mw_uio
Well-known
What about MF Hasselblad 903SWC with a 38mm Biogon? My dream camera.
6x6, or 6x4.5 with different magazines. Medium format prices are dropping.
Cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
6x6, or 6x4.5 with different magazines. Medium format prices are dropping.
Cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
lZr
L&M
Guzilla,
Resolution has nothing in common with color or b&w. I look for the proportion between the size of the pixel and the gap between the pixels. Gap = no data
Resolution has nothing in common with color or b&w. I look for the proportion between the size of the pixel and the gap between the pixels. Gap = no data
guzilla
Newbie
lZr said:
Hi,
Sorry but you are wrong. You look at the wrong part of the picture. It's much more complicated. The *real* resolution of a scanner is specified in ppi or lpi and its measured the following way:
The measure target has blocks of parallel black lines. The gaps between the lines are of the same width as the lines. The lines are getting finer and finer and when the scanner only sees a gray area and not individual lines, it has reached the resolution limit.
Now where is color? When we are not looking at black lines, but colors the contrast is lower, so the scanned picture is sooner so unsharp that the eye can't see the differencies any more.
That pixel densitiy is not directly linked to resolution is a phenomenon we know from BW negatives. A grainier neg can have a higher resolution, when the contrast is higher. So you have film developers focusing on small grain and others focusing on sharp contrast.
But back to topic: From what I have heard the Mamiya 7 with the 43mm is better than the Hasselblad 903 SWC. No mentioning it's more versatile.
And there is the pano adapter for the Mamiya.
lZr
L&M
Guzilla,
You are lookin at the scanner side, but you never know (or the vendor is not saing) about interlacing. I am looking the results. Never mind dpi, or lpi, or whatever. I see more data in the picture as I go up the dpi scan. After 2200 (scanner term) I can't see more data, only bigger file. What I need is that. Resolution is more complicated term, I agree.
You are lookin at the scanner side, but you never know (or the vendor is not saing) about interlacing. I am looking the results. Never mind dpi, or lpi, or whatever. I see more data in the picture as I go up the dpi scan. After 2200 (scanner term) I can't see more data, only bigger file. What I need is that. Resolution is more complicated term, I agree.
Finder
Veteran
guzilla said:
You are right that resolving power is directly related to target contrast, but if you are going to say that since any target can be placed in a scanner then the scanner has no specific resolving power, you can then not claim a specific type of scanner has a particular resolving power. Unless specified, resolving power is taken to be a maximum taken from a high-contrast target.
Secondly, ppi is a measure of the file pixel resolution which has nothing to do with the resolving power of the system just the number of pixels in the file. Resolving power is given in lines per mm and shows the ability of the system to resolve detail which is what you seem to be talking about.
One more problem, white is a color. And the results for a bright unsaturated red (for example having RGB values of 255/250/250) would not really change the resolving power numbers. But then we can claim that gray bars would lower the resolving power results and so there is no advantage to a monochrome scan verses a color scan. (Actually, you cannot make a monochrome scan as the scanner sensor is color and would just be converting from color to make a monochrome image.)
And yes this is a complex topic, and this is why FILM scanners can never reach their "optical" resolution because their optics prevent it and the numbers change if the line pairs of the target are parallel or diagonal to the pixel array.
But back to the topic:
There is a big difference in using a panoramic camera than a normal camera and cropping down to a pano format. I have a Mamiya 6 and the pano-adapter is also not the same as a panoramic camera. The cropping and adapter methods are a way into panoramic photography, but in ther long run a panoramic camera is so much better.
guzilla
Newbie
Finder said:
Why?
A standard panoramic camera like the Fuji GW 617 or the Fotoman are doing nothing else than cropping. The difference is that you do not crop afterwards, but from the start "by using a film format that is too slim for the lens." Technically spoken. The XPan crops a 6x7cm medium format to 135 - its equal to a Mamiya 7 with pano adapter. I own(ed) them both. I do not get the point.
Cameras like the Horizon are a different story, but I'd say that digital and stiching made them pretty obsolete besides some sentimental reasons people might have.
PS: Scanners are non color they are black and white. They scan 3 times with color filters and add the results. But just as you said: resolution is relative and depends on the scanned material.
foto_fool
Well-known
Scanner guys, please start a new thread and take your discussion there.
