AndyP
Newbie
I have been seduced by the idea of owning the Xpan II and I am about ready to purchase. However, I am naturally concerned by the apparently unstoppable rise of digital. Am I buying into a format - 35mm film - that will be effectively obsolete in a few years? Should I be putting the $2,000 towards a top-end digital camera (or wait for a digital panoramic)? It's a lot of money and I would like to avoid owning a 'museum piece'! All views are welcome!
bmattock
Veteran
Andy, welcome! Hope you enjoy the discussions here.
Film will one day die. There, I said it. Just like 8-track tapes, cassettes, 78 rpm lp's, and wet collodian plates. There will still be some practitioners of film, just as there are still a few people who cling to their 8-tracks and calotype today. There will be periodic 'rediscoveries' of the merits of film, and it will become semi-popular for a period of time and then vanish again.
Digital will keep getting better and better in terms of quality. Prices will continue to drop, to a point. Digital will become ubiquitous and will eventually supplant film.
I think that these 'future facts' are not in dispute.
The real question is...when? When will this happen?
I don't think that it will happen in the next 5 years. Personally, I think it will happen in the next ten, but I'm frequently wrong, and I'm prepared to be wrong about this.
Now, in specific answer to your question - "Should I be putting the $2,000 towards a top-end digital camera..."
My advice is - no. Why? Because digital technology is marching on like an unstoppable army. It is not a 'mature technology'. Unless you have some need to be on the bleeding edge of the latest greatest, you don't need to throw away your $2,000 every six months or so.
Why do I say that? Because at the present time, a two-year old digital camera is more hopelessly useless than my 1958 Aires rangefinder. Low pixel count, lousy lens, slow startup, shutter lag from hell - nobody wants it, and nobody will pay even 1/10 what it cost new. You buy it, you're stuck with it.
Until (and unless) there is an 'upgrade path' for digital cameras, anything you buy is going to be stuck like a fly in amber while the technology continues to mature, leaving you behind and your investment worthless.
My advice? By the Xpan II - it's a great piece of kit. They're rare and pricey, and they don't drop a lot in value used - some, but not a lot. My guess is that if you tire of it or eventually do want to move to digital, it will be worth a substantial portion of what you paid for it.
But by all means, save and buy a companion digital, perhaps a less-expensive PnS with some decent manual controls. Learn about digital's strengths and weaknesses, and wait for the technology to mature and stabilize.
Someday, all but the most thick-headed luddites of us will be shooting digital, and probably loving it - although we'll sigh and fondly remember when film was king, dynosaurs that we'll be by then. But I suspect that it will be a few years yet. Digital ain't all that (yet), but someday it will be. In the meantime, your investment in digital technology is locked in time and useless.
Nobody wants my Kaypro portable computer anymore - at least not for what I paid for it - $2,500 in 1983. It has 64K of RAM, no hard drive, a 9 inch green screen and two floppy disk drives. Wowzer.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Film will one day die. There, I said it. Just like 8-track tapes, cassettes, 78 rpm lp's, and wet collodian plates. There will still be some practitioners of film, just as there are still a few people who cling to their 8-tracks and calotype today. There will be periodic 'rediscoveries' of the merits of film, and it will become semi-popular for a period of time and then vanish again.
Digital will keep getting better and better in terms of quality. Prices will continue to drop, to a point. Digital will become ubiquitous and will eventually supplant film.
I think that these 'future facts' are not in dispute.
The real question is...when? When will this happen?
I don't think that it will happen in the next 5 years. Personally, I think it will happen in the next ten, but I'm frequently wrong, and I'm prepared to be wrong about this.
Now, in specific answer to your question - "Should I be putting the $2,000 towards a top-end digital camera..."
My advice is - no. Why? Because digital technology is marching on like an unstoppable army. It is not a 'mature technology'. Unless you have some need to be on the bleeding edge of the latest greatest, you don't need to throw away your $2,000 every six months or so.
Why do I say that? Because at the present time, a two-year old digital camera is more hopelessly useless than my 1958 Aires rangefinder. Low pixel count, lousy lens, slow startup, shutter lag from hell - nobody wants it, and nobody will pay even 1/10 what it cost new. You buy it, you're stuck with it.
Until (and unless) there is an 'upgrade path' for digital cameras, anything you buy is going to be stuck like a fly in amber while the technology continues to mature, leaving you behind and your investment worthless.
