6x17 panorama
.::SuperBLUE::.
What is the cheapest option?
Is Linhof or Fuji 617 unavoidable or is there a cheaper solution?
Maybe Russian/Chinese?
Ralf R. Radermacher
Any old 13 x 18 and a pair of scissors would be a lot cheaper and offer
more possibilities.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
David J. Littleboy
".::SuperBLUE::." <Supe...@visakvip.hr> wrote:
There's a (relatively) new company out of Hong Kong (fotoman) that has some
interesting cameras.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Acsj&unified_p=1
If you are going to scan, then you can just shoot three images on 6x7 and
merge. I like lower aspect ratios, so two images with a wide angle lens does
it for me.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/33533884/large
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Nick Zentena
Cheapest is a 5x7 with a L shaped dark slide. An old 5x7 might cost you
$200. Shen Hao is selling a 6x17 back that fits 4x5 cameras. Between the
back and the camera you might spend $1000.
Nick
.::SuperBLUE::.
> more possibilities.
I am new to photography, so I would like to ask some dumb questions:
1. Color films for large format and where are they developed?
2. Would large format confine me to black & white manualy developed photos?
3. Is it better to buy large format camera or 6x17 considering the available
lenses (I like the telephoto)?
Ralf R. Radermacher
> > Any old 13 x 18 and a pair of scissors would be a lot cheaper and offer
> > more possibilities.
>
> I am new to photography, so I would like to ask some dumb questions:
>
> 1. Color films for large format and where are they developed?
Get yourself a second-hand Jobo processor and do the processing
yourself.
Or, as others have suggested here, fit a rollfilm back.
> 2. Would large format confine me to black & white manualy developed photos?
Definitely not.
> 3. Is it better to buy large format camera or 6x17 considering the available
> lenses (I like the telephoto)?
With a 6 x 17 camera, you're limited to the selection of lenses they
sell for it. With a large-format camera, you have an immense choice of
lenses you can use.
rafe bustin
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>If you are going to scan, then you can just shoot three images on 6x7 and
>merge. I like lower aspect ratios, so two images with a wide angle lens does
>it for me.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/33533884/large
I see you're getting some mileage out of
that picture, David.
It's a nice mood and composition... but I
wonder about the overall blue cast. The
picture looks a lot more real (and IMO,
no less attractive) with the blue channel
toned down. And that's what you'd get if
you made the concrete wall neutral.
Do you know offhand the largest length
(single frame) of 120 film that the
LS-8000 will scan? It's tempting to
get a MF back for my ShenHao (4x5)
so that I go back to using the Nikon
to scan that stuff.
In the spirit of sharing, here's a
pano I made from four 645 images.
I had fun printing this 80"x18"
on my Epson.
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/fog_pano.jpg>
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe bustin
Unless I'm mistaken, Fuji and Kodak are the lost
folks left making color films in 4x5 size, but
both offer a nice lineup of both C41 and reversal
(chrome) emulsions. Alas, I can't get Reala in
4x5, but there are a couple of versions of
Kodak's Portra and several 160-ISO C41 films
from Fuji.
Developing... I'm in the western suburbs of
Boston and there are about two places in town
that will process sheet film. Cost is about
$2.50 a sheet for processing.
IMO, you'd have a better variety of lenses
with 4x5 than with a 6x17, but I'm not at
all familiar with the latter.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
jjs
equipment. It could get complicated or expensive quickly. On the other hand,
12cm is common, and wide lenses that cover it are easily found.
jjs
news:ct1hmu$5l3$1...@ls219.htnet.hr...
As mentioned earlier, 17cm is a relatively unusual fit. 12cm (5x4") is more
commo and far more affordable for telephoto.
rafe bustin
<rafe....@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:06:35 +0100, ".::SuperBLUE::."
><Supe...@visakvip.hr> wrote:
>
>>> Any old 13 x 18 and a pair of scissors would be a lot cheaper and offer
>>> more possibilities.
