Are xpan negs MF quality?

[agoglanian]

So i hear that the xpan pano neg is about the size of a 6x7 cropped in half.

if that is true, would the xpan negative yeild the same amount of detail? would it essentially become a MF neg?

this camera seems to fill a very large niche gap in my arsenal, however, a gap that i have always wanted to use.

i would appreciate some real world insight on the camera, your thoughts on it, all that jazz.

and if you could answer the quality question, i would be ever so greatful.


thanks guys!!!

 

[wdenies]

Once a Xpan user, always a Xpan user.
Indeed, the lens quality is outstanding.
My experience is that when making panorama's the Xpan results are better than cropping MF pictures.

It can also be used as a "normal" 35mm RF

Visit our Xpan gallery to see excellent results

 

[kaiyen]

Well, simply in terms of real estate...of course it's the same quality as cropping a 6x7 in half. If I were to shoot with 6x17 (really big) such that I could crop out a 24x36mm space that would contain the same composition as with my Nikon 35mm camera, that would look about the same, too

Going to a bigger format is about bigger in as many dimensions as possible. That's why if you're shooting 6x6 and crop in half al the time anyway, you might as well shoot 645.

allan

 

[agoglanian]

thats what i thought!!! i knew i wasnt crazy

i was actually reprimanded by a few classmates of mine for going the H1 route, they said its not real hasselblad because its not 6x6 . now dont get me wrong, i love square format, but i love what the H1 can do, so much more and i dont care if its a "Fujiblad" Fuji is still a very respectable company,

as such, i believe the Xpan optics will be every bit as good as the H1's and my 4x5 fujinon lens.


now the real deal breaker - aside from what hassy tells us about the difference between the xpan I and Xpan II - what are the real user differences and does it warrant me getting an xpan II?

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

The xpan optics are every bit as good as leica optics. The 45mm/90mm in particular are exceptionally well finished, great build quality and sharp sharp sharp.

Question is how often you seen things in 6x7/2 real estate? Or can you just crop from your MF shots.

 

[agoglanian]

well i no longer have my Mamiya RZ - i now shoot with the Hassy H1, so that shrinks to 6x4.5
and to be honest, i have wanted to shoot full bore panoramas ever since i saw a gallery of just panos about 3 years ago. i love the concept of the camera, and i think it would be a fine addition... however i need to get my purchasing priorities lined up first :/

 

[kaiyen]

and i dont care if its a "Fujiblad" Fuji is still a very respectable company,

tell your friends to go look at a few images from the fuji rangefinders and see if they have anythign negative to say about fuji optics

allan

 

[Parkes Owen]

So i hear that the xpan pano neg is about the size of a 6x7 cropped in half.

if that is true, would the xpan negative yeild the same amount of detail? would it essentially become a MF neg?

this camera seems to fill a very large niche gap in my arsenal, however, a gap that i have always wanted to use.

i would appreciate some real world insight on the camera, your thoughts on it, all that jazz.

and if you could answer the quality question, i would be ever so greatful.


thanks guys!!!

Having used the xpan for 12 months I can say it`s a fantastic camera, feels very solid
and lenses are excellent. I got mine just before the xpan 2 was released(doh!) but for the price difference I dont miss the few improvements, now I can afford the 90mm lens.

I work for a photographic display company and as a picture framer for pro landscape & wedding photographers and I`ve seen xpan shots printed up to 48inches wide(drum scan/durst lamda printer) which look every bit as good as most other MF prints(except 617 of course!).

I used to travel with my bronica etrsi but now all i take is the xpan which is easier and I`m very happy with the results.

I also like to shoot neopan1600 (not available in 120)so thats another plus for the xpan. Overall it`s a great camera and well worth buying second hand.

Good luck!

 

[flipflop]

agphotography,
Check it out...The big differences in the Xpan I VS. Xpan II...are...The shutterspeeds are displayed on the LCD on the back of the camera, on the 2 they are in the viewfinder. The finish is supposed to be alot better on the 2...the black paint is very thin and chips off easily.
Being a student I could not justify the price difference so i went for the 1 and I am happy with it. I have the 45mm and 90mm lenses both are razor sharp...I may sell the 90mm because I dont use it as much as I would like and I need a scanner.
Best of luck pano is addictive.
on a 36 exposure roll you get 21 pics
and a 24 exposure roll you get 15..i think...i mostly shoot 36

 

[mwolff]

If you are thinking of selling the 90mm, I am in the market for one. Let me know the condition and $$. MWolff@erols.com

Michael

 

[julianphotoart]

One the question of Xpan negatives versus cropped 6x7 negatives, I asked a Hasselblad guy this question at Samy's in Los Angeles. I asked why I should buy an Xpan versus just getting a 35mm adapter for my Mamiya 7. Right or wrong, this is what he told me.