My advice? By the Xpan II - it's a great piece of kit. They're rare and pricey, and they don't drop a lot in value used - some, but not a lot. My guess is that if you tire of it or eventually do want to move to digital, it will be worth a substantial portion of what you paid for it.
But by all means, save and buy a companion digital, perhaps a less-expensive PnS with some decent manual controls. Learn about digital's strengths and weaknesses, and wait for the technology to mature and stabilize.
Someday, all but the most thick-headed luddites of us will be shooting digital, and probably loving it - although we'll sigh and fondly remember when film was king, dynosaurs that we'll be by then. But I suspect that it will be a few years yet. Digital ain't all that (yet), but someday it will be. In the meantime, your investment in digital technology is locked in time and useless.
Nobody wants my Kaypro portable computer anymore - at least not for what I paid for it - $2,500 in 1983. It has 64K of RAM, no hard drive, a 9 inch green screen and two floppy disk drives. Wowzer.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
S
Stu :)
Guest
My $0.02...
Bill said- "Film will one day die". And I agree to a point (clutching my precious Tri-X). I hear that Kodak is already planning the death of Plux-X and Agfa transparency film could be just a memory soon.
Also talking over a late supper this evening with some friends, one works for a mini-lab, said that she's doing more digital prints than film based and the turn over is down by 30% than this time last year.
However film will still be available. Many pro's still shoot vast amounts of film. At the same supper, another friend who works for a pro-lab pointed out last over the last quarter they've done more 4x5 than direct digital (i.e from a digital camera, not scanned film). One of Fuji reps here in NZ pointed out to me that the use of Fuji Veliva across all formats shows no sign of slowing.
For example I still shoot with an 8x10 and I can still buy film for it. But shouldn't it have died with advent of enlarging 100 odd years ago?... obviously not. Wasn't Kodak's 620 film cartage 'spose to put and end to the quarter plate camera? (4x5, 5x7, 2x3). But it's still in heavy use, very popular choice of many professionals... etc etc etc, I could be here all night.
Plus look at the legacy of black & white photography. Been around since the day 'dot' and yet Fuji and Agfa are currently pouring money into developing new black & white emulsions (example- Acros). It would seem strange to waste money on developing something that is going to be dead in few years time and the film companies _should_ know if film is going to last the course or not. Another point to make is; If digital is going to kill off film, how come the companies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc, etc…) that make digital cameras, are still making film cameras?
To date the only thing that digital as killed off is poor old Polaroid.
Sure I can still buy film for my SX-70 and Polaroid quarter plate for my Hasselblad back. But I'm sure that my old SX-70 prints ten years ago are better saturated than my 2003 Christmas day shots.
My prediction is that digital will just move film into the upper echelon of professional and serious amateurs just like medium format and large format.
So I would say go get your XPan and enjoy! Seriously nice piece of kit. Even I considered one when I ventured back to the land of 36 exposures, bracketing, squinting at proof sheets and cameras that weigh less than 2kg.
Stu
Bill said- "Film will one day die". And I agree to a point (clutching my precious Tri-X). I hear that Kodak is already planning the death of Plux-X and Agfa transparency film could be just a memory soon.
Also talking over a late supper this evening with some friends, one works for a mini-lab, said that she's doing more digital prints than film based and the turn over is down by 30% than this time last year.
However film will still be available. Many pro's still shoot vast amounts of film. At the same supper, another friend who works for a pro-lab pointed out last over the last quarter they've done more 4x5 than direct digital (i.e from a digital camera, not scanned film). One of Fuji reps here in NZ pointed out to me that the use of Fuji Veliva across all formats shows no sign of slowing.
For example I still shoot with an 8x10 and I can still buy film for it. But shouldn't it have died with advent of enlarging 100 odd years ago?... obviously not. Wasn't Kodak's 620 film cartage 'spose to put and end to the quarter plate camera? (4x5, 5x7, 2x3). But it's still in heavy use, very popular choice of many professionals... etc etc etc, I could be here all night.
Plus look at the legacy of black & white photography. Been around since the day 'dot' and yet Fuji and Agfa are currently pouring money into developing new black & white emulsions (example- Acros). It would seem strange to waste money on developing something that is going to be dead in few years time and the film companies _should_ know if film is going to last the course or not. Another point to make is; If digital is going to kill off film, how come the companies (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc, etc…) that make digital cameras, are still making film cameras?
To date the only thing that digital as killed off is poor old Polaroid.