Erik:
My suggestion would be the Fuji GSW690II - tack-sharp 65mm/f5.6 lens with negligible distortion or vignetting - and crop to 3x9 or 4x9. You can find very clean examples of this camera for about $1000 and you don't ahve to spend extra for center filters, levels, external finder. You need a light meter.
The down side for your long exposures is that the GW/GSW lenses all T instead of B function. Shoul d be OK on a tripod.
- John
Erik:
My suggestion would be the Fuji GSW690II - tack-sharp 65mm/f5.6 lens with negligible distortion or vignetting - and crop to 3x9 or 4x9. You can find very clean examples of this camera for about $1000 and you don't ahve to spend extra for center filters, levels, external finder. You need a light meter.
The down side for your long exposures is that the GW/GSW lenses all T instead of B function. Shoul d be OK on a tripod.
- John
Ben Blacket
Established
So many options! I guess you've gotta decide between film or digital. Digital stitching limits you to stationary subjects. You don't have to use a TS lens, you can use any lens/focal length & rotate the camera (mouted on a rail) over the "nodal point" of the lens. Instead of stitching only 3 frames, you can go mad & join up to 360 degrees.
sweathog
Well-known
HenningW
Well-known
Finder said:
I've shot with a number of panoramic format cameras, including a Wielux. It was an F7, but the optics are similar. The Widelux was one I fought with a lot, due to banding issues. I had 4 different ones, and they all needed a lot of use before they exposed evenly.
I replaced it with a Noblex 150 when they came out (sn 12), and was delighted with the result. I still use one now, and also a Horizon 202, which though it sounds terrible and is very poorly built, gives me better results than the Wideluxes ever did. I also have a Roundshot 28/220 which I use with a 28/3.5 Nikkor PC. Definitely the widest angle of view of any camera I have. I have a couple of fisheye lenses, but they are used for different purposes; not really equivalent to panoramics. I use the Xpan mostly with the 30, and if I want something wider in rectilinear, I use a 35 ApoGrandagon on a CamboWide with a 6x12 holder. I've used my 24TS-E on the 5D, but that really doesnt' compare in versatility or angle of view to my other options.
The Noblex 150 series will give you very high quality, and the lens on that camera is definitely higher resolution and contrast than the 38 Biogon and even the 43 Mamiya. It's a 50mm/4.5 fairly simple lens of exceptional quality, and that is fairly easy to manufacture. I've travelled a lot with it, including treks in Nepal and it is all in all my most useful panoramic camera. The Roundshot gives a lot larger angle of view, both vertically as well as horizontally, but that often makes it too wide. The Xpan is very handy, but the image quality is somewhat disappointing due purely to the size of the negative. The Noblex is a lot bigger but not a lot heavier, and the results are so much more satisfying. The Cambowide gives very high quality (although not as high as the Noblex) images with more vertical angle of view but not as much horizontal, and the distortion in the corners due to the extreme rectilinear angle of view can be difficult. The Horizon is outclassed in every way except size. For me, the Noblex prvides the best convience/quality compromise
Whether you prefer fully rectilinear narrower angles of view or the wider angle of view with only one dimension rectilinear is of course your own decision.
Henning
Ben Blacket
Established
I reckon the Noblex 135 is a good buy. It's cheap for a camera that's well built, has a wide angle of view & a superb lens.
H.a.d
Newbie
Xpan is a Great camera with very very sharp lens. And you can go with big print with it although it's 35mm... I don't like the meter in this camera - I HATE IT....And I suffer from shooting 0.7 with 45mm lens... I need 0.4 or less for my work...These are the only things that I don't like about Xpan....And If I were you I would get Horseman 6x12 or the 6X17 camera (see your budget)......Or get LF and shoot 120 film back... Or get Mamiya RB67 with 35mm back - love there minimum focusing range in Mamiya lenses.
...Or get a Pentax 6x7, so inexpensive these days, and get one of those 35mm film adaptor kits from Hong Kong, shoot 24x66mm. Or skip the kit, run 120/220 film, and crop to 26x70mm...
This one below was shot on 120 Ektachrome but with the 35mm pano kit masks in place in the film gate and focusing screen.
This one below was shot on 120 Ektachrome but with the 35mm pano kit masks in place in the film gate and focusing screen.