>>
>>I am new to photography, so I would like to ask some dumb questions:
>>
>>1. Color films for large format and where are they developed?
>>2. Would large format confine me to black & white manualy developed photos?
>>3. Is it better to buy large format camera or 6x17 considering the available
>>lenses (I like the telephoto)?
>
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, Fuji and Kodak are the lost
>folks left making color films in 4x5 size
D'oh. Meant "last folks", of course.
rafe
David J. Littleboy
"rafe bustin" <rafe....@verizon.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy"<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >If you are going to scan, then you can just shoot three images on 6x7 and
> >merge. I like lower aspect ratios, so two images with a wide angle lens
does
> >it for me.
> >
> >http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/33533884/large
>
> I see you're getting some mileage out of that picture, David.
Yes. I should get off my duff and do some more panos.
> It's a nice mood and composition... but I
> wonder about the overall blue cast. The
> picture looks a lot more real (and IMO,
> no less attractive) with the blue channel
> toned down. And that's what you'd get if
> you made the concrete wall neutral.
Well, the slides are blue and it was blue.
> Do you know offhand the largest length
> (single frame) of 120 film that the
> LS-8000 will scan? It's tempting to
> get a MF back for my ShenHao (4x5)
> so that I go back to using the Nikon
> to scan that stuff.
The largest frame the Nikon will scan is 56x82 mm.
So you have to scan twice and stitch.
Someone sent me a 6x17 frame to play with, and although I succeeded in
scanning that frame, it was only because that particular frame didn't cause
Newton's rings. With the regular film holder, and with a mask holding the
6x17 frame off the glass, I was unable to get the film flat enough to remain
in critical focus across the whole frame.
> In the spirit of sharing, here's a
> pano I made from four 645 images.
> I had fun printing this 80"x18"
> on my Epson.
What do you use to drive the Epson for longer than standard sizes?
> <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/fog_pano.jpg>
Ah, I see you left the power pole. A lot of my countryside shots have lots
of power poles. They don't bother me, since they actually were there. But
some people think they should be photoshopped out...
Nick Zentena
The wide angle part might not end up being true. A 75mm Nikon should cover
6x17. To get something similar on 6x12 you'd need something around 58mm.
OTOH a 6x12 back can be had for relatively little.
Nick
Paul Owen via PhotoKB.com
--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
rafe bustin
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>What do you use to drive the Epson for longer than standard sizes?
>
>> <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/fog_pano.jpg>
Nothing special. Epson driver. For the 7000,
the limit is around 80 inches.
Strangely, the driver will let you plug in
much larger values but will then choke.
Somewhere along the way I found a PDF
(from Epson's web site) with official
print-length limits for this printer...
and chose a length just below that.
It's still not optimal -- if I could use
the full printing width available, the
print would be more like 100" long.
But I'm not about to shell out thousands
of $$ for a RIP, not quite yet.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Bob Salomon
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote:
> A monorail, such a Sinar, will go down to 45mm. There are special double-bag
> bellows for use below 65mm.
A monorail like Linhof takes lenses down to 35mm and use the standard
bag bellows.
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Is Linhof or Fuji 617 unavoidable or is there a cheaper solution?
Use a 5x7 (or 8x10 or 4x5) and use the center strip. And after
you are done you still have a perfectly useful camera, unlike
a Linhof 6x17.
If you want hand-held then get a Crown graphic and a 65mm lens and
have someone fit a recessed lensboard.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Shorter than 90mm and the front and rear standards of most [field] cameras
> will not allow focus as they are too close together.
A monorail, such a Sinar, will go down to 45mm. There are special double-bag
bellows for use below 65mm.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
> 1. Color films for large format and where are they developed?
Most professional large format work is in color, any medium/large city
will have a laboratory that does large format color. You can also do
it yourself in a flat bottom tray resting in a much larger tray of hot
water. Look for the Tetenal kits.
