Xpan or X-Pro1 - landscape?

[taemo]

So I finally bid farewell to the DSLR world last night when I officially sold my 5D Mark II (still have an EOS3, 135L and 70-200 4L though😀)

now that I don't own a 5DII anymore, I'm looking for a fun light travel landscape camera to use along my X100s and M6 (yes the X100s is great for my need but I want something wider than 28mm) and right now, I have enough to buy one of the following

Xpan + 45mm f/4
or
X-Pro1 + 14mm f/2.8

always wanted an Xpan and its panorama mode, played with one yesterday at The Camera Store and fell in love right away.
then there's the X-Pro1 with the fantastic 14mm 2.8.

if you guys were in my position, which one would you rather have.

 

[lam]

Mamiya 6 + panoramic adapter? hehe.

(coming from an ex X-Pan owner, fantastic cameras IMO)

 

[taemo]

^hehe, I want something light which is why I want to stay with 35mm.
have a Pentax 6x7 that I use for landscape locally too but don't really want to carry it with me when flying.

 

[j.scooter]

I say xpan
It is totally different than your x100 there is nothing like seeing your panorama through the viewfinder. Plus you have the option to switch it to normal mode and shoot 35mm frames.

You can probably buy the xpan, try it out for a few months and if it isn't for you, sell it for almost the same amount you bought it for.

The same can not be said for a new xpro1+14

My 2 cents $CDN

 

[splitimageview]

X-Pro1 has a panorama mode

 

[noisycheese]

Speaking as an XPAN user, I would pick the XPAN without a second thought.

The lenses, which are actually made by Fuji, are simply outstanding. They are easily the equal of the Zeiss T* lenses that were made for the 6x6 Hasselblad system. I would have to say that from what I have seen, the lenses for the XPAN are right on the heels of Leica M glass in terms of image quality.

With the XPAN, you are getting two camera systems in one: You get the traditional 35mm format and you get the panoramic format that measures 24x65mm. This makes for an exceptionally versatile travel and landscape camera.

If you can track down a 30mm f/5.6 lens, center filter and external mount viewfinder for the XPAN, it would be a good lens to have in your kit; it can come in handy for landscape work and for interiors. This lens is a bit on the pricy side (or it was when it was new) but you may be able to find one on the used market for a price that is not too painful. I have found that I use the 45mm lens the most, followed by the 30mm. I have tha 90mm too, but don't use it much due to the way I shoot. It would be good to have for landscape and travel use, though and this lens is very affordable.

With all three lenses and two formats available in the same camera, you'd be hard pressed to find a more versatile landscape, travel and documentary camera system. The only drawback to the XPAN is that the lenses are not as fast as Leica glass, but every camera system has its limitations. This is by no means a disqualifying factor for the XPAN lenses, at least in my view.

 

[Pablito]

and this is not a film vs. digital thread? 😀

 

[David_Manning]

It's interesting that you're comparing a film Fuji to a digital Fuji (Fuji made the XPan for Hasselblad, and all the lenses).

My take...if you're invested in digital, don't screw up your workflow. The X-Pro 1 can do either panoramic stitching in-camera, or you can shoot the 14mm (or 12mm from Zeiss) and crop/correct. The advantage is super clean files which already exist in the digital realm.

The XPan is a very cool camera...I desire one myself. However, you'll have to deal with scanning a non-standard sized film frame, and if you stitch two frames together from two normal scans, you might as well stitch two frames from the X-Pro 1.

Here's the bigger issue, I think, on a technical note. After scanning 35mm frames (E-6, C-41, and B&W), I can scan grain-sharp, but they'll never be as clean as the X-Pro 1's fantastic sensor. So, you can scan for large files (lots of megabytes of info) but that info will have more noise (grain) than the XP1 files.

At the end of the day, you're taking incredible panoramas, putting them through incredible glass, onto great film emulsion, and then dumbing it all down by the lens and sensor on whatever scanner you're using (and it'll be worse than the sensor in the X-Pro 1 unless you're using a $10K Imacon). Again, on a technical basis, the X-Pro 1 will give cleaner, higher-definition files for landscape.

Now, if you want to work with an absolutely brilliant panoramic film camera, shoot the XPan...they're very cool.