Sure I can still buy film for my SX-70 and Polaroid quarter plate for my Hasselblad back. But I'm sure that my old SX-70 prints ten years ago are better saturated than my 2003 Christmas day shots.
My prediction is that digital will just move film into the upper echelon of professional and serious amateurs just like medium format and large format.
So I would say go get your XPan and enjoy! Seriously nice piece of kit. Even I considered one when I ventured back to the land of 36 exposures, bracketing, squinting at proof sheets and cameras that weigh less than 2kg.
Stu
S
Stu :)
Guest
PS. Look at my avaitar to the left... yes the lighting photograph. I haven't seen a digital camera do that yet.
GeneW
Veteran
I'm bilingual -- Digital and Film -- and I love both formats. No anti-digital in this boy -- it was digital that got me back into photography after several years' hiatus. After two years of shooting digital (and loving it, remember) I picked up a Leica CL. Not because I had anything against digital but because film is an alternative photographic medium I also love. Back to processing my own B&W (but scanning instead of darkroom this time).
Want to test the waters with digital? I agree with Bill. Get a good, but relatively inexpensive, p&s model. I carry around a Canon S45 and think the world of it. Way smaller than my Leica, good lens quality, good image quality, nice zoom. If it goes obsolete in a few years, that's okay. It's not an expensive camera and I've had good use from it.
Will you find things you don't like about a small p&s digital? Sure. Will it measure up to your film camera? Depends on your criteria. They're different technologies. Will it feel like your film camera in use? Certainly not. It's a different style of photography.
But the main thing is it'll introduce you to digital photography and give you a chance to master the concepts before investing in an expensive digital, like the Epson/Bessa DRF or a Canon or Nikon DSLR, assuming of course you have any interest in this technology.
And ... it's a *lot* of fun
Cheers,
Gene
P.S. with digital you can stitch together Xpan type shots quite easily...
Want to test the waters with digital? I agree with Bill. Get a good, but relatively inexpensive, p&s model. I carry around a Canon S45 and think the world of it. Way smaller than my Leica, good lens quality, good image quality, nice zoom. If it goes obsolete in a few years, that's okay. It's not an expensive camera and I've had good use from it.
Will you find things you don't like about a small p&s digital? Sure. Will it measure up to your film camera? Depends on your criteria. They're different technologies. Will it feel like your film camera in use? Certainly not. It's a different style of photography.
But the main thing is it'll introduce you to digital photography and give you a chance to master the concepts before investing in an expensive digital, like the Epson/Bessa DRF or a Canon or Nikon DSLR, assuming of course you have any interest in this technology.
And ... it's a *lot* of fun
Cheers,
Gene
P.S. with digital you can stitch together Xpan type shots quite easily...
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Gene said:
Gene, that's interesting! I got 'back into film' the same way you did - via digital. In my case, I was an early adopter of digital. I had not shot photos of any kind since my days in the Marines, some 20+ years ago. I got a traveling job and thought - gee, wouldn't it be nice to take some photos of the places I visit? Being techno-boy, I got an Olympus D-220L (sub-megapixel, no optical zoom). Carried it with me everywhere.
Eventually moved up to a Pentax Optio 330 - and got a Nikon 995 for my wife. Between the two of them, it cost me one large.
I left the Optio in a local restaurant - remembered it and went right back in - it was gone. No one saw nothing, of course. Well, my fault, I left it - essentially setting fire to $500.
It hurt so bad that I picked up my old Yashica Electro GT and began playing with it. Taking it on trips. Looking on (God help me) eBay. Hmmm.
Next thing I knew, I was processing my own B&W again, just like high school days (I also scan instead of printing, just like you). I had 50 or 60 classic and otherwise fixed-lens rangefinder cameras, 35mm and 120 6x9 and 6x6. Classic SLRs, Bronicas and Canons and Minoltas (oh my). In other words, I am a camera / photography junkie.
And it's all because I lost my Pentax Optio 330.
I now have a replacement digital - a fairly nice Olympus D-40Z. It was nice while I was still a road warrior, but now that I'm off the road, I'm not sure I want to live with its shortcomings anymore. I'm considering one of the following: Olympus C-5050 (the one with the fast 1.8 lens, not the more recent ones), Pentax Digital *ist, Canon Digital Rebel, or Sigma SD-9. If I get a digital SLR, it will be because I can get an adapter to mount my M42 primes on it. I have zero interest in auto-focus, and not much interest in auto-exposure, and I don't like zooms.