The Xpan lenses are large format lenses (4x5) and thus have a huge image circle relative to the size of the negative. Thus the negative only gets the lens' "sweet spot". This, he said, was much different than a MF lens that only just covers the 6x7 negative.

So, on the one hand, that seems to make sense. On the other hand, don't people say that LF lenses are less exacting in their definition, etc. than 35mm since the negatives/transparencies from LF aren't intended to be blown up as much as 35mm?

 

[Finder]

Julian, the salesman is wrong. They are not largeformat lenses and even if there were, they would not neccessarily be giving better images.

Whether of not 35mm has more definition than a 35mm lens is a harder topic, but basically, regardless of format, lenses are not that different. What becomes tricky is MTF data is usually not exactly the same and the lenses have different optical requirements - large-format lenses are not optimized to be used wide open for example. Also, you need to know if the MTF is calculated or actual; there can be big differences.

Not using the Xpan, but using a Widelux and occasionally a Mamiya 6 with panorama adapter, you will find the Xpan a definite step above 35mm. You simply are not enlarging the image as much. Whether it competes with a medium-format camera is a little harder. I think it would come down to a personal bias as well as the conditions of the final image.

 

[shadowleaves]

even in lines of 35mm camera lense, the Xpan 30mm, 45mm and 90mm are nothing short of excellence. I have the 45mm/4 and the 90mm/4 for my xpan, and they each surpasses my Zeiss ZM 50/2.0 Planar and Contax G 90mm f/2.8 in terms of resolution. You know what this means if you know a bit about ZM and G lense.

So i hear that the xpan pano neg is about the size of a 6x7 cropped in half.

if that is true, would the xpan negative yeild the same amount of detail? would it essentially become a MF neg?

this camera seems to fill a very large niche gap in my arsenal, however, a gap that i have always wanted to use.

i would appreciate some real world insight on the camera, your thoughts on it, all that jazz.

and if you could answer the quality question, i would be ever so greatful.


thanks guys!!!

 

[Pablito]

it's a fun camera. I see no real advantage to the newer version, but you might feel differently

 

[Pherdinand]

"Are xpan negs MF quality?\'
On the long side, yes

 

[mdelevie]

Since you already have an H1, why not just shoot that and crop the width down to the panoramic aspect ratio you want?

xpan: 24 x 65 mm (135 format, double wide)
H1: 42 x 56 mm (645 format)

So if you crop the H1 negative to 20.5mm width, you have the same aspect ratio as the xpan, and 73% of the negative area. Considering that you already have the H1, does that last little increment of negative area justify the cost of an entire new system?

(if so, you may have advanced symptoms of GAS ;^) )

 

[Lincoln]

Tonality

Tonality

I have read thru' all of these comments hoping that I would get the answer I was looking for....not really! Obviously, the Fuji lenses are top shelf. I own the Contax G2 system and resolution is important to me. However, when I look at my friends MF prints I could physically see the tonality that MF has reason to brag about. Ok, I thought, I need to go MF to get that tonality I crave. When I read that the xpan basically uses MF lenses, I thought that seemed like the ideal answer, since I could do MF photography with 35mm film. Mostly I work in landscape mode, so the vertical orientation is not as important to me. So what about the tonality?.....is it the same as MF? .....or is it like 2 35mm images stitched together? I already know about the sharpness- what about tonality?

I would enjoy a clear answer to this question. I have not read a discussion that addresses this specific comparison.

Lincoln

 

[Wiyum]

I have read thru' all of these comments hoping that I would get the answer I was looking for....not really! Obviously, the Fuji lenses are top shelf. I own the Contax G2 system and resolution is important to me. However, when I look at my friends MF prints I could physically see the tonality that MF has reason to brag about. Ok, I thought, I need to go MF to get that tonality I crave. When I read that the xpan basically uses MF lenses, I thought that seemed like the ideal answer, since I could do MF photography with 35mm film. Mostly I work in landscape mode, so the vertical orientation is not as important to me. So what about the tonality?.....is it the same as MF? .....or is it like 2 35mm images stitched together? I already know about the sharpness- what about tonality?