Lots to think about. Good luck. On an image-quality basis alone, I could live with my X-Pro 1's file output/images for the rest of my days. I'll always enjoy shooting other cameras/formats though.

 

[taemo]

to me it's not a digital vs film comparison as I'm not looking for the best IQ but rather a fun camera to travel with and shoot, especially landscape and travel photography. My X100s already takes fantastic clean images and can also do panorama.

the panorama mode on the xpan has always intrigued me and after finally getting the chance to play with one, I definitely want one now.
the X-Pro1 with 14mm is great too, I can always get a 35 1.4 if I want a more standard focal length but j.scooter brought up an interesting point with the decreasing value of an X-Pro1

anyway, I think I've made up my mind and will be getting an Xpan + 45mm, then later on the 90 4

 

[taemo]

thanks for pointing out the scan process with a 24x65mm, that's something I neglected to check if my scanner is capable on doing or will I have to do it manually.

It's interesting that you're comparing a film Fuji to a digital Fuji (Fuji made the XPan for Hasselblad, and all the lenses).

My take...if you're invested in digital, don't screw up your workflow. The X-Pro 1 can do either panoramic stitching in-camera, or you can shoot the 14mm (or 12mm from Zeiss) and crop/correct. The advantage is super clean files which already exist in the digital realm.

The XPan is a very cool camera...I desire one myself. However, you'll have to deal with scanning a non-standard sized film frame, and if you stitch two frames together from two normal scans, you might as well stitch two frames from the X-Pro 1.

Here's the bigger issue, I think, on a technical note. After scanning 35mm frames (E-6, C-41, and B&W), I can scan grain-sharp, but they'll never be as clean as the X-Pro 1's fantastic sensor. So, you can scan for large files (lots of megabytes of info) but that info will have more noise (grain) than the XP1 files.

At the end of the day, you're taking incredible panoramas, putting them through incredible glass, onto great film emulsion, and then dumbing it all down by the lens and sensor on whatever scanner you're using (and it'll be worse than the sensor in the X-Pro 1 unless you're using a $10K Imacon). Again, on a technical basis, the X-Pro 1 will give cleaner, higher-definition files for landscape.

Now, if you want to work with an absolutely brilliant panoramic film camera, shoot the XPan...they're very cool.

Lots to think about. Good luck. On an image-quality basis alone, I could live with my X-Pro 1's file output/images for the rest of my days. I'll always enjoy shooting other cameras/formats though.

 

[Pablito]

I cannot scan my xpan negs on my film scanner (Minolta 5400), I have to use the flatbed Epson.

If you are looking for a camera to travel with bear in mind the Xpan is not light.

 

[f16sunshine]

I like Landscapes in color (even if they are converted occasionally to B+W).
Fuji is it for color.
For me I love film but, I just don't have a super scanner for color film.
It's too much trouble compared to what digital is capable of now.
Especially the X-trans cameras.

Last year I did a stack of images out in NW Montana.
This was not art but rather, for a GIS connected to a stream restoration project.
Tons of images on a huge piece of Land.
I brought my 6x12 w/ W nikkor 75mm, x100, and 5Dii.
The Fuji x100 and Kolor app did most of the work.
Again it's not art.. The below image was 3 rows of 5 images snapped handheld in jpeg.
Quickly stitched in APP 2.0 in auto mode. More care could have been taken by using RAW and correcting exposure, vignetting etc..
If I was to do this again i would use my Xpro-1 and an adapted Zeiss 85-100mm from my Contax SLR kit just so the "zoomed in" detail would be greater.

Click the image to see the 7500pix version

 

[David_Manning]

Another point...

The XPan will take a panoramic image in one frame, so you won't have any problem with objects in motion in the frame like you might with a stitched image of any kind. The sweep panorama feature can do weird things to moving subjects.

The balancing thing in digital is to just crop to 24x65 from an existing single frame. You'd be fine starting out with 16MP unless you want to go BIG.

 

[veraikon]

Speaking as an XPAN user, I would pick the XPAN without a second thought.

The lenses, which are actually made by Fuji, are simply outstanding. They are easily the equal of the Zeiss T* lenses that were made for the 6x6 Hasselblad system. I would have to say that from what I have seen, the lenses for the XPAN are right on the heels of Leica M glass in terms of image quality.

