Value of Xpans sky rocketing?

[giganova]

You can simply look how prices evolved using Ebay's advanced search on closed auctions. Looks like prices roughy doubled over the past 5 years.

So which cameras should we buy now that will double in value over the next few years?

 

[Rob-F]

Are you trying to compare disparate aspect ratios?! Or just unaware of the negative sizes in question? There will be absolutely no difference between a print from an XPan and a cropped print from 6x7 at the same print size.

Thank you for your opinion. I guess it's time to return the thread to its original topic, from which some of us, myself included, have strayed. I'm out.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Two pages in an no one has noted that the value of Xpans hasn't changed, only the price.

 

[valdas]

This can be said of many old cameras/lenses. Most of what I bought many years ago it sells now for so much more... I have just sold my silver cron 35 v4 - 2250€, I paid 900€ some years ago and people said I overpaid... Contax T2, paid 200$ - I thought it was vrazy money, it’s probably double now. Most of Leica lenses I own gained at least 50% sine the purchase. I know there is an inflation factor, but even if adjusted... So Xpan is not unique in that sense.

 

[Huss]

The Sigma Quattro cameras already do this. 21:9 is built in and even gives you the option of black out framing or semi-transparent to see above/below the frame.

50mm 1.4

10-20mm @10mm

30mm f1.4

8mm Fisheye Defished

Shawn

Cropping an image, whether done in camera or after, is not a pano image. The perspective is not the same. In the last years of point and shoot camera, lots had a pano option. It did exactly what your digi cam does - crops the top and bottom of the image off.

The way to do it with digi cams is to merge multiple images.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Cropping an image, whether done in camera or after, is not a pano image. The perspective is not the same.

How is the perspective not the same? Assuming the same focal length, the camera is in the same place and the subject is in the same place. You are just slicing a narrower band through the center of the image circle.

 

[valdas]

None compare to the Xpan in usage, and have some serious issues like flare banding if the sun is in the frame, and of course that severe barrel distortion if you hold the camera away from the horizontal and/or have the subject too close to the camera.

Huss, let’s not be that harsh and compare apples to apples... Widelux has 25mm lens. Put 30mm lens on Xpan, and see what happens if camera is not kept strictly horizontal - huge perspective distortion and bent horizontal lines... Yes, Widelux is less versatile, but it is good at what it is good.

 

[shawn]

Cropping an image, whether done in camera or after, is not a pano image. The perspective is not the same. In the last years of point and shoot camera, lots had a pano option. It did exactly what your digi cam does - crops the top and bottom of the image off.

The way to do it with digi cams is to merge multiple images.

Perspective is related to the relationship between image sensor size, lens focal length and subject distance. For a different width sensor the lens would be different.

Panoramic (or not) is simply aspect ratio, the relationship between width and height. From an aspect ratio standpoint it makes no difference how that happens.

Shooting multiple images with a digital camera and stitching later on can't capture motion. Unless you have multiple digital cameras firing all at the same time.

Been there, done that.

More resolution is available this way (around 30-40 megapixels per blend (at a wider AR) vs. 16 from the Sigma) but it is a PITA to deal with compared to cropping. If you go with a similar aspect ratio (and similar FOV) the look is very much the same.

Shawn

 

[Huss]

How is the perspective not the same? ...

Perspective is related to the relationship between image sensor size, lens focal length and subject distance. For a different width sensor the lens would be different.

Panoramic (or not) is simply aspect ratio, the relationship between width and height. From an aspect ratio standpoint it makes no difference how that happens. ..

You're both correct. I should have remembered from way back when in some camera magazine they showed this by taking the same shot from the same spot with different focal length lenses. When they cropped the image so that they all matched up, they all looked the same.
😱

 

[Corran]

That being said, a swinging lens camera (or stitching multiple images) does have a different look to the image. Stitching images (which you can do with film as well) can use many different kinds of "projections" which has different looks based on the type of projection. It's pretty interesting and can make a panoramic image look very different. I use Microsoft ICE for stitching (FREE!) and it works really well.

Thank you for your opinion. I guess it's time to return the thread to its original topic, from which some of us, myself included, have strayed. I'm out.

You're right, the thread has gone far afield. I felt it was important to correct the misconception that the 65mm wide XPan negative was any different than a cropped 6x7 negative. It is easy to forget that there's nothing really different about a camera with a panoramic negative than one with a squarish negative cropped down. It's not an opinion.

And in terms of perspective, there's also no fundamental difference with larger and smaller formats with lenses that scale appropriately. Therefore, the perspective of, say, a 6 x 17 (56mm x 168mm) panoramic image with a 75mm lens is the same as a digital FF sensor with a 16mm lens, cropped down to a 12mm x 36mm chunk, and roughly the same as the 24mm x 65mm XPan with the 30mm lens (slightly different length of panorama on the XPan). Of course DOF will be different at an identical aperture, but you can apply the same "correction factors" to get to the same apparent DOF.

 

[Prest_400]

You're right, the thread has gone far afield. I felt it was important to correct the misconception that the 65mm wide XPan negative was any different than a cropped 6x7 negative. It is easy to forget that there's nothing really different about a camera with a panoramic negative than one with a squarish negative cropped down. It's not an opinion.

As a mere mortal who has a (6x9) Medium Format camera, cropping down to 24x65 ratio for that occasional shot seems to work well.

A very similar thread to this one was posted on APUG as well. Back to topic, it is down to dwindling supply and quite some demand. Some other appreciated camera models increased their prices as well. P67II, Mamiya 7(II), for example; Both of these I recall discussed around the same topic of price increases.

Contax 645 became appreciated in the wedding industry and, as a lab guy told me, lens+body+back kits went for 600€ in 2010 and they resold to US photographers for a neat profit, and prices climbed to current levels.

On more mundane levels, 35mm's like the K1000 and AE1 aren't that cheap anymore because of their "go to" status going cult.

I wonder if we're gonna see a "Reflex" type crowdfunding starter for something in the lines of Xpan or Medium format.

 

[shawn]

That being said, a swinging lens camera (or stitching multiple images) does have a different look to the image. Stitching images (which you can do with film as well) can use many different kinds of "projections" which has different looks based on the type of projection. It's pretty interesting and can make a panoramic image look very different. I use Microsoft ICE for stitching (FREE!) and it works really well.

That is true that stitching gives a lot more options as far as projections available. I use LR or Autopano Giga when I stitch. That three camera rig can go very wide. (You loose height the wider it is setup for)

Shooting the fisheye on the Sigma (21:9) gives some of that look though too.
Sigma FE

(3) Coolpix A blend (wider AR due to less available height, but similar horizontal FOV with fisheye like distortions)

Shawn

 

[Corran]

If you want to take panoramic shots, the Xpan is the business. End of story 🙂

You are absolutely right. The XPan, for shooting panoramics with a RF and easy focusing and framing, etc. etc., looks pretty amazing. I wish I could afford one. And yes I would want the 30mm. But unfortunately I don't have a spare $4-5k for a complete set, and I don't think I would want one at that price.

The 30mm is pretty amazing for a wide that covers the XPan negative size. I assume it doesn't actually cover 6x7 - anyone know? I believe Schneider did make a 28mm XL lens for digital MF camera backs that would just barely cover 6x7, according to the specs, but they are pretty uncommon and I have never seen one in person. As far as image width, while it's pretty amazing, it's not even close to as wide as you can go.

One of my favorite ultrawide lenses to shoot is my Schneider 38mm XL. It covers up to a 6x12 negative. Shooting it on 6x12 is actually the equivalent of a 22mm lens on the XPan, with more on the top and bottom of the frame! Another option is the 47mm XL, which covers 6x15 just barely - which is close to the same aspect ratio as the XPan. That lens on 6x15 is almost equivalent to a 20mm lens on the XPan.

But of course you are correct, those options are much bigger, have no focusing except on ground glass or estimation, and harder to use finder options. But unlike the XPan, I actually could afford to buy them...🙂