I have a last-minute work trip coming up. Three weeks in South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia with a packed schedule of meetings and very little photography time. I want to take one medium format film camera (or perhaps one main and one backup) and I have to choose right now because I fly in two days.
This article is the thinking I went through to make that decision. Ten cameras considered, five evaluation criteria, one surprisingly difficult final choice. If you have a medium format collection and have ever struggled with the same question for your own trip, this should give you a framework.
If you want to see what happened on the actual trip, the two follow-up articles cover what I did with the cameras I eventually picked: Part 1 in Namibia and Part 2 in South Africa. Spoiler: the choice I make in this article is the choice I made in real life, and I do not regret it.
The five criteria
For a long international trip with limited photography time, I weigh cameras on five things, roughly in this order.
1. Reliability. The most important. There is no point taking a camera 6,000 miles if it breaks on day two and you carry a useless lump for the rest of the trip. Newer is not always more reliable in vintage cameras; well-serviced is what matters.
2. Size and shape. Not just the weight (that comes next). The actual physical shape determines whether it fits in your camera bag, your hand luggage, the small bag you carry day-to-day. Awkward shapes are a problem for travel even when the weight is acceptable.
3. Weight. You will carry whatever you bring for the duration of the trip. Every gram matters more on day fifteen than on day one. For comparison: my heaviest travel-considered medium format camera (the Mamiya RB67) is 2.5kg. My lightest (a Lubitel) is 600g. The difference is over 1.5kg, which is huge over three weeks.
4. Image quality. Within medium format, the differences are smaller than between formats (a good box camera can produce surprisingly excellent images), but for a once-in-a-lifetime trip you want results that match the experience.
5. Excitement. This sounds soft but it matters. A camera you are not excited to use will stay in the bag. Better to take a slightly suboptimal camera that you actively want to shoot than the technically perfect camera that bores you.
The contenders
I went through my collection systematically. Eleven cameras considered. Here is the working.
Mamiya RB67: out
The 6x7 SLR option. Brand new to me, not yet shot a roll through it, and there are a few things needing fixing before it would be reliable on a trip. Already disqualified on reliability grounds.
But also: the size. I put it on the scales and it weighed in at 2.5kg (5 lbs 7 oz) with the standard 90mm f/3.8 lens, waist-level finder, and 6x7 back. That is genuinely heavy. Comparable to the Mamiya Super 23 below.
The RB67 is universally hailed as one of the best medium format SLRs ever made, but for a travel scenario it is the wrong tool. A camera you would use at base camp, not one you would carry for three weeks.
Verdict: not coming.
![PLACEHOLDER: the Mamiya RB67 on the scales, showing the 2.5kg readout]
Mamiya Super 23: out
The press camera I had been looking forward to taking out. Weighs 2.5kg (5 lbs 7 oz) with the 100mm lens, 6x9 back, and the standard speed grip. Same weight as the RB67.
But the bigger problem is the shape. The Super 23 is an awkward shape for packing. The press camera body, the long lens, the speed grip protruding off to one side. It does not fit in any of my camera bags with any ease.
For a workshop or studio session this would be fine. For a travel trip across multiple flights and a packed schedule, the shape disqualifies it before the weight does.
Verdict: not coming. (Eventually used it in the Jolies Fleurs shoot, much later.)
Bronica S2A: strong contender
My old faithful. The camera I keep coming back to in every other context. My main long-term medium format SLR, and the one I have written about most affectionately.
Weight on the scales: 2.2kg (4 lbs 13 oz) with the 50mm Nikkor wide lens (which is slightly heavier than the standard 75mm), waist-level finder, and 6x6 back. Lighter than the RB67 and Super 23, but still heavy.
The reasons to take it:
It is my long-term shooting partner. I know it intimately. I know its quirks, its noises, its handling. The mental load of working a familiar camera is much lower than working a new one. On a trip with little time for photography, low mental load matters.
It is fully mechanical. No batteries. No electronics. Nothing to die in the African heat or dust. If something breaks, I can probably fix it with screwdrivers and patience.
The 6x6 frame suits travel. Big enough for actual landscape and portrait work. Square format makes you compose carefully rather than just lazy-shooting in the same rectangular orientation.
The poor thing never gets to come on fun trips because of its weight. I have been giving it short shrift for too long. Maybe this is the trip where it finally gets to travel.
The reason against: the weight. 2.2kg over three weeks of constant movement is real. The mental load saving might not compensate.
Verdict: strong contender. Holding it for now.