I would enjoy a clear answer to this question. I have not read a discussion that addresses this specific comparison.

Lincoln

Lincoln,

Though I'm not clear on what your precise meaning of tonality is with regards to this topic, the answer is clear: it is going to be like two 35mm frames stitched together, and is also going to be like medium format, provided you've seen medium format images in a 2.70:1 aspect ratio that weren't captured using 6x12 or 6x17 cameras.

Film is film. Provia100F is the same stuff whether you have a 36 exposure roll of 35mm or a 4x5 sheet. The film is a constant. The negative size (or positive, in the case of the Provia) is variable.

The X-Pan generates a negative that is only 24mm tall, the same as all 35mm cameras (assuming landscape orientation). Blow up an image taken with an X-Pan so that it is 20 inches tall and crop it to the 3:2 aspect ratio; blow up an image taken on the same stock with a Nikon f5 so that it is 20 inches tall. The only difference you'll be seeing is the difference between Nikon and Fuji optics.

The X-Pan generates a negative that is 65mm wide, the same as most 6x7 cameras (again assuming landscape orientation). Blow up an image taken with an X-Pan so that it is 60 inches wide; blow up an image taken on the same stock with a Mamiya RZ67 and crop it to the 2.70:1 aspect ratio. The only difference you'll see is the difference between Fuji and Mamiya optics.

There are many differences that you can see between 35mm and medium format. If you're looking for images that have a more squarish (3:2, 4:3, 1:1) aspect ratio, then the X-Pan isn't going to give you that medium format feel... you'll be cropping down to the same negative area as you'd have in 35mm. If, on the other hand, you actually want a panoramic ratio, then the X-Pan will definitely give you that. If you like the 2.7 aspect ratio, the X-Pan gives you exactly what a 6x7 camera would without a ton of wasted negative, and actually gives you more than you'd get from a 645 or 6x6 camera.

If, on the third hand, you're looking for a panoramic ratio but want the look and feel of medium format images that you've seen in more squarish ratios, then you need to get a Horseman 612 or a Fuji 617 camera.

In short, the X-Pan is a great camera for someone who wants to make panoramas, not for someone who is looking for a medium format camera. Sure, it has all of the horizontal resolution of a Mamiya RZ67, but it also has only the vertical resolution of a Nikon F5.

Will

 

[rich815]

even in lines of 35mm camera lense, the Xpan 30mm, 45mm and 90mm are nothing short of excellence. I have the 45mm/4 and the 90mm/4 for my xpan, and they each surpasses my Zeiss ZM 50/2.0 Planar and Contax G 90mm f/2.8 in terms of resolution. You know what this means if you know a bit about ZM and G lense.

How do you know this? Have you run some kind of test or is it your gut feeling upon looking at the negs?

 

[Lincoln]

Lincoln,

Though I'm not clear on what your precise meaning of tonality is with regards to this topic, the answer is clear: it is going to be like two 35mm frames stitched together, and is also going to be like medium format, provided you've seen medium format images in a 2.70:1 aspect ratio that weren't captured using 6x12 or 6x17 cameras.

Will, thanks for your thoughtful reply. This question comes about because I was able to view two equal sized b&w portrait prints side by side. One was shot on a MF camera and the other with 35mm. Both cameras are reputed to have excellent optics. Both of these images were equally sharp to the eye, but the MF print was striking in it's obvious ability to show tonality in skin and hair. Ok, this is the factual evidence of a larger negative at work. If tonality is strictly a function of amount of grain per unit, why don't smaller prints(3x5) have more tonality? At least I can't distinguish an improved tonality.

-You have responded that the xpan takes images that are the same as 2 35mm's stitched together. This suggests that MF lenses are designed in the same manner as 35mm lenses(which we know they are not) Some have even suggested that they have a large 'sweet spot'. Basically I am asking if the xpan print will look like a strip out of the center of a 6x7(with all the tonality of MF) People keep bringing up acutance and sharpness,--my lenses already give me that, I am looking for tonality. Is tonality partly a function of MF lenses?

I know, the term 'tonality' is very subjective, but I hope my response will better describe what I mean. The x-pan looks like an excellent camera to me. If it can give me the tonality I want on a 35mm format , I will be happy.

Thanks again,

Lincoln