat the Doritos on his way to the pawn shop to hock the equipment.

    As Paul Simon once sang...Some days are diamonds and then there are the boulders in my shoes.
     
  17. Robert Kennedy

    Robert Kennedy Member

    Messages:
    750
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Just north o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The weird thing is that the defintion of "stone" varies.

    Seriously.

    Having an English wife, I have asked about stone. Her family and friends use one defintion (13 lbs), freinds in Newcastle 40 miles away seem to think it is 16lbs, and apparently some people go for 14lbs.

    Weird folk the English...
     
  18. Ed Sukach

    Ed Sukach Member

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ipswich, Mas
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Robert Kennedy @ Apr 17 2003, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Her family and friends use one defintion (13 lbs), freinds in Newcastle 40 miles away seem to think it is 16lbs, and apparently some people go for 14lbs.

    Weird folk the English...</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I'd call it a tie, more or less, with the USAeans.

    At least the British have given grudging acceptance to the metric system. Us, here in the US haven't been able to handle that well - at all.

    What we see is Speed Limit signs on the road in LARGE "M.iles P.er H.our" and, - not always - "kph" as a sort of afterthought. Liquids are still in U.S. "Gallons" (do they still use Imperial gallons in Jolly Old?)... temperature in degrees Fahrenheit... Even CANADA (gasp!) reports daily weather temperatures in Celsius...

    My first encounter with the metric system in "everyday life" (I've been involved in it deeply in the Metrology Labs) was during my first visit to Europe. I think it took nearly six hours to acclimate. I shudder now to think of returning to English units in the darkroom ... going back to ounces and quarts... ugh!!

    I suppose there was some sort of romance in the "old" systems ... How many "gills" in a "dram" ... or "scruples" in a pint... ?

    I was sort of a fan of collecting obscure measuring units ... Does any one realize there was a "Paris" inch ... Ten(10) to the "Paris" foot?

    And British Thermal Units (BTU) - the amount of heat generated by burning one (1) match...
     
  19. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,004
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I use both metric and English units in the darkroom depending on what I'm mixing. If I'm diluting Agfa Neutol WA 1+11 in an 11x14" tray, it's easier to mix 3 oz. of solution to 33 oz. of water, but if I'm making a batch of PMK 1+2+100, I think in ml.
     
  20. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I have no scruples about my pints and drams!

    Old Norwegian were - and still are - different as well as confusing. One Norwegian mile is 10km - a lasting source of confusion for (British and American) tourists. The old mile was 9843m - or something like that. The everyday unit was "fjerding", the quarter-mile - on land. At sea, we still call the nautical mile "kvartmil" - another way of saying quarter-mile. a "sea-mile" is four nautical miles...

    I still remember "yardsticks" marked in Norwegian inches ("Tommer"), and Norway has been metric since 1876.

    So with a century lead over Britain, we are still confused!
     
  21. fparnold

    fparnold Member

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    and so am I.

    Aggie's formula I think is missing one variable: how much extra energy does it take with all of that kit (in Lbs, Kgs, or Stones) to wander off the path every time you see something that's possibly scenic, but decide otherwise. Somewhere in there belongs a term for:

    Scenic Possibilities Evaluated
    ------------------------------------------- * It would be worth it in (format) but not in (larger format)
    Number Actually Photographed.
     
  22. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,281
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Something like the success factor?

    Fs = (Good Photos taken) / ((Missed shots)+(decided not to)+(should have brought the other lens)+(not so good on print)+(Ruined the neg)^2)

    Any ruined neg / light leak / bad overexposure is squared for the extra aggravation this causes...


    So far, my Fs is around 0.05 - which is good. It means I'm happy with at least 1 photo!

    [​IMG]
     
  23. fhovie

    fhovie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,247
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Port Hueneme
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Isn't that the way it is though. I shoot a lot of sheets and then quickly pick out my favorites that I will work on. One or two good shots and all the rest ... ruined or worse ... ordinary. I just can't spend too much time with ordinary!
     
  24. bmac

    bmac Member

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I just got back from a day trip out to my favorite light station, Pigeon Point. I hiked a total of about 1.5 miles round trip in the sand up and down rocks, hills, etc. carrying my RB in my hand with a 90mm lens, and one 120 back. in my backpack I had three more lenses and extra filters, film. Spot meter around my neck, tripod hanging through one of the straps on my backpack and two more backs in my cargo short pockrts. I am guessing I was loaded down with about 30lbs of gear. So, yes, it can be done. Was it as fun as if I had been carying one lens? who knows. The bottom line is you need to bring everything with you, or else you are going to be weishing you had it. I only used two lenses today, and brought two more just in case.. oh well.
     
  25. fparnold

    fparnold Member

    Messages:
    264
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for the replies. The real answer seems to be, I need to weigh (ahem) the options a bit more, and possibly try something as simple as moving from my default shoulder bag to the backpack (not a photo pack, but with large, easy to access pockets and room for a 4x5 + accessories), and hiking around with it a bit.

    Alternately, I should move somewhere more scenic, where I can just take the car up into the scenery, and not worry so much about the portage issue. Not sure I'm ready to dedicate myself to documenting Illinois suburbia instead.
     
  26. harry

    harry Member

    Messages:
    22
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    I thought you all might get a chuckle out of this. I've recently bought an RB, and I had to test this out. My RB with 90mm lens is lighter than my F5 with an 80-200. Wonder which one I'll be hiking with now?