Unlocking the panoramic format ... is it a gimmick?

Keith

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
1:43 PM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,244
Location
Australia
View My Gallery
I thought so ... sort of!

I've looked at panoramic images a lot over the years I've been at RFF and thought that having a pano camera is a little bit like having the 15mm Voigtlander lens ... you can make the most mundane scene take on a whole new perspective but the temptation to over use it is ever present. When does a particular scene warrant the use of a panoramic camera or a super wide lens? Not to mention an X-pan is not a cheap piece of gear and that was the only 135mm panoramic camera I had any knowledege of.

Putting two rolls of film through a Widelux I just got from the classifieds has changed my opinion and suddenly this format doesn't seem quite so gimmicky. Stand there and look at something that requires a fair amount of 'taking in' visually ... then photograph it with the standard 3:2 format and invariably when you look at the results after developing or whatever, your first reaction will frequently be ... "That isn't really what I saw!" Not so with the Widelux I've discovered ... with my very first roll in the camera I went out to an area I've photographed often with my OM-1 and 35mm along with other combinations in MF and shot from the same locations as previously. The results, when developed and scanned, were images that matched almost exactly what I saw ... jaw droppingly so in fact!

This Widelux is a great, great camera ... but I now think there may be an X-pan in my future at some stage! Why oh why are they so expensive?
 
I used a Fuji TX1 (Xpan) for years, and completed my photography masters degree with it, very addictive format. Loved the very natural wide perspective, if only there was a digital equivalent, something like an X100 Pan..
 
Range Loser said:
I used a Fuji TX1 (Xpan) for years, and completed my photography masters degree with it, very addictive format. Loved the very natural wide perspective, if only there was a digital equivalent, something like an X100 Pan..
Click to expand...


That's the word that describes it perfectly ... 'addictive!'

Two hits and I'm hooked! 😛
 
I think many photographic techniques are gimmicks if you let them be. B&W looks "arty and gritty", wide angle looks "dynamic", shallow DOF gets people talking more about the bokeh than the content.

It's a gimmick if you want it to be, IMHO.
 
about six months ago i got an amazing deal on the bay for an xpan and both normal lenses. the IQ is stunning, competitive with medium format imo. and, while many 'pooh pooh' it, or consider it somehow blasphemous, i love that i can switch to 'normal' FOV as the scene or my mood demand, and maintain the IQ of these fabulous lenses in both formats. personally ive always viewed 'pano' point of view as simply another canvas on which the photographer can overlay his perspective, not a gimmick, just another tool. i love mine for street use and feel it provides a much more 'accurate' slice of life, at least in eye-to-camera-to image FOV terms. this kit is so good, and so versatile and, yes, 'addictive', that were the lenses faster i honestly would sell my other 35mm film gear.

i hope you decide to take the plunge, i believe it will add immensely to your enjoyment of photography.
tony
 
That's one of the reasons I so love them wides. It's the closest thing to how I actually see things. I read somewhere that the human eye is about 18mm (135mm eq.). Sounds about right to me!
 
Keith said:
Putting two rolls of film through a Widelux I just got from the classifieds has changed my opinion and suddenly this format doesn't seem quite so gimmicky. Stand there and look at something that requires a fair amount of 'taking in' visually ... then photograph it with the standard 3:2 format and invariably when you look at the results after developing or whatever, your first reaction will frequently be ... "That isn't really what I saw!" Not so with the Widelux I've discovered ... with my very first roll in the camera I went out to an area I've photographed often with my OM-1 and 35mm along with other combinations in MF and shot from the same locations as previously. The results, when developed and scanned, were images that matched almost exactly what I saw ... jaw droppingly so in fact!
Click to expand...

The cylindrical projection does make a huge difference.

That said, the Widelux has a horizontal coverage of somewhere between 120 and 140 degrees depending on the model, so you could just use a 12 or 15mm lens and crop to letterbox format. You get rectangular projection instead of cylindrical, but that's what you'd get with the X-pan, too.

Basically the X-pan, while nice, is nothing more than a medium format wideangle camera with the crop built in. The 30mm lens is extreme, of course, but if you use a 45mm, it makes little difference whether you use it on the X-pan or on any generic medium format camera that you then crop to the same ratio.
 
