jamais
Established
I use a Bronica ETRSi with 135-W back for panoramic shots. The effective format is 24x54 mm (1:2,25 aspect ratio). I get 22 pictures out of a 135-36 roll. There are nice lenses available which do not cost that much.
DennisPT
Well-known
XPAN + 45mm.
Bill58
Native Texan
The way to go is w/ the X-pan/ TX-1 or 2 w/ the 45mm. It's fast, small, handy, and not too heavy. You can also switch quickly to a regular focal length.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
With a 617 you are constantly reloading, but equally, 612 is a bit stubby. Of course there's nothing stopping you cropping 6x12 (typically 56x110 mm) to 40x110mm.
In fact, unless you're making HUGE prints, there's a lot to be said for cropping 6x9 (typically 56x84 mm) to 30x84mm. Film flatness can be a good deal better; it's easier to make lenses that are sharp across the whole format; the camera is smaller, lighter and handier; and you don't have to reload as often.
Cheers,
R.
In fact, unless you're making HUGE prints, there's a lot to be said for cropping 6x9 (typically 56x84 mm) to 30x84mm. Film flatness can be a good deal better; it's easier to make lenses that are sharp across the whole format; the camera is smaller, lighter and handier; and you don't have to reload as often.
Cheers,
R.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
My choice would be either a Widelux, or if you want to go cheaper, a Horizon 202 (don't underestimate them!).
Last edited:
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
I have the same problem but I'm saving money for a linhof 612 with schneider 65/90 5,6 lens like the one I missed on ebay @1000 GBP
item 180448612518
peter_n
Veteran
I think it's really the format you like. To my eye the 2:1 is not different enough from a 35mm but the 3:1 is. Despite the comparative awkwardness of a 617 camera the different look you get is so worth it.
laptoprob
back to basics
Another vote for the Horizont
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2LYWUJHSDu8f-djpEJTGFw?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2LYWUJHSDu8f-djpEJTGFw?feat=directlink
besk
Well-known
You may want to consider an original model Brooks Veriwide.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
nico
Well-known
Hi Simon,
I like Oscar Garrido Serra's xpan work. He's a member here at RFf and he runs his own website here: http://www.garridoserra.com/
Ciao
I like Oscar Garrido Serra's xpan work. He's a member here at RFf and he runs his own website here: http://www.garridoserra.com/
Ciao
besk
Well-known
Denpends on what you consider panoramic to be. To me a image has to be wide to be panoramic.
The original Brooks Veriwide model 100 gives you 7 images at 56X92mm with a 47/8 lens.
This is equivalent to a 18mm lens on a 35mm camera. You can crop it horizontally if you wish to make the image look more "panoramic."
Of course if you corp off some at the bottom you can get in effect a little rise simular to a perspective control lens.
The original Brooks Veriwide model 100 gives you 7 images at 56X92mm with a 47/8 lens.
This is equivalent to a 18mm lens on a 35mm camera. You can crop it horizontally if you wish to make the image look more "panoramic."
Of course if you corp off some at the bottom you can get in effect a little rise simular to a perspective control lens.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
I think it's really the format you like. To my eye the 2:1 is not different enough from a 35mm but the 3:1 is. Despite the comparative awkwardness of a 617 camera the different look you get is so worth it.
I was thinking to 612 format also because:it's cheaper
,lighter to carry(my MF Travel kit is a bronica rf645 with 3 lenses,flash,hassy 903 swc with metz 40 mz2 and 1 a12 and 1 a16 backs) and I thinks it should be easier to shoot hand held or not??please consider that I have a 1000/1100 euro budgetFinder
Veteran
6X12 is an excellent format to handhold. I was in the same boat looking for a medium format panoramic camera. I played with the idea of a 6x17 camera, but it was simply to larger to be practical and I would need a 5x7 enlarger to make prints (I have a 4x5 enlarger).
There were only a few choices for 6x12, Horseman 612, Horseman SW612 Pro, or the Linhof Technorama--the Fotoman had not been released at that time. The Linhof was very attractive because it could take 220 film. The deal breaker was the built in 8mm rise. I did not want to give perspective to things right in front of me. It is a great tool for architecture and landscape. The Horseman SW612 Pro was just too large. The SW612 was not a lot bigger than my Mamiya cameras--the spool location in the back makes the body quite narrow. As a testament to its size, I did take the Horseman and a Mamiya 6 on a 1200km trail. The Horseman would be ideal if it could take 220 film, but reloading it can become fairly quick.
I did look at the Fotoman. I like the film advance on the horseman better as it uses a mechanical stop, the Fotoman uses windows and so you need to fuss with that. Still they do take getting used to. Fire the shutter, release the film transport lock, wind on, cock the shutter, repeat.