+ 1: the Fuji EBS lenses for the xpan are playing in the same league as Leica, or Carl Zeiss Oberkochen.

The only drawback to the XPAN is that the lenses are not as fast as Leica glass, but every camera system has its limitations.

ok - but remind the "xpan" is a medium format camera (only with a 135 film 😉 ) And the lens speed for MF isn´t as high as for 135 cameras

 

[GaryLH]

I am lucky enough to have both. I bought my xpan a very long time ago. Some things to be aware of w/ the xpan...
- 30mm lens always needs a center grad filter or u will c noticeable edge vignetting, 45mm some people say they can live w/o it, I always use one, the 90 does not need one.
-- so if u decide to use a center filter on the 45, u will need to account for the filter factor when deciding the film to use
- if u do not develop your own film, not all film development places these days may be able to properly handle it.
--- I used to only say develop only as well, since I mixed normal framing and Pano on same roll (just to be safe)
--- make sure u write Pano in the instructions if u decide to have them print it.
--- I always say do-not cut as well

Now to the xpan vs Fuji xp1, some additional things that have not been said yet.. Otherwise I basically agree w/ what everyone else has said
- if u have movement in your frame, then stitching approach will be an issue, so cropping using the 14mm is pretty close to the xpan 45 perspective, but u are going to need the Zeiss 12 to come close to the 30mm lens.
- the Fuji does not need a center filter.. At least no one yet has complained of seeing vignetting bad enough to warrant it.
- if u are mainly a film shooter nothing beats a xpan for Pano capability, weight and dual mode (normal 35 and Pano all on the same roll)
- More veratilitiy in the xp1...
--- The one thing missing from the xpan is a fast normal lens that can only be used for normal 35 mm work. If it had that then it would be the ideal..
--- In the past I know there have been people that have adapted fast lenses to the xpan mount.
--- Faster lenses 14f2.8 vs a 45mm w/ center filter
- there are other camera bodies that u may want to consider such as xe1 or even the new xm1 kit as an alternative to the xp1.
- xpan is getting long in the tooth and the camera depends on its motor drive

Good luck
Gary

Ps looks like David and others beat me to some points while I was writing.

 

[GaryLH]

If u have a 120 capable film scanner like the Nikon 9000, in the past, I have heard that someone was going to make an xpan film holder for the 9000. Otherwise, u could buy a 120 glass type of holder for your scanner and create a mask for the Pano neg.

Gary

 

[taemo]

thank you everyone for your input, you guys are definitely not making it easy for me to pick a camera out
at this point I'm leaning slightly more to the Xpan but the X-Pro1 is a close 2nd.
not a big fan of the XE1 or XM1 as I like OVF although with the 14mm there's no choice other than using the EVF lol.

if I had the money I would buy both but I think I'll be getting the Xpan 1st.

 

[rbelyell]

there are other options besides self scanning, which imo kinda stinks most of the time. i have an x100 and an xpan. ive also had a 5d, a contax AX, and a host of other wonderful digital and film equipment. i can say unequivocally the xpan is THE most fun, unique and fabulously engineered piece of equipment ive ever used, or imagined using! to go from pano to traditional 35 mm from frame to frame, to capture landscapes and street scenes in a unique pano format, and to be able to also do stunning portrait work on the same roll, its a wet dream come true.

as for developing and digi transfer, this forum has a sponsor named precision camera in texas. they develop and scan and ive been very pleased with their results. they do a great job at a reasonable price. given the current state of scanner technology, i just personally would never waste the amount of time it takes to get the results ive seen. just my opinion, and another option.

i often carry the xpan and the x100 together, as i fell they complement each other. the best thing i ever did was take these two, which easily fit in a small camera bag like the ona bowery, on extended vacations.
tony

 

[filmtwit]

Don't forget that your X100 has a Pano-mode too.

 

[finguanzo]

When I had an Xpan, I used a 35mm Minolta scanner.. Since the 3 panos dont take up the six frames, I would scan one pass with the neg all the way at the end of the holder, then scan again with the negs on the opposite side.. End up with 2 sets of overlapping images for each frame, and just merge on Photoshop..