"Basically the X-pan, while nice, is nothing more than a medium format wideangle camera with the crop built in. The 30mm lens is extreme, of course, but if you use a 45mm, it makes little difference whether you use it on the X-pan or on any generic medium format camera that you then crop to the same ratio."

Whilst what you say is true, the user experience is rather different. A bit like comparing an RB67 with an M6.
 
how would one achieve a viewable 3:1 aspect ratio on a 'normal' medium format camera, like one can achieve on an xpan? on a 6x9 one would have to crop 25% vertically, no? and thats the best case scenario. wouldnt that wreck a little havoc with tranferring what you want to capture in a scene to your eventual crop? i'm not sure i get this point...

one certainly can dislike the xpan for whatever reason one chooses, but it is certainly and objectively a unique piece of equipmentwhose functionality AND versatility cannot be easily, if at all, duplicated.
tony
 
rbelyell said:
how would one achieve a viewable 3:1 aspect ratio on a 'normal' medium format camera, like one can achieve on an xpan? on a 6x9 one would have to crop 25% vertically, no? and thats the best case scenario. wouldnt that wreck a little havoc with tranferring what you want to capture in a scene to your eventual crop? i'm not sure i get this point...

one certainly can dislike the xpan for whatever reason one chooses, but it is certainly and objectively a unique piece of equipmentwhose functionality AND versatility cannot be easily, if at all, duplicated.
tony
Click to expand...

Tony: It would be haphazard to to try to compose for a wide aspect ratio without altering the camera's finder to indicate the intended ratio. Currently I shoot widescreen images for (film) projection, using either a Nikon or Hasselblad 500C/M. My choice is a 2:1 aspect ratio. I address the problem you have mentioned by marking my upper and lower framing limits directly on the groundglass. I mark pencil lines on the Nikon focusing screens. With the Hasselblad, it's not so easy to make pencil lines on the acute-mat, so I mark by applying silver tape to the glass.

To have additional framing lines in the finder is what the motion picture guys call "safe area lines." In fact, the Panavision logo is based on the idea of a finder with safe area lines.

To do this with a 6x9, it would probably need to be view camera, like the Arca Swiss, marking the safe area lines on the glass. I don't know how I'd provide safe area lines with, say, a built-in range/view finder, like a Fuji.

One would select, as the standard lens, one that restored the vertical coverage to about what it was full-frame. So, for me, with my Hasselblad and using 2:1 aspect ratio, my "standard" lens would then become the 50mm or 60mm. When I need wider than that, I go to the 40. To shoot the 2:1 ratio with a Nikon, the "normal" lens becomes 35mm instead of 50; and most of the time I use something wider than that.
 
I enjoy my X-pan
More so, that it can do regular 35mm (using a wonderful Cron-R 50/2 or 45/4) or the full 65mm frame, and it isn't as big as carrying a medium format camera loaded with film to do the same thing blah blah.. a compromise as it were if you're comparing gear to output.

Gimmick? I don't know, I just think of it as another way to see things like you would 6x6 or anything else.

For me, X-pan is just like viewing through a regular 35mm but just having more on the left and right.
 
thegman said:
I think many photographic techniques are gimmicks if you let them be. B&W looks "arty and gritty", wide angle looks "dynamic", shallow DOF gets people talking more about the bokeh than the content.

It's a gimmick if you want it to be, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I agree with this... it's all in how well done it is and if the formats/technique fits the content.
 
The XPAN could easily be my main and only camera if there wouldn't be the limitation of f/4 and the occasional hiccup when loading film. Gimmic ? No, I think the panoramic format offers possibilities not achievable with a wide-angle lens and 3:2 frame ratio.
 
I've really been enjoying the "stitched" panos I've been seeing lately. Someone postred a link to a guy who was shooting with a moderately long lens, 85mm, I think, and shooting the frames vertically, maybe nine frames across. Great pictures of Monument Valley, if memory serves. I'd love to try that, I don't think they are gimmiky at all.
 
I don't think the panoramic format is gimmicky. It can give that cinematic look and I agree it often captures a scene closer to how you experience it.
 
It is very personal, but I have seen relatively little truly breathtaking work done on the panoramic formats. I own an Xpan, but feel the 45mm, whilst workable, is not ideal for me. I recently acquired a 30mm and have a feeling that this will transform the format for me. I need depth to my frame, for most of what I do.

Gimmick? Can be, but it can also be tremendously powerful when well used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom