Two observations about the Hasselblad Xpan

[shorelineae]

Observation 1

A quote from Hasselblad's official page:

"The 65mm width of the full panorama images are similar to the medium format, actually making the XPan a medium format camera for 35mm film"

I find it interesting how the Xpan is described as a medium format camera, possibly due to the specially designed lenses requiring a large image circle.

Observation 2

The Hasselblad X1D-50c (digital medium format) is at the same price as a Xpan on the well known auction site. I also read that the X1D-50c has a Xpan mode and EVF preview since 2018.


Of course, I am lusting for an Xpan but I'm going to try using a 645 back on my Bronica S2A and crop the frames. I'll get 16 shots vs the 20 that I would get on the xpan - on a roll that is approximately the same price....

 

[Richard G]

I like that Observation 1 thought. Price and delicacy of the finish have always put me off. Settled for the 500C/M.

 

[snaefell]

Observation 1

A quote from Hasselblad's official page:
I find it interesting how the Xpan is described as a medium format camera, possibly due to the specially designed lenses requiring a large image circle.

But there is truth in this statement. Very few lenses below medium format have an image circle larger than 60mm.

Of course, I am lusting for an Xpan but I'm going to try using a 645 back on my Bronica S2A and crop the frames. I'll get 16 shots vs the 20 that I would get on the xpan - on a roll that is approximately the same price....

Another possibility is to use a "Texpan". Take a Fuji 6x9 camera (either GW or GSW) and use 35mm film in it, there is a description on emulsive.org how to do it. Or use a mask (which is originally intended to use 35mm film in the camera) and expose only a part of your 120 rollfilm.

 

[james.liam]

Observation 1

A quote from Hasselblad's official page:


I find it interesting how the Xpan is described as a medium format camera, possibly due to the specially designed lenses requiring a large image circle.

The image circle is enormous, encompassing two 35mm frames and then some, so it's amazing that the lenses are as compact as they are.

Price and delicacy of the finish have always put me off.

The paint, not the finish, on the Xpan is fragile. It's titanium beneath it. Go for the Fujifilm TX-1 and you'll have no issues.

Another possibility is to use a "Texpan". Take a Fuji 6x9 camera (either GW or GSW) and use 35mm film in it

Ever hold a 'Texpan'? it's meterless, huge, heavy and given the slow shutter speeds, tripod-dependent. All the (bad) things the Xpan/TX isn't.

 

[OlivierAOP]

A 645 medium format lens is required to cover the 24x65mm Xpan frame. The image circle is ~69mm diameter vs. ~43mm for 24x36mm.

The X1D-50c sensor is 33x44mm, so the Xpan mode is 26x44mm and there is a ~0.7 crop factor involved vs. Xpan. You can crop smaller formats of course. On a Sony a7ii you can set EVF/screen frame lines at 12x36mm to help composition and a 25mm lens will have the perspective of the 45mm Xpan.

 

[james.liam]

The X1D-50c sensor is 33x44mm, so the Xpan mode is 26x44mm and there is a ~0.7 crop factor involved vs. Xpan. You can crop smaller formats of course. On a Sony a7ii you can set EVF/screen frame lines at 12x36mm to help composition and a 25mm lens will have the perspective of the 45mm Xpan.

You're then using smaller areas of an already smaller sensor.

 

[HHPhoto]

Observation 1

A quote from Hasselblad's official page:
I find it interesting how the Xpan is described as a medium format camera, possibly due to the specially designed lenses requiring a large image circle.

It has very little to do with the lenses. It is all about the film format: 24mm x 65mm.
That is simply a medium format film format. Because the final enlarging factor is determined by the long side of the film: 65mm.

Example: If you make a large print with a 10x enlarging factor you will get a 24cm x 65cm print.
When you now make a picture on the same film with 6x6 camera, and make a 10x enlarged print you will get a 56cm x 56cm print.
The level of quality (resolution, sharpness, grain) will be the same in both prints when the same film is used (and the quality of the used lenses is similar).
The only difference is that one print has the panorama format, and the other one the square format.

Cheers, Jan

 

[snaefell]

Ever hold a 'Texpan'? it's meterless, huge, heavy and given the slow shutter speeds, tripod-dependent. All the (bad) things the Xpan/TX isn't.

I have a Fuji GW690 if mean this. And I like to use it without a tripod, so far only on 120 film. Using a camera without a meter is something you get used to when you shoot bigger formats.

But when my 35 -> 120 adapters arrive, I will also try using 35mm film in it.

 

[KenR]

Fuji GW690

Fuji GW690

I disagree with the comments about the big Fuji’s being confined to a tripod. I have taken mine on hiking trips and hand hold it all of the time with great results. That said, as with any camera, a tripod yields slightly sharper images. But the mass of the big Fuji actually makes it rock steady when it’s being hand held.

 

[benlees]

I always lusted after an Xpan, but they have always been expensive. A different world now but it was cheaper to buy a Mamiya 7 (or one of the Fuji 6x9) and just crop. There was also the 35mm adapter also that was easy to find if you wanted to use that.

 

[james.liam]

I disagree with the comments about the big Fuji’s being confined to a tripod. I have taken mine on hiking trips and hand hold it all of the time with great results. That said, as with any camera, a tripod yields slightly sharper images. But the mass of the big Fuji actually makes it rock steady when it’s being hand held.

YMMV, as they say. 😉

 

[Prest_400]

Another possibility is to use a "Texpan". Take a Fuji 6x9 camera (either GW or GSW) and use 35mm film in it, there is a description on emulsive.org how to do it. Or use a mask (which is originally intended to use 35mm film in the camera) and expose only a part of your 120 rollfilm.

I disagree with the comments about the big Fuji’s being confined to a tripod. I have taken mine on hiking trips and hand hold it all of the time with great results. That said, as with any camera, a tripod yields slightly sharper images. But the mass of the big Fuji actually makes it rock steady when it’s being hand held.

GW690 owner here, I mostly handhold it my decision points to get this camera were the light weight for the format, and again, the neg size.
My enlarger set up only can print 50cm wide prints, but from RC paper in a roll I did print a panorama which was just a crop. Got some compliments for the shot in the photo club.
Then scanning it is of course also easy to crop, and I do that occasionally.


Digital wise, I saw the release of the GFX100s and it looks quite interesting. I know there may be an argument of some sort for the film cameras but the Xpan or Mamiya 7 are not low priced nowadays. With high performing FF+ 33x44mm MF digital, it may get interesting for me when these get a bit devalued.

 

[dourbalistar]

Another possibility is to use a "Texpan". Take a Fuji 6x9 camera (either GW or GSW) and use 35mm film in it, there is a description on emulsive.org how to do it. Or use a mask (which is originally intended to use 35mm film in the camera) and expose only a part of your 120 rollfilm.

I do exactly this, but with a Pentax 6x7, mostly with a 55mm f/3.5. I leave the sprocket holes, but you can crop them out if you like, and you'll be left with almost exactly the Xpan dimensions. I use this technique with a paper leader, and can get around 18 shots per 36-exposure roll:
https://www.peterjeffrey.photography/film-photography-blog/shooting-35mm-film-through-a-pentax-67


2020.11.25 Roll #264-05461-positive-Pano.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

Ever hold a 'Texpan'? it's meterless, huge, heavy and given the slow shutter speeds, tripod-dependent. All the (bad) things the Xpan/TX isn't.

Ever hold a Pentax 6x7 with a 55mm/3.5? Now that's what I call huge and heavy. 😉 I use it mostly hand-held, but like you said, YMMV. I think the so-called Texpan would be even easier to handhold, being lighter and without the huge 6x7 mirror.

 

[Rob-F]

Observation 1

A quote from Hasselblad's official page:


I find it interesting how the Xpan is described as a medium format camera, possibly due to the specially designed lenses requiring a large image circle.

It's like this: The XPAN is medium format horizontally, and 35mm format vertically.

 

[Rob-F]

The image circle is enormous, encompassing two 35mm frames and then some, so it's amazing that the lenses are as compact as they are.

True, the image circle is large, covering the 65mm width of an XPAN negative. But (in the no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch department) that large image circle comes at the cost of heavy vignetting. The 30mm demands a center spot ND filter, and though it's not as severe, the 45mm could use one too. So it's not as full-fledged medium format as, say, a lens for the SWC or the 500CM that cover fine without such a filter.

 

[Godfrey]

A device like this works well for fitting 35mm film into a 120 roll film camera:

35mm to 120 film adapter

Of course, 120 roll film cameras have no means with which to rewind the film (excepting a Rolleiflex TLR with Rolleikin adapter) so you have to unload the camera in a changing bag. And this device works best on a camera where the film path is horizontal, unless you have a thing for vertical panorama shots. 🙂

G

 

[james.liam]

True, the image circle is large, covering the 65mm width of an XPAN negative. But (in the no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch department) that large image circle comes at the cost of heavy vignetting.

Physics is a bitch.

 

[snaefell]

True, the image circle is large, covering the 65mm width of an XPAN negative. But (in the no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch department) that large image circle comes at the cost of heavy vignetting. The 30mm demands a center spot ND filter, and though it's not as severe, the 45mm could use one too.

That's a question of optimization. Fuji could have opted to make the image circle even larger (I have large format lenses which easily cover 250 image circle with little to no vignetting), but then the lenses would have been (much) larger. Or they try to keep the vignetting at a level which can be controlled with a center spot ND filter and make them smaller.
Obviously they chose the latter possibility.

 

[jssaraiva]

[...]I'm going to try using a 645 back on my Bronica S2A and crop the frames. I'll get 16 shots vs the 20 that I would get on the xpan - on a roll that is approximately the same price....

Hi,

I also have a Bronica S2A and 6x4.5 back, but I only get 15 frames with Ektar (I believe also with Portra 160). Do have some trick loading the film, like stopping short of the arrow mark? Or do it normally but get 16 shots with others film brands?

Concerning using this as a panorama camera, should yield similar results to the thread I posted recently on this sub-forum using a Bronica RF645 and 45mm, but would be better to have a wider than 50mm lens on the S2A.

 

[jssaraiva]

Concerning the other remarks on the use of a Fuji GS or GSW, by coincidence I also tested this over weekend and made a video last evening with the way I've done it, that enables to change the roll in daylight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xck2R08jDhw&t=7s

I've shared last night the video on a new thread, but since this one has raised this discussion with more members, I also share it here and I'd like to also comment that I do use my GSW690 exclusively handheld with no relevant issues. There is no mirror shake naturally, so using slow speeds like 1/60 or 1/30 is not a problem with proper holding position. I bought this as a lightweight alternative (namely to my Pentax 67ii with 55mm).