Sure, I love both formats. I can just see the enlargement on the wall - and it's in ones and zeroes, not silver halide. Sorry though I am about that, it's a question of when, not if.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
hughjb
Established
Hi fellows
I'm a new member to the forum, who actually happens to own a XPan plus an assortment of digital and film cameras, I shoot professionally.
I don't really think that you have to be very concerned about film dissapearing for the market, while digital technology is moving by leaps and bounds film is still the medium of choice for weddings and commercial work, and even if it becomes a niche product it will still be around.
As far as the XPan is concerned is a very nice piece of equipment just make sure that you get the II (I have the one), the II has the advantage of having the shutter speeds displayed on the viewfinder while with the I you have to go and look in the LCD panel located on the back of the camera which is a real pain.
Best regards
Hugh
I'm a new member to the forum, who actually happens to own a XPan plus an assortment of digital and film cameras, I shoot professionally.
I don't really think that you have to be very concerned about film dissapearing for the market, while digital technology is moving by leaps and bounds film is still the medium of choice for weddings and commercial work, and even if it becomes a niche product it will still be around.
As far as the XPan is concerned is a very nice piece of equipment just make sure that you get the II (I have the one), the II has the advantage of having the shutter speeds displayed on the viewfinder while with the I you have to go and look in the LCD panel located on the back of the camera which is a real pain.
Best regards
Hugh
Well,
I have posted a couple of pictures taken with the xpan/Tx-1 You can look in the gallery. Based on my scanner which scans at 4800 dpi, I am generating a 55.3 megapixle image. I don't know how this actually compares with digital cameras. But you can get a digital back from kodak for a hassleblad or Contax 645. Its about $10,000.00 You can read mor about this on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
For me, I am sticking with film until digital is as good as film. It will happen one day but not just yet.
JT
I have posted a couple of pictures taken with the xpan/Tx-1 You can look in the gallery. Based on my scanner which scans at 4800 dpi, I am generating a 55.3 megapixle image. I don't know how this actually compares with digital cameras. But you can get a digital back from kodak for a hassleblad or Contax 645. Its about $10,000.00 You can read mor about this on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
For me, I am sticking with film until digital is as good as film. It will happen one day but not just yet.
JT
S
strangedoctor
Guest
digital, X-Pan, etc
digital, X-Pan, etc
Hey Bill, I'll buy that Kaypro off of you for $2,500... Just kidding.
I think the Hasselblad X-Pan guy should stick with a rangefinder body that accepts Leica lenses (not sure the X-Pan does), so at least the lenses will still be useable in 10 years. With the advent of the Epson digital rangefinder I have more confidence in this lens format.
I don't know the specific interest in the X-Pan, but if it was me I would buy a used Leica-mount rangefinder knowing the lenses will continue their useablity.
digital, X-Pan, etc
Hey Bill, I'll buy that Kaypro off of you for $2,500... Just kidding.
I think the Hasselblad X-Pan guy should stick with a rangefinder body that accepts Leica lenses (not sure the X-Pan does), so at least the lenses will still be useable in 10 years. With the advent of the Epson digital rangefinder I have more confidence in this lens format.
I don't know the specific interest in the X-Pan, but if it was me I would buy a used Leica-mount rangefinder knowing the lenses will continue their useablity.
hughjb
Established
The XPan only takes Xpan lenses (Fuji), here is the big difference for digital panoramas VS their film counterpart, with a digital you can take a series of images and past them together via software, so if your interest are in people or event photography you may have a problem as people have a tendency to move, with the Xpan you take one shot and you get everything on the image.
The biggest drawback when compare to a Leica lens, is that the Xpan uses medium format glass, and their glass is slow, the fastest lens is 4.0.
Is a niche camera.
The biggest drawback when compare to a Leica lens, is that the Xpan uses medium format glass, and their glass is slow, the fastest lens is 4.0.
Is a niche camera.
Yes. they may be slow and when you put on the center filter it gets even slower. HOWEVER, their 30mm aspherical lens is one of the sharpest distortion free lens you can get. They are truly fine lenses.
S
strangedoctor
Guest
Well, that answers it for me.
Well, that answers it for me.
Don't get me wrong -- I love my vintage equipment. I'm still using half-frame Olympus Pen cameras. And one of my first "outmoded" vintage camera buys was a wonderful, German-made Kodak 126 format camera with Schneider lens I bought 8 years ago -- and then 126 promptly went into extinction (more or less). It definitely feels sad to have a fabulous peice of technology suddenly become a useless brick.
