Value of Xpans sky rocketing?

[newsgrunt]

fwiw, if you're shooting black and white with the 45mm I found it to be fine without the centre filter.

 

[Huss]

fwiw, if you're shooting black and white with the 45mm I found it to be fine without the centre filter.

I guess it depends on how one defines " fine".
The center filter makes a big difference. If you don't care about vignetting then yes it is fine. Some images do look better with it.

 

[Huss]

Just imagine the price of an XPan if there was an additional pair of lenses available (like 28/2 and 50/1.4 that would only cover 24x35 circle)...

That would have been fantastic. I like the Xpan lenses so much I tried to find an adapter to use them on Leicas. no luck.

 

[jmilkins]

The Xpan is a fantastic, compact, high quality image maker. It certainly takes a bit of forethought to compose a successful image.

I certainly couldn’t afford one now, or when they were new. But I managed to buy one before the film “renaissance”.

I use it with the 45mm, 90mm mostly, with out the Centre filter. But when I ‘ve got my gear head on, I also use a 28mm PC Nikkor adapted to Leica R, with an R to xpan adapter, and a 35mm PC nikkor and N to Xpan adaptor.

 

[jmilkins]

While the Xpan excels in landscape work, I think it can be more versatile than that.

[/url]Away by john m, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

I borrowed an xpan years ago for a trip to Ukraine, it was both impressive and frustrating. IMpressive because, well, it is an xpan and I really enjoyed it. Frustrating because I'll never be able to afford one. I'm likely going to buy a widelux. While my 6x14 is a fun camera and impressive in quality, 4 shots a roll can be a bit taxing on the wallet.

 

[Rob-F]

The quality is dependant on the enlarging factor.
And the enlarging factor with a panoramic format is determined by the long side, not by the short side!

For example:
You make a 10x enlargement with a Xpan negative.
Than you get a 24 centimeter x 65 centimeter enlargement.

And then you make a 10x enlargement of a 6x7cm negative (which has 6.5 centimeter effective lenght on its long side).
You get a 56 cm x 65 cm enlargement.

The quality (sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain) is completely identical on both enlargements.
The only difference is the 6x7 enlargement has more height on its shorter size.

Cheers, Jan

But with the 6 x 7 you get a 56cm (22 inches) high print for the same width. If you blew up the XPAN negative to the same 56cm, it wouldn't contain as much detail as the 6 x 7 negative. So to match the 6 x 7' print's resolution, you'd have to be satisfied with a print less than 10 inches high, and not 22 inches. Sure, the XPAN print will cover a wider horizontal FOV owing to the greater width and aspect ratio; but a 10 inch print has not got the same impact or effectiveness on the wall as the 22 inch high print.

Sure, I've taken some shots with the XPAN, when I had it, that I was, and am, very happy with. But I think a print from a 35mm negative is still a print from a 35mm negative, albeit with greater horizontal extension in the case of the XPAN; and not really medium format.

I'm not putting down 35mm. I love my Leicas and Nikons!

 

[ptpdprinter]

But with the 6 x 7 you get a 56cm (22 inches) high print for the same width. If you blew up the XPAN negative to the same 56cm, it wouldn't contain as much detail as the 6 x 7 negative. So to match the 6 x 7' print's resolution, you'd have to be satisfied with a print less than 10 inches high, and not 22 inches. Sure, the XPAN print will cover a wider horizontal FOV owing to the greater width and aspect ratio; but a 10 inch print has not got the same impact or effectiveness on the wall as the 22 inch high print.

Sure, I've taken some shots with the XPAN, when I had it, that I was, and am, very happy with. But I think a print from a 35mm negative is still a print from a 35mm negative, albeit with greater horizontal extension in the case of the XPAN; and not really medium format.

I'm not putting down 35mm. I love my Leicas and Nikons!

The whole discussion is pedantic. Embrace the XPan for what it does, not for what it doesn't do.

 

[gdmcclintock]

My XPan is with the cameradoctornyc for shutter repair. When I get it back, I intend to sell it because in my retirement I can no longer justify keeping cameras I do not use often. I am sure I'll be sad to see it go. I have the 30mm and 90mm lenses for it too. Sigh...

 

[aizan]

it’s the same story as the luxury p&s cameras (and contax 645) whose technology is the same: they’re approaching the end of their lifespans because of their limited repairability. people are circling the skies for bodies that haven’t died.

when it comes to the xpan/tx series, there’s also the fact that there isn’t a digital alternative. to an extent, this is also true of p&s cameras. the fuji x100 and sony rx100 don’t quite scratch the itch.

 

[Rob-F]

it’s the same story as the luxury p&s cameras (and contax 645) whose technology is the same: they’re approaching the end of their lifespans because of their limited repairability. people are circling the skies for bodies that haven’t died.

when it comes to the xpan/tx series, there’s also the fact that there isn’t a digital alternative. to an extent, this is also true of p&s cameras. the fuji x100 and sony rx100 don’t quite scratch the itch.

Well, one digital alternative, what with the availability of 18 and 24MP bodies (and beyond) is to throw on a 24mm or 18mm or 16mm lens and crop to the desired aspect ratio. We just don't have the frame lines to define the image area. I have a couple of P & S digitals that have a 16:9 option. Now if they could add another option or two, especially with DSLRs or mirrorless bodies, I'm sure some of use would like it. Personally, I like a ratio of around 2:1. What if Nikon could add a user-programmable feature. We could emulate various movie formats, for instance, like 1.85:1 (standard academy aperture); 2.21:1 (70mm Panavision) and so on!