Bronica SQA: out
Newish to me, less familiar than the S2A. Weighs the same as the S2A in its travel configuration: 2.2kg (4 lbs 13 oz) with the TTL prism finder, speed grip, and 6x6 back.
The reliability argument cuts both ways. The SQA is newer (1980s vs late 1960s for the S2A), which should mean fewer accumulated mechanical issues. But the SQA has electronics which add their own failure modes, and I do not know the SQA as well as I know the S2A.
For a trip where reliability is paramount, familiarity with the camera matters more than youth of the camera. I know what to do if the S2A misbehaves. I do not yet have that confidence with the SQA.
Verdict: not coming.
![PLACEHOLDER: the Bronica S2A and the Bronica SQA side by side on the desk, showing their similar size but different generations]
Pentacon Six TL: out
The East German 6x6 SLR in the form of a giant 35mm camera. Weighs 1.3kg (2 lbs 14 oz) with a standard lens. Noticeably lighter than the Bronicas, which is a real point in its favour.
But there are two problems.
Reliability. I have had reliability issues with this specific copy and do not yet fully trust it. Three weeks in Africa is not the moment to test whether the issues are sorted. For a camera with a known reputation for fragility (the Pentacon Six in general, not just my copy), the burden of proof is higher for a trip than for a local shoot.
Excitement. This is the soft criterion that matters. I am not excited about taking a Pentacon Six around Africa. The shape is awkward despite the weight saving. The handling is fine but not joyful. I would not be reaching for it eagerly.
Verdict: not coming. (Later got its own review when I had time to work through its quirks properly.)
Minolta Autocord CDS: out
A proper TLR with a built-in working light meter. Weight: 1.1kg (2 lbs 8 oz). Genuinely portable compared to the SLR options.
The advantages of a TLR for travel:
Shape suits packing. TLRs are essentially elongated cubes that fit perfectly in the square spaces of camera bags designed for lenses. Easier to pack than awkwardly shaped SLRs.
Quiet operation. No mirror slap means more discreet shooting in places where you do not want to draw attention.
Lighter than any SLR option under consideration.
But two specific problems:
Reliability. I have had issues with the film transport on this specific copy. The wind-on is not 100%. Not the camera to bet on for three weeks abroad.
Excitement. I have been off TLRs lately. The last few times I have used them I have not enjoyed the experience as much as I used to. The waist-level shooting on a TLR feels static to me at the moment.
Verdict: not coming.
Lubitel 166B: out
The Soviet TLR, much lighter and cheaper. Weight: 600g (1 lb 4 oz). Very lightweight.
The advantages: portability, simplicity, low value to lose, and it would survive almost anything.
The problem: the look. The Lubitel produces what is broadly called the Lomography look: soft focus, light leaks, washed-out colours, that slightly tainted slightly stylised aesthetic that some photographers love and others do not.
For a trip to genuinely spectacular places (Namibia’s deserts, the African bush), I want results that render accurately. I want the Namibian landscape to look like the Namibian landscape, not like a Lomography filtered version of it.
The Lomography look is great for adding character to images that lack much else. It is wrong for images of subjects that already have plenty of character. The African landscape does not need Lomography help.
Verdict: not coming.
Kodak Brownie Flash B: out
A box camera I had been pleasantly surprised by in recent shoots. Decent results despite being a box camera, and genuinely lightweight.
The disqualifier: 6 20 film. Box cameras of this era use 620 film, which is no longer manufactured. To shoot a Brownie you have to either re-roll 120 onto 620 spools or trim 120 spools down to fit. Either way it is a faff that does not belong on a packed work trip.
If I had a few free days at home before flying, I might do the rolling work. I do not have those free days.
Verdict: not coming.
Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16: strong contender
A 6x6 folder. Weight: 530g (1 lb 2 oz). Very portable.
The 517/16 is the basic version with a 75mm f/6.3 Nettar lens and no rangefinder (zone focus only). I have not actually shot a roll through this specific copy and would want to test it before the trip, but Nettars have a strong reputation. The lens is reportedly excellent for the camera class.
The advantages:
Tiny. Folds down to something the size of a small paperback book. Fits in a jacket pocket.
Light. Less than half a kilo. Negligible weight cost over three weeks.
Big negative. 6x6 frames on 120 film. No quality compromise for the format.
Mechanical only. No batteries, no electronics. Reliable in remote conditions.
Worth less if lost or stolen. Around £20-30 second-hand. You can carry it casually without anxiety about replacement value.
The risk: I have not tested it. I need to put a roll through it before the trip and confirm it actually works.