> 2. Would large format confine me to black & white manualy developed photos?
No.
> 3. Is it better to buy large format camera or 6x17 considering the available
> lenses (I like the telephoto)?
There aren't any lenses available for 6x17 cameras except the one that
came with it and maybe one or two others.
For large format there are 1000's of lenses.
Roger I. McMillan
While a Fuji 617 was my first MF camera I couldn't recommend
it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
movements.
Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?
Roger I. McMillan
.::SuperBLUE::.
> it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
> not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
> the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
> movements.
Wouldnt I waste film then? Is it cheaper the 120film way?
>
> Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?
No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.
Nick Zentena
>> it for someone new to photography. It does one thing well but
>> not much else. Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
>> the same results but allow for more flexibility: format, lenses,
>> movements.
>
> Wouldnt I waste film then? Is it cheaper the 120film way?
Not cheaper for film but cheaper for the camera. Will you be shooting
enough so the cheaper 120 film will make up for the cost of the back etc?
>>
>> Why 6x17 or large format ? Planning wall size murals ?
>
> No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
> cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
> in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.
Just 2feet by almost 6 feet?
Nick
Ralf R. Radermacher
> Planning wall size murals ?
It doesn't take wall-size mural to spot the difference. I have 35 mm and
MF swing lens panorama cameras and the difference is just as striking as
between 35 mm and MF in general.
Bob Salomon
"Roger I. McMillan" <NOrim...@NOaustin.rr.comSPAM> wrote:
> Cropping a LF frame to the same aspect will give
> the same results but allow for more flexibility
Like hand holding? Shooting on the go at Moab or Death Valley? Carrying
just a few rolls of film and a meter rather then film holders, changing
bag, etc.?
Pieter Litchfield
spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.
I have one and it's fun. I modified a negative carrier for my 35mm - 2 1/4
square enlarger to accomodate the size - its a 24 x 54 mm negative. Do all
my developing and enlarging in B&W at home.
However, if you want night exposures, forget it. The Horizon uses a
swinging lens, so no time exposures longer than 1/2 second, and no flash.
Otherwise, it takes a surprisingly good negative, and its fun to work within
the limitations.
".::SuperBLUE::." <Supe...@visakvip.hr> wrote in message
news:ct4ejg$ap1$1...@ls219.htnet.hr...
RolandRB
Pieter Litchfield wrote:
> At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to
suggest
> spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on
e-bay.
> I have one and it's fun. I modified a negative carrier for my 35mm -
2 1/4
> square enlarger to accomodate the size - its a 24 x 54 mm negative.
Do all
> my developing and enlarging in B&W at home.
> However, if you want night exposures, forget it. The Horizon uses a
> swinging lens, so no time exposures longer than 1/2 second, and no
flash.
> Otherwise, it takes a surprisingly good negative, and its fun to work
within
> the limitations.
And it gives amazingly sharp pictures of things out towards infinity.
Quite stunning, in fact.
jjs
F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.
Bandicoot
news:0l3ec2-...@barley.dyndns.org...
> In rec.photo.equipment.large-format jjs <j...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
> > You should be sure you want 6x17. 17cm requires 7" or better
> > enlarging equipment. It could get complicated or expensive
> > quickly. On the other hand, 12cm is common, and wide lenses
> > that cover it are easily found.
>
>
> The wide angle part might not end up being true. A 75mm
> Nikon should cover 6x17. To get something similar on 6x12
> you'd need something around 58mm.
Maybe - but the widest lens I have that will cover 6x12 gives me a wider
horizontal AoV than the widest I have that will cover 6x17.
That's partly a reflection of the lenses I happen to have, but even if I did
have a 75mm that would cover 6x17, it still wouldn't give as wide an AoV as
my 38mm does on 6x12: I don't think it's possible to get as wide an AoV as
that on 6x17.
But then, I make the 38mm pn 6x12 to be the horizontal equivalent of a 12mm
on 135 film, so it's not the sort of perspective one needs very often! (The
75mm you suggest is the equivalent of a 16mm on 135, so it's already fairly
extreme.)
> OTOH a 6x12 back can be had for relatively little.
>
With the emphasis on the word 'relatively', compared to other sized
film-backs!
Peter
Bandicoot
news:GydJd.9095$rp1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Paul Owen via PhotoKB.com" <fo...@PhotoKB.com> wrote
>
> > Shorter than 90mm and the front and rear standards of most
> > [field] cameras will not allow focus as they are too close
> > together.
>
> A monorail, such a Sinar, will go down to 45mm. There are
> special double-bag bellows for use below 65mm.
>
I assume the Shen Hao back that produces 6x17 on a 4x5 camera works the same
way as the Da Yi one I've just been playing with does (indeed, I wouldn't be
surprised if they came from the same factory) I can't see how else it can
work. If that is so, the fact that the camera can take shorter lenses
doesn't mean that you can necessarily still focus them on the 6x17 back,
which I think is what Paul is getting at.
I just posted a preliminary review of the Da Yi which explains the issue, so
rather than repeat here what I've just written in that, I'll refer anyone
who wants an explanation to that post.
Peter
Paul Friday
Litchfield <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> writes
>At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to suggest
>spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.
There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday
jjs
news:5AmNr$CSWr9...@devce.demon.co.uk...
> In message <qurJd.159518$Uf.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, Pieter Litchfield
> <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> writes
>>At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to
>>suggest
>>spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.
>
> There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.
Unfortunately, they don't focus.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.
..which has a number of problems and is so ridiculously expensive that
it makes a second-hand Noblex 150 look like a bargain.
David J. Littleboy
Roger I. McMillan
Lugging a 6x17 to the top of a Colorado 14er became just too hard.
35mm became good enough.
Roger I McMillan
Roger I. McMillan
Bigger is better then.
I would recommend some other references:
http://www.panoramicassociation.org/
Panoramic Photography by Joseph Meehan, 1990 AMPHOTO
jjs
news:ct6o72$u0a$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:
>
>> If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
> 47mm
>> F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.
>
> I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...
I'll bet you have seen it before.
Here it is: http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/
David J. Littleboy
"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote in message
news:10vfhsj...@news.supernews.com...
You're right. But it's worth seeing again. Lovely work.
Gordon Moat
> What is the best way for me to start?
In a way, you already started. If you have an interest in panorama
images, and that aspect ratio, then finding the gear would seem to be a
next step. However, I suggest you consider first how you are going to
get the images printed, or scanned, since these are the likely first
options for using these images.
>
> What is the cheapest option?
Large format camera, or home built from two 6x9 folder cameras. A lens
with a focusing mount is expensive, so in some combinations, a large
format camera and roll film back might end up lower cost.
>
> Is Linhof or Fuji 617 unavoidable or is there a cheaper solution?
Fotoman, Patz, and sometimes a few other oddities, some built to order
only.
<http://www.fotomancamera.com>
<http://www.PatzImaging.com/Patz616.html>
>
> Maybe Russian/Chinese?
Swing lens cameras, or strange rotating cameras like the Seitz Roundshot
that takes medium format roll film (expensive). Depending upon how good
a craftsman you are, you might be able to make your own.
Other options are the Hasselblad XPan (close to same aspect ration, but
35 mm), a 6x12 (Horseman, VeriWide, Linhof, roll film back on 4x5 large
format camera), or cropped down 6x9 (ALPA, or home built from folder
cameras). Of these, a used XPan is around $1500 with the 45 mm lens,
Horseman slightly higher, some older options maybe in need of repair, an
ALPA at luxury pricing, or cropping 6x9. The advantage by cropping 6x9
is that the film has slightly better ability to stay flat than with a
6x17 camera, so that enlargements and scans could easily be just as
sharp, if not better in some situations. Also, a smaller than 6x17
camera could be easier to carry around.
If you get a chance to look at a Linhof or Fuji 6x17, you might be
shocked at how crude the construction is, though the lens and focus
mount are well made. I don't think you need either of those to get a
good lens, and large format lens choices would get you there. Going
smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be easier, though an XPan
is limited in lens choice, and home built could provide similar
restrictions. Anyway, let us know what you finally decide to get.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Bandicoot
news:41F966CB...@attglobal.net...
[SNIP]
> Going smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be
> easier, though an XPan is limited in lens choice, and home
> built could provide similar restrictions. Anyway, let us know
> what you finally decide to get.
>
Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan adapter...
Peter
Gordon Moat
The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses, is obscuring
the viewfinder window. It should be possible, though obviously some
machining involved. It is a little surprising that there are not more
adapters to fit lenses to the XPan.
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> >
> > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
> > adapter...
> >
> > Peter
>
> The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
> is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
> though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
> surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
> the XPan.
>
I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.
It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.
The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.
And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!
Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
job...)
Peter
David J. Littleboy
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
> > > adapter...
Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider panoramic format
(24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift. And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you
like less extreme ratios.
That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, though.
> The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
> though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
> 90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
> time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
> Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and
some
> sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
> body with me.
That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras, but their
80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65 panoramic format.
By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover the 65mm format.
Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A Pentax 6x7 ($300
to $999 used) with the 45mm lens ($600) would be a more flexible camera than
the X-Pan. Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price averse.
Bandicoot
>
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-
>
> Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider
> panoramic format (24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift.
> And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you like less extreme
> ratios.
All true. I shoot 6x6 as my MF SLR, but also do 6x7,8,9 regularly. But any
of these options is very bulky compared to the X-Pan. For 'serious'
panoramics I do 6x12 (have just bought a 6x17 back to play with), but I
really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light compared to just about any
MF equipment I have. The 150 or 180 on the X-Pan would be very nice, and
_comparatively_ portable.
>
> That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, > though.
That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient and I have no idea
what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I decide to start using that new back
'in earnest'. Oh well...
>
> > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
> > tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
> > something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm. There was a
> > rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
> > time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120
> > and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd
> > cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of finder)
> > to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an
> > MF body with me.
>
> That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras,
> but their 80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65
> panoramic format.
My thought exactly...
>
> By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover
> the 65mm format.
Why not? It is full frame on 6x6, which has a longer diagonal. This wasn't
a particularly serious thought, but it might be fun nonetheless, if only as
an experiment. Maybe I'll make up an adapter to stick it on a Speed
Graphic, then I can see what it covers on a 6x9 back - ie., not all of it -
and so work out what it will and won't do.
>
> Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A
> Pentax 6x7 ($300 to $999 used) with the 45mm lens
> ($600) would be a more flexible camera than the X-Pan.
> Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price
> averse.
It would, perhaps, if I was starting from scratch and this was all I wanted
to do - but I already have too many different systems! Also, I already have
the X-Pan (and love it) and was thinking more of how to use it to do as a
lightweight kit some of what I already do when more fully 'tooled up'...
Ho hum.
Peter
David J. Littleboy
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> but I
> really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light compared to just about any
> MF equipment I have.
I've seen some lovely handheld work with ISO800 color neg film in the X-Pan.
Not much good for anything other than web display, though.
> > That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, > though.
>
> That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient and I have no idea
> what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I decide to start using that new
back
> 'in earnest'. Oh well...
If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to do 6x17 in two
scans. Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation,
the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.
-
> scans. Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation,
> the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.
You can also use flatbeds a number of current flatbeds. While initially the
scans are not as sharp as the Nikon's, very acceptable scans can be achieved
with the right post processing skills and you can scan a 6x17 in one pass.
Canon and Microtek now have some decent 6x17 holders standard with their
higher end models.
Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:41FA79F5...@attglobal.net...