I would steer clear of the X-Pan. $2000 is a lot to spend when, for me, the Leica M system will obviously still be viable in the future. Don't forget that as film loses core amateur popularity prices are sure to go up as well.
Well, that answers it for me.
Don't get me wrong -- I love my vintage equipment. I'm still using half-frame Olympus Pen cameras. And one of my first "outmoded" vintage camera buys was a wonderful, German-made Kodak 126 format camera with Schneider lens I bought 8 years ago -- and then 126 promptly went into extinction (more or less). It definitely feels sad to have a fabulous peice of technology suddenly become a useless brick.
I would steer clear of the X-Pan. $2000 is a lot to spend when, for me, the Leica M system will obviously still be viable in the future. Don't forget that as film loses core amateur popularity prices are sure to go up as well.
You could always get the Fuji TX-1 which is the same camera or a regular xpan with a 45 and a 90 for around 1200.00 on ebay
GeneW
Veteran
bmattock said:
You're right, Bill. Amazing that it happened this way for both of us! My entry into digital was actually a film scanner that I bought mainly for my wife to scan old negs and slides (she's a family historian and we have lots of photos). Being the more technoid of the two, I took to doing the scanning, learning Photoshop, etc. Got really hooked on Photoshop and digital images so I purchased a Canon G2 when it was THE prosumer model. Still have it and still like it. It got me rolling again and back into shooting. As my excitement with photography grew again, I got out my OM-1's and began shooting with them. Then my XA. Then I discovered eBay and bought a 6x9 folder. Then my brother-in-law returned, as a gift, the Pentax H1a I had sold him in 1973. Then I borrowed a friend's M3 and lenses and developed Leicalust. Still have Leicalust but can only comfortably afford the CL. Sheesh, it never ends, does it?
Gene
N
NoTx
Guest
Beware
Beware
I tried an x-pan for a while. I really liked it, save for the focusing seemed a little rougher than most I have tried (any modern Leica or an old CL beat it baddly here). The problem is, if you do not plan on developing yourself, you mayt have some real issues.
1. Most labs (including pro labs) will not prin them... and often will refuse to even process in C-41 or E-6. Serious here. I live in San Diego CA, which has lab after lab, and have never been able to get one prints (used about 10 rolls trying it out). Note I rented it from a place that sells them, and considered it's lab to be pro. They could not develope there. By the way, they did not say this before renting the camera. The place was North county Camera in Escondido CA (USA).
2. Can't use many scanners. I use a Minolta 5400 Scan Elite. Complete bad a$$ scanner. X-Pan? Nope.
If either, and I mean either, had not been a problem, I would have bought the X-Pan II. Absolutely looved the format. Hell, if I could just scan em, I could print un edited up to 23"x70", realistically. I could use it for true advertising on my current printer. I would have been totally stoked. (HP Designjet 120, added the R).
Very solid.
Now as for film dying? I think people are not watching the tends. It will slowly become more rare. The resolution is just getting better. It is way better than digital, and the high ISO performance in Labs has gotten so good, it is sick (release some of the new stuff agfa!).
If you can deal with both the problems I had, skip worrying about film vs digital; buy it. Take some pictures.
Beware
I tried an x-pan for a while. I really liked it, save for the focusing seemed a little rougher than most I have tried (any modern Leica or an old CL beat it baddly here). The problem is, if you do not plan on developing yourself, you mayt have some real issues.
1. Most labs (including pro labs) will not prin them... and often will refuse to even process in C-41 or E-6. Serious here. I live in San Diego CA, which has lab after lab, and have never been able to get one prints (used about 10 rolls trying it out). Note I rented it from a place that sells them, and considered it's lab to be pro. They could not develope there. By the way, they did not say this before renting the camera. The place was North county Camera in Escondido CA (USA).
2. Can't use many scanners. I use a Minolta 5400 Scan Elite. Complete bad a$$ scanner. X-Pan? Nope.
If either, and I mean either, had not been a problem, I would have bought the X-Pan II. Absolutely looved the format. Hell, if I could just scan em, I could print un edited up to 23"x70", realistically. I could use it for true advertising on my current printer. I would have been totally stoked. (HP Designjet 120, added the R).
Very solid.
Now as for film dying? I think people are not watching the tends. It will slowly become more rare. The resolution is just getting better. It is way better than digital, and the high ISO performance in Labs has gotten so good, it is sick (release some of the new stuff agfa!).
If you can deal with both the problems I had, skip worrying about film vs digital; buy it. Take some pictures.