I have come to love the 2:1 aspect ratio. You could say it is cinematic. As the ratio increases, it gets harder to make good compositions beyond the wow-neat for the format itself. A 6x17 camera would be hard work for me.
BTW, just a little trivia. There are no panoramic cameras with a 3:1 aspect ratio. Not a 6x17 (bad math as it would have to be a 6x18), not an Xpan. There have been a couple of cameras with a 4:1 ratio. But they never became very popular. I would imagine the aspect ratio is just too great to make a pleasing format.
There were only a few choices for 6x12, Horseman 612, Horseman SW612 Pro, or the Linhof Technorama--the Fotoman had not been released at that time. The Linhof was very attractive because it could take 220 film. The deal breaker was the built in 8mm rise. I did not want to give perspective to things right in front of me. It is a great tool for architecture and landscape. The Horseman SW612 Pro was just too large. The SW612 was not a lot bigger than my Mamiya cameras--the spool location in the back makes the body quite narrow. As a testament to its size, I did take the Horseman and a Mamiya 6 on a 1200km trail. The Horseman would be ideal if it could take 220 film, but reloading it can become fairly quick.
I did look at the Fotoman. I like the film advance on the horseman better as it uses a mechanical stop, the Fotoman uses windows and so you need to fuss with that. Still they do take getting used to. Fire the shutter, release the film transport lock, wind on, cock the shutter, repeat.
I have come to love the 2:1 aspect ratio. You could say it is cinematic. As the ratio increases, it gets harder to make good compositions beyond the wow-neat for the format itself. A 6x17 camera would be hard work for me.
BTW, just a little trivia. There are no panoramic cameras with a 3:1 aspect ratio. Not a 6x17 (bad math as it would have to be a 6x18), not an Xpan. There have been a couple of cameras with a 4:1 ratio. But they never became very popular. I would imagine the aspect ratio is just too great to make a pleasing format.
nyx
Established
You have to take borders into account - 6x17 would be more like 5.5x17
Finder
Veteran
Actually, I am wrong. I just looked it up and a 6x17 is 56mmx168mm which is indeed a 3:1 aspect ratio.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Another issue to consider is how many shots you're going to get on a 6x12 or a 6x17 if you're considering using it for 'street' photography. I mean, do you want to be changing rolls after only 8 shots?
squid
Newbie
Could we start over by reparamatizing the question: could we qualify just what sort of magnification the negative is being enlarged into? i.e., " What were your cameras AND your typical enlargment factors?" I don't think the question was adequately posed and, therefore, answered. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that given the excellent emulsions (Ektar as 120 film is a superb emulsion recently come available) and the cost of a decent scanner that even if we don't talk about stiching a format less than 6x12 will give that gorgeus 6x17 pano we (well I) drool over.
I have been waiting overlong for someone to chime in on the cropping issue. For the amount of disadvantages (6:17 requires excessive film changing, a 5x7 enlarger, ...). Really, at the end of the day if you had to carry one camera around, don't users of 6:12 format or less feel that a cropped < 6x12 negative serves just as well as a dedicated 6x17 Xpan, Noblex, LF ...? My point is, shouldn't your recommendations be also augmented by the type of enlargement you typically require. I'm talking out loud here because "street photographers" are looking for that flexibility (with the point and shoot digital they all keep in their pockets as backup). I feel cropping gives it to them without serious image degradation/graininess on their 'average' (whatever that is) page.
Am I off base on this tangent? Is it worthy of a new thread? What were your cameras and your typical enlargment factors?
I have been waiting overlong for someone to chime in on the cropping issue. For the amount of disadvantages (6:17 requires excessive film changing, a 5x7 enlarger, ...). Really, at the end of the day if you had to carry one camera around, don't users of 6:12 format or less feel that a cropped < 6x12 negative serves just as well as a dedicated 6x17 Xpan, Noblex, LF ...? My point is, shouldn't your recommendations be also augmented by the type of enlargement you typically require. I'm talking out loud here because "street photographers" are looking for that flexibility (with the point and shoot digital they all keep in their pockets as backup). I feel cropping gives it to them without serious image degradation/graininess on their 'average' (whatever that is) page.
Am I off base on this tangent? Is it worthy of a new thread? What were your cameras and your typical enlargment factors?
squid
Newbie
Just to be clear. First, look at the next to the last chrome at http://www.rtsphoto.com/html/noblex.html from a Noblex 150 (a30 degrees). If the camera was loaded with any good emulsion, not even Ektar, how many of you feel that cropping the second to the last 6x12 chrome into that last 6x17 chrome of the same scene but using a Noblex 175 would have produced a print indistinguishable from each other?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have an XPAN, and would consider it more suitable for street photography. It's a lot less conspicuous than a 6 x 17! The lower film cost is something to consider, since street work is apt to have a somewhat low rate of keepers.