Medium Format Family

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Which camera combination is lighter 501cm vs 503cw


New Member

I am wondering if anybody knows the answer to this. I'm always on a lookout for the lightest camera for travel. My ideal camera would probably by a mamiya 6 with interchangeable lenses, but I just don't want to buy another dead system...I am wondering whether there's any advantage to the following

- 501cm with an 80 chrome lens

- 503cw with an 80 CFE lens

I have the second already and I like it for travel although it is still bulky. Would there be an appreciable weight reduction using the first? Since I can't see these things in person, I would love to hear if anybody has any experience. What about a 500C would that be lighter? I didn't list the 500c above because it doesn't offer interchangeable screens. I always use a tripod so I guess any weight reduction is not really a big deal, but I would still like to know if there is a reduction. Thanks.



The 80mm C with hood fitted is realy smaller than the CF one with hood.
The hood on C lens are better fixed.
The old version of 500 body allow you to use shutter delay witch is very helpfull for long time exposures. Weight reduction is not big with old version. But some time I carry my gear under my vest and with C lenses it's far better.

Later C lens exist in black too.


Active Member
When I was bored and the weather was totally dull I did some weighing exercises:

Distagon CF 4/40 incl frontcap 985gr Distagon C 4/50 incl frontcap incl shade 955gr Distagon C 4/50 890gr Distagon C 4/50 incl frontcap 925gr Distagon CF 4/50 incl frontcap 795gr Planar C 2.8/80 incl frontcap incl shade 475gr Planar CB 2.8/80 incl frontcap incl shade 523gr Sonnar C 4/150 incl frontcap incl shade 760gr Sonnar CF 4/150 incl frontcap 800gr 500cm body incl PME 945gr 500cm body incl WLF 575gr 500cm body 490gr 501cm body incl WLF 595gr 501cm body 510gr PME prism 435gr A16 magazijn 425gr A12 magazijn (ser# EH) no slide holder 385gr WLF los 95gr

The things one does while waiting for the skies to clear..

hth, Wilko


New Member

No brainer: Take the Agfa Clack.

Weightless, almost. Worry Free. 6x9 negative. No accessories required. Not attractive to thieves.

Next time it rains, I'll weigh it. :)



(Thought I'd lighten this discussion up a little)


New Member
I always use a tripod so I guess any weight reduction is not really a big deal, but I would still like to know if there is a reduction. Thanks.


If you were to carry a 35mm and a small telephoto lens in a holster bag. Slipping a MF camera in the same holster is just as bulky. It works for me, even with a PM 45 attached.

Good Travels:



Active Member
Hi Steve,

Well.. apart from boredom I was questioning myself what the weights of the various parts are. The trigger being having to haul my kit around in Arizona and Utah. In the end I just packed essentially everything save the C150 in my backpack and lived with it ;)



Active Member
Strip it down. Take the leather covering off. Grind down the strap connections and remove the base plate. Get rid of the WLF and just use a cupped hand. Yank off the chrome. Put some Helium balloons in your camera bag. Have the lens barrel remade in Magnesium.

: -)


New Member
Funny, Marc.

cupped hand ...


Active Member
Hi Marc,

Short of all that: loose the PME. That sure helps with the weight.

But then again: I took 40 rolls of film to AZ & UT , so all in all, who cares about a bit more weight.



New Member

Those are some great ideas, but if I followed Marc's suggestion, I am sure my wife would take some similar action (most likely on me).

How about a Kodak disposable, it fits in a shirt pocket and you can take 40 or 50 of them with you and lighten your load as you venture forward.




New Member

Sounds like you have some experience racing or rallying cars.
To save weight these guys drill holes in just about everything fitted
to a car.
Big tragedy when the throttlepedal breaks with the finish in sight because it was not strong enough after the drilling.



New Member
Gilbert, it must be 120.

Colin, Agfa Clacks are far too heavy (330g).

Hence the answer is a Diana. Only weighs 129 g.

Hope this helps.



New Member
G'Day Nick:

Thanks for saving me the weighing task on the Clack. I might drill it out a bit.

At times I shop at The Frugal Photographer's website, and I see he still has 126 size cassettes. You can just slap a pinhole and blue tape shutter into the cassette film aperture, and rubber band it to a Gorilla Pod. Of course, 126 is 35 size, so you can process at any lab. Seems like the solution. Every cassette would be the body, the back, and the lens.

BTW - Just in defence of the Clack and its wonderful 6x9 negative, ;-) here's a s&le from two Sundays ago right by my house. 1/35 at f12 - which is of course the only option - and Ilford Delta 100 out of date Dec 2005 developed DD-X 12 mins 20c. Of course, the Clack has a clever built-in yellow filter, when the setting is for full sun. :)

Ummm, and handheld.





New Member
A lightweight Hasselblad is a Hasselblad 1000F with 80 mm Tessar lens (only 4 elements !), preferably with sheet film adaper instead of a magazine. If you want it to be extremely lightweight, use a pinhole body cap instead of the lens.



Active Member
duh... the Clack is just too bulky.

I spent 10 bucks around 6 months ago on an Agfa Record II. That
one fits in your (granted. somewhat oversized) pocket.

The Record II is a 6x9 folder with a Pronto (not: Prontor) AGC shutter,
speeds 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25 & B. Comes with a Agfa
Apotar 1:4.5/105 lens. I just had to replace the gummed-up
grease in the helicoid. For the rest it Just Works(TM).
It has an all-metal construction which is a bit heavier than
the Clack (I also have one of those) but when folded it is
much more compact.

I can post a picture of it if there is any interest.