> > Bandicoot wrote:
> >
> [SNIP]
> > >
> > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
> > > adapter...
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
> > is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
> > though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
> > surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
> > the XPan.
> >
>
> I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
> marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
> see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
> it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
> the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.
Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work okay most of the time
with a super wide on the XPan. The combination would be much cheaper than the
XPan 30 mm lens.
>
>
> It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
> wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.
The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost any place with a CNC
could probably make up adapters easily, though a volume order would be better
to drop costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is any market
for adapters.
>
>
> The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
> though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
> 90mm.
Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in which lines for shift
distance are etched into the finder. While the ALPA finders are very expensive,
modifying another finder type might not be too tough.
> There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
> time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
> Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
> sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
> body with me.
>
I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm for the RF, and
some focusing problem reports with the longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have
caused them to think twice about offering something. If they added a viewfinder
magnifier similar to what Leica have introduced, then longer lenses should be
possible with accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would eventually
cause some error.
>
> And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!
>
> Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
> job...)
>
> Peter
Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour. Unfortunately, a bayonet
mount is not that quick an operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
better, but the set-up costs are high.
I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut it and resection it
to take a different mount. A metal body cap could provide one source, or a
broken lens could be another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.
Bandicoot
>
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > but I really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light
> > compared to just about any MF equipment I have.
>
> I've seen some lovely handheld work with ISO800 color
> neg film in the X-Pan. Not much good for anything other
> than web display, though.
Usually Velvia 100F or E100VS for me, and a tripod. I keep meaning to put a
roll of T-Max 3200 in it though, which rated at ISO 1600 is a film I enjoy
for people.
>
> > > That does require an expensive scanner if you want to
> > > scan, though.
> >
> > That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient
> > and I have no idea what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I
> > decide to start using that new back 'in earnest'. Oh
> > well...
>
> If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to
> do 6x17 in two scans.
Minolta Scan Multi-Pro. I think this will also do it in two, though I
haven't tried it yet. It's more 'nuisance value' than real impracticality
that bothers me...
> Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the
> ventilation, the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely
> attractive.
>
Not something I know about - is that Nikon specific, if not where can I find
more? (Or should I just do a search on the name?)
Cheers,
Peter
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:41FA79F5...@attglobal.net...
> > > Bandicoot wrote:
> > >
> > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > >
> > > The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger
> > > lenses, is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should
> > > be possible, though obviously some machining
> > > involved. It is a little surprising that there are not more
> > > adapters to fit lenses to the XPan.
> > >
> >
> > I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any
> > of this - a 6x7 one marked down would work fine, or I
> > could build something with wire. I don't see using the
> > rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple,
> > but it would be very lens specific, and of value only with
> > wider lenses where the RF would have a hope of giving
> > accurate focus.
>
> Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work
> okay most of the time with a super wide on the XPan. The
> combination would be much cheaper than the XPan 30 mm
> lens.
Got one of them :-)
Very nice it is too - bought it, along with the rest of the X-Pan kit, with
some money left me by my grandmother, who _many_ years before gave me my
first SLR. I think she'd approve.
> >
> > It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters
> > for the X-Pan, I wonder if there is patent protection still
> > in force for the mount.
>
> The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost
> any place with a CNC could probably make up adapters
> easily, though a volume order would be better to drop
> costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is
> any market for adapters.
There seems a steady market for adapters to put P6 lenses onto most 645
bodies, and (which I understand a little less well) most 35mm mounts too.
I'm sure I'm not the only X-Pan owner who'd like the idea of shift lenses,
glass longer than 90mm, faster glass, and/or that fisheye...
If I was sure there'd be no problem with a patent on the mount (ie., if I
had time to research it) I'd order up a batch of ten or twenty X-Pan to
T-Mount adapters or something similar (so they could be given any front end)
and sell the rest on *Bay.
>
> >
> >
> > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
> > tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
> > something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm.
>
> Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in
> which lines for shift distance are etched into the finder.