 

[chasfreeland]

I've been using an Xpan for years. Quite like the format. Good partner with an Leica M body for a compact travel set. Been told that Xpan lenses are also likely to increase in value because, with an adaptor, they can be used with another newer Hasselblad digital camera. I've forgotten which one, but that is what I was told. Prices for the Xpan are definitely on the increase here in Bangkok.

 

[Huss]

I borrowed an xpan years ago for a trip to Ukraine, it was both impressive and frustrating. IMpressive because, well, it is an xpan and I really enjoyed it. Frustrating because I'll never be able to afford one. I'm likely going to buy a widelux. While my 6x14 is a fun camera and impressive in quality, 4 shots a roll can be a bit taxing on the wallet.

I had at the same time, perfect condition Widelux F7 and F8, a Noblex 135 Sport and a Horizon Perfekt (U500). All swinger pano cameras.

The one I enjoyed to use the most was the Horizon, it has the best ergos, a great viewfinder with a level inside it (very very useful) and just was so much fun to use. The pics were great too, just as sharp as either Widelux. I got rid of it though as it had about 2 or 3 images lost due to light leaks through the turret on every roll. Weird as all the rest were fine.
I may buy another I enjoyed it so much.

I did not like the Wideluxes at all. I bought them because The Dude champions them, and I like The Dude. And also they look really cool in that art deco ethos. But the ergos were miserable, the VF seriously weak and the specs were frankly terrible. Only three shutter speeds just did not cut it for me, especially since the fastest one was only 1/250. With ISO 400 film it would overexpose in bright sunlight as the smallest aperture was f11. Which meant where I would need 1/500 and F16, I was off by 2 stops.
I sold both off as they were just not fun to use.

The Noblex 135 Sport had the sharpest lens (barely), and good ergos like the Horizon, but with a electronically motored mechanism that should eliminate banding. So I kept that one.

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. But because the Horizon was so fun, I'm thinking about trying that one again. Maybe I'll get a better one this time..

 

[benlees]

That price is insane, i agree. I always wanted one, but they've always been expensive. Certainly more than I've ever been willing to pay for a format that seems to have limitations for day to day use. Sure a van is useful for moving day but...
Happily, I got the 35mm adapter for my Mamiya 7 and got that whole panorama thing out of the system, as well as the Mamiya. Digital has come a long way since.

If Lee Friedlander tried and failed (by his own admission) to come up with a decent body of work using this camera then I guess it's up to someone else! Pictures of the Grand Canyon don't count!

 

[Corran]

But with the 6 x 7 you get a 56cm (22 inches) high print for the same width. If you blew up the XPAN negative to the same 56cm, it wouldn't contain as much detail as the 6 x 7 negative. So to match the 6 x 7' print's resolution, you'd have to be satisfied with a print less than 10 inches high, and not 22 inches. Sure, the XPAN print will cover a wider horizontal FOV owing to the greater width and aspect ratio; but a 10 inch print has not got the same impact or effectiveness on the wall as the 22 inch high print.

Sure, I've taken some shots with the XPAN, when I had it, that I was, and am, very happy with. But I think a print from a 35mm negative is still a print from a 35mm negative, albeit with greater horizontal extension in the case of the XPAN; and not really medium format.

I'm not putting down 35mm. I love my Leicas and Nikons!

Huh?? A 6 x 7 medium format negative is 56mm x 70mm. An XPan negative is 24mm x 65mm. If you crop the 6x7 negative to the same aspect ratio, it would be a 26 x 70 mm section of that negative.

For all intents in purposes, the same.

What are you on about?

If you want the short side of the panorama to be 56mm, you need to shoot 6 x 15 to get that.

 

[Rob-F]

Huh?? A 6 x 7 medium format negative is 56mm x 70mm. An XPan negative is 24mm x 65mm. If you crop the 6x7 negative to the same aspect ratio, it would be a 26 x 70 mm section of that negative.

For all intents in purposes, the same.

What are you on about?

If you want the short side of the panorama to be 56mm, you need to shoot 6 x 15 to get that.

I must not be explaining this clearly. I've taken up too much space already. I'm letting it go.

 

[shawn]

Well, one digital alternative, what with the availability of 18 and 24MP bodies (and beyond) is to throw on a 24mm or 18mm or 16mm lens and crop to the desired aspect ratio. We just don't have the frame lines to define the image area. I have a couple of P & S digitals that have a 16:9 option. Now if they could add another option or two, especially with DSLRs or mirrorless bodies, I'm sure some of use would like it. Personally, I like a ratio of around 2:1. What if Nikon could add a user-programmable feature. We could emulate various movie formats, for instance, like 1.85:1 (standard academy aperture); 2.21:1 (70mm Panavision) and so on!

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

 

[snaefell]

So to match the 6 x 7' print's resolution, you'd have to be satisfied with a print less than 10 inches high, and not 22 inches. Sure, the XPAN print will cover a wider horizontal FOV owing to the greater width and aspect ratio; but a 10 inch print has not got the same impact or effectiveness on the wall as the 22 inch high print.

Ich have made prints from XPan shots which are about 40x108 cm and which are hanging on the wall right above my desk. Yes, you see some grain, but this is not a 500 Megapixel digital shot.
The XPan has enough reserves for this prints, if you want to go much bigger, use a 6x17cm.

 

[Corran]

I must not be explaining this clearly. I've taken up too much space already. I'm letting it go.

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.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Westlicht is a high-end auction house...for those who want to forego the uncertainties of ebay and are willing to pay a premium for a piece of mind.