Verdict: strong contender. Holding for now.
![PLACEHOLDER: the Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16 folded down to its packed size, sitting next to a paperback book for scale]
Adox Golf: out
Another folder. Weight under 500g (1.1 lbs). Similar features to the Nettar with a 75mm f/6.3 lens and 6x6 frames.
The Adox Golf is a fine camera. The problem is that the Nettar is probably slightly better. Zeiss Ikon’s reputation for optical quality is justified, and the Nettar lens has historically out-resolved the Adox lenses in the comparisons I have read.
For a once-in-a-lifetime trip, slightly better matters. If I were choosing between two folders for everyday use at home, I might go either way. For Africa, I want the best folder I have available.
Verdict: not coming.
Nixon Nixette: out
Another folder I have reviewed previously. Light, compact, decent.
The Nixette is a perfectly fine camera. It is not as good as the Nettar. Same reasoning as the Adox Golf. For travel, take the best folder you have.
Verdict: not coming.
The decision
After working through all of this, the leaders are clear:
Primary camera: Bronica S2A with the 50mm wide lens and the 75mm standard lens. Despite the weight. For reasons of familiarity, reliability, and the deserved trip.
Backup camera: Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16 for casual handheld work, jacket-pocket portability, and frames that the Bronica is too inconvenient to set up for.
Total weight of the camera kit: roughly 2.75kg. Workable.
The two cameras serve different purposes. The Bronica is for the serious frames when I have time to set up properly, focus carefully, and compose deliberately. The Nettar is for the moments when I see something fleeting and need to capture it before it disappears.
This was the right answer in retrospect. The Bronica produced the keeper photographs of the trip (an elephant in Kruger, the long road through Namibia). The Nettar barely got used but was reassuring to have available. No regrets on either choice.
A note on airport security and film
A practical traveller’s tip that I want to share.
Modern airport scanners (CT scanners specifically) can damage film regardless of ISO. The old advice (“request hand-check for ISO 800 and above”) is becoming outdated as the new CT scanners damage even slower films. For any film you care about, request hand-check.
The problem: security staff are often reluctant to hand-check because it is slower for them than running the bag through the scanner. They will sometimes refuse if your justification is weak.
My approach: I always carry at least one roll of Ilford Delta 3200 in my film bag specifically so I can tell the security staff “there is 3200 ISO film in here, please hand-check.” This is true, and it is also a justification they cannot refuse because 3200 is well above the historic threshold for X-ray damage.
Is this gaming the system? Slightly, but in a fair way. They should hand-check all film anyway. The Delta 3200 is just giving them a reason they cannot argue with.
Practical advice:
- Take films out of their boxes so the canisters travel loose in a clear bag. Faster to inspect.
- Carry at least one roll of high-ISO film as your hand-check justification.
- Be polite and patient with security staff who have to do the hand-check.
- Arrive at the airport with extra time because the hand-check takes longer.
- Carry-on only. Never put film in checked luggage; hold luggage scanners are far more powerful than carry-on scanners.
The Delta 3200 also has the benefit of being a genuinely useful film to have available for low-light situations on the trip itself. It pays for its place in the bag twice over.
The framework for your own decision
If you are facing the same choice for your own trip, here is the framework I use:
1. List every medium format camera you have available. Honestly. Not the dream cameras you wish you had.
2. Weigh each one in travel configuration (lens, finder, back). The numbers matter.
3. Honestly assess reliability. Has each camera worked perfectly recently? Or has there been a niggle? Niggles become disasters on trips.
4. Consider shape and packability. A 1.5kg camera that fits cleanly in a bag is better than a 1kg camera that does not.
5. Apply the excitement criterion. Which camera do you actively want to use? The camera you want to use is the camera you will use.
6. Allow yourself a backup. Two cameras with different strengths often serves better than one camera trying to do everything.
7. Choose, commit, do not second-guess. Once the decision is made, stop comparing. Focus on shooting the camera you chose, not regretting the cameras you did not.
What’s next
The flight is in two days. I am taking the Bronica S2A and the Zeiss Ikon Nettar 517/16. The films are packed (with Delta 3200 in the bag for security purposes). The schedule is brutal but a few photography windows look possible.
Part 1 of the trip results is here and Part 2 here if you want to see what actually happened.
If you are planning your own medium format travel trip and want to share your kit choices, drop a comment below. I am curious what other photographers prioritise and what compromises they make. There is no single right answer to this question. Only the answer that suits your specific trip and your specific equipment.
See you in Africa.