> While the ALPA finders are very expensive, modifying
> another finder type might not be too tough.
Silvestri et al use a tilting finder to deal with shift: shouldn't be too
hard to build something like that. Of course, even more fun would be being
able to use tilt for vertical panoramas - but that's definitely a bridge too
far for the X-Pan (for me at least). I'll still go to MF (and LF) for that.
>
> > There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm
> > for it at one time, but they never did. I'd love to use my
> > Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-
> > Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of > > finder)
to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't
> > have an MF body with me.
> >
>
> I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm
> for the RF, and some focusing problem reports with the
> longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have caused them to think
> twice about offering something.
Good point, the Bronica debacle would be enough to scare anyone off.
> If they added a viewfinder magnifier similar to what Leica
> have introduced, then longer lenses should be possible with
> accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would
> eventually cause some error.
Yes, a magnifier would be a very nice, simple, solution. Wonder why not...
>
> >
> > And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!
> >
> > Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a
> > machinist to do the job...)
> >
> > Peter
>
> Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour.
> Unfortunately, a bayonet mount is not that quick an
> operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
> better, but the set-up costs are high.
They charge more here, and as you say, a bayonet takes some time.
>
> I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut
> it and resection it to take a different mount. A metal body
> cap could provide one source, or a broken lens could be
> another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.
Alas the body caps are plastic. I suppose I could experiment with one just
to see how rigid it is: it would wear out in use, but maybe be cheap enough
to regard as a consumable. Broken X-Pan lenses seem to be rarer than hens'
teeth.
Peter
David J. Littleboy
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to
> > do 6x17 in two scans.
>
> Minolta Scan Multi-Pro. I think this will also do it in two, though I
> haven't tried it yet. It's more 'nuisance value' than real impracticality
> that bothers me...
>
> > Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the
> > ventilation, the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely
> > attractive.
> >
>
> Not something I know about - is that Nikon specific, if not where can I
find
> more? (Or should I just do a search on the name?)
Nikon specific.
FWIW: http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm
Bandicoot
news:OxEKd.672$Ix....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large
> > enough to do 6x17 in two scans. Film flatness is a
> > bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation, the
> > Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.
>
> You can also use flatbeds a number of current flatbeds.
> While initially the scans are not as sharp as the Nikon's,
> very acceptable scans can be achieved with the right
> post processing skills and you can scan a 6x17 in one
> pass. Canon and Microtek now have some decent
> 6x17 holders standard with their higher end models.
>
Thanks for that thought. I use my old flat bed to do low res. scans of 4x5
(I have to send it out for really good scans, but this is OK for making
thumbnails and images to email). Unfortunatley the transparency hood for it
isn't long enough to cover a 6x17, so I think I'm stuck with the two pass
approach in my Minolta scanner for now. Still, it's something to bear in
mind when/if I replace my flatbed, since it isn't going to last forever.
> Doug
> --
> Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of
> 120/220 medium format film:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html
>
Hmmm - I've archived the link so that if I ever get a better flatbed I can
go back to that. Thanks.
Peter
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . .
> >
> > Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work
> > okay most of the time with a super wide on the XPan. The
> > combination would be much cheaper than the XPan 30 mm
> > lens.
>
> Got one of them :-)
Lucky you!
>
>
> Very nice it is too - bought it, along with the rest of the X-Pan kit, with
> some money left me by my grandmother, who _many_ years before gave me my
> first SLR. I think she'd approve.
My grandmother encouraged my painting skills, and is one reason I finally got
an art degree. I think if she were still alive, she would be happy at some of
the achievements I have made.
>
>
> > >
> > > It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters
> > > for the X-Pan, I wonder if there is patent protection still
> > > in force for the mount.
> >
> > The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost
> > any place with a CNC could probably make up adapters
> > easily, though a volume order would be better to drop
> > costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is
> > any market for adapters.
>
> There seems a steady market for adapters to put P6 lenses onto most 645
> bodies, and (which I understand a little less well) most 35mm mounts too.
> I'm sure I'm not the only X-Pan owner who'd like the idea of shift lenses,
> glass longer than 90mm, faster glass, and/or that fisheye...
I know a CNC programmer who would jump at the job, though of course the issue
of patents needs to be solved. Perhaps Hasselblad could be encouraged to allow
a short run to test the concept.
>
>
> If I was sure there'd be no problem with a patent on the mount (ie., if I
> had time to research it) I'd order up a batch of ten or twenty X-Pan to
> T-Mount adapters or something similar (so they could be given any front end)
> and sell the rest on *Bay.
I am not so sure about T-mount adapters. The Xpan lenses are basically a 645
style of construction, though the size makes a few other choices possible.
Current Hasselblad SLR lenses might be one direction. A Nikon mount,
considering how many manual focus lenses they have on the market (new & used),
is another consideration, and that would allow using other adapters. A Leica M
mount would unfortunately not work due to the too short mount to film distance.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
> > > tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
> > > something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm.
> >
> > Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in
> > which lines for shift distance are etched into the finder.
> > While the ALPA finders are very expensive, modifying
> > another finder type might not be too tough.
>
> Silvestri et al use a tilting finder to deal with shift: shouldn't be too
> hard to build something like that.
I have looked at their design. I think it would be complicated to graft onto an
existing camera, though I agree that it is a nice solution.
> Of course, even more fun would be being
> able to use tilt for vertical panoramas - but that's definitely a bridge too
> far for the X-Pan (for me at least). I'll still go to MF (and LF) for that.
Consider something like a Nikkor 35 mm Shift lens has a view angle like a
cropped 21 mm (approx.). Using a 21 mm finder, and etching lines to show
changes of shift amount, would work nicely. Any shift lens with marked shift
distance could use that type of solution. The medium format shift lenses might
be a better choice due to greater coverage.
>
>
> >
> > > There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm
> > > for it at one time, but they never did. I'd love to use my
> > > Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-
> > > Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of > > finder)
> to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't
> > > have an MF body with me.
> > >
> >
> > I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm
> > for the RF, and some focusing problem reports with the
> > longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have caused them to think
> > twice about offering something.
>
> Good point, the Bronica debacle would be enough to scare anyone off.
I still like the RF645, and think it is a wonderfully ergonomic design.
Unfortunately, it seems that Tamron will not put any more development into it.
>
>
> > If they added a viewfinder magnifier similar to what Leica
> > have introduced, then longer lenses should be possible with
> > accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would
> > eventually cause some error.
>
> Yes, a magnifier would be a very nice, simple, solution. Wonder why not...
Sales might not be good enough currently to entice Hasselblad to manufacture
something. This is another thing that a third party company might be able to
produce in small quantities, if permission is given by Hasselblad.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!
> > >
> > > Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a
> > > machinist to do the job...)
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour.
> > Unfortunately, a bayonet mount is not that quick an
> > operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
> > better, but the set-up costs are high.
>
> They charge more here, and as you say, a bayonet takes some time.
I am still working on my project camera, though it is going slowly. I have a
couple different shutters now, but a few details still need to be worked out. I
am leaning towards doing a 6x6 version to allow some shift, and make it more
like an SWC.
>
>
> >
> > I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut
> > it and resection it to take a different mount. A metal body
> > cap could provide one source, or a broken lens could be
> > another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.
>
> Alas the body caps are plastic. I suppose I could experiment with one just
> to see how rigid it is: it would wear out in use, but maybe be cheap enough
> to regard as a consumable. Broken X-Pan lenses seem to be rarer than hens'
> teeth.
>
> Peter
The plastic body cap could be used to make a mold, then a casting could be
done. Anyway, it at least provides some dimensions to start. I would not trust
a plastic mount with any lenses, even though some companies sell cameras and
lenses like that currently.