On the digital issue, I agree with Bill for the most part, but not quite so "doomsday." We're past the 50's thinking that only the new should survive. I think there'll be a modest interest in film for many decades at least. IOW, don't worry, be happy now!
Ok, the XPan is a niche camera, a very fine one to be sure, and I'll do a little "devil's acvocate" dance.
There are other ways to shoot panoramas that should be considered. A 35mm RF camera for instance, with a nice selection of wide lenses. Crop to 12x36mm, say, and you have a pano. Yeah, with half-frame film area. But economical! AND you can get a modest front rise/fall effect by choosing to crop top, bottom or middle.
Pivoting lens pano cameras are even more niche than the XPan, which at least has the option of "normal" 24x36 format. And the pivoters have a unique look to the output too.
Stitching has been mentioned, and its main drawback too; things moving during the series of exposures. And having to pan the camera around the rear nodal point of the lens.
How about cropping a medium-format image to get about the same thing on film as the XPan? A 6x7 rig will get you a few extra mm of width too. As with cropping 35, you can have some rise/fall control. While the XPan can revert to normal 24x36 mode, the 6x7 is always in its normal mode; every shot is a potential panorama.
I think this option is particularly attractive, having a 6x7 camera already! Not so much a niche choice, but one does cede the 30mm lens to the XPan. However, the lens choices from 43mm and up multiply. Back on the other hand again (like Tevye), the XPan is small, sleek, and quiet. In the 6x7's favor, MF prices have taken a dive in recent times. So this option is worth considering I think.
Here's an example from 6x7 (45mm lens) cropped to XPan proportions (just documenting an old motel due for demolition):
We're past the 50's thinking that only the new should survive. I think there'll be a modest interest in film for many decades at least. IOW, don't worry, be happy now!Ok, the XPan is a niche camera, a very fine one to be sure, and I'll do a little "devil's acvocate" dance.
There are other ways to shoot panoramas that should be considered. A 35mm RF camera for instance, with a nice selection of wide lenses. Crop to 12x36mm, say, and you have a pano. Yeah, with half-frame film area. But economical! AND you can get a modest front rise/fall effect by choosing to crop top, bottom or middle.
Pivoting lens pano cameras are even more niche than the XPan, which at least has the option of "normal" 24x36 format. And the pivoters have a unique look to the output too.
Stitching has been mentioned, and its main drawback too; things moving during the series of exposures. And having to pan the camera around the rear nodal point of the lens.
How about cropping a medium-format image to get about the same thing on film as the XPan? A 6x7 rig will get you a few extra mm of width too. As with cropping 35, you can have some rise/fall control. While the XPan can revert to normal 24x36 mode, the 6x7 is always in its normal mode; every shot is a potential panorama.
I think this option is particularly attractive, having a 6x7 camera already! Not so much a niche choice, but one does cede the 30mm lens to the XPan. However, the lens choices from 43mm and up multiply. Back on the other hand again (like Tevye), the XPan is small, sleek, and quiet. In the 6x7's favor, MF prices have taken a dive in recent times. So this option is worth considering I think.
Here's an example from 6x7 (45mm lens) cropped to XPan proportions (just documenting an old motel due for demolition):
AndyP
Newbie
Thanks very much for all the replies and for (mostly) telling me what I wanted to hear (particularly to Mr. Mattock for his enthusiasm for the format). I am concerned about processing, particularly as I currently live in the Republic of Macedonia where there are absolutely no possibilities to print from Xpan negs. But I knew that and assumed that I would have to dump lots of film for processing at London labs during my visits home. Actually, my location here was one of the reasons that I want an Xpan (and, well, the fact that I can import tax free too!) as I will have the opportunity to take panoramas of this beautiful under-photographed country.
I think I will go for the Xpan II with both 45mm and 90mm lenses: the 30mm sounds amazing but I am not ready to take out a second mortgage just yet. I actually already own a pocket digital camera (Canon S400) which I have been using almost exclusively for the past year but now I would like to get more creative.
I would be interested to hear from Mr. Torralba where I can get the cheaper Fuji TX (although I would prefer the II). Is there a particular dealer you can recommend?
Hopefully I will be able to post some examples of my efforts in the future (although, given the problems I am probably going to experience re: processing/scanning, don't hold you breath).
Andy
p.s. I will get the centre filter for the 45mm lens. Any recommended makes for a polariser to avoid vignetting?
I think I will go for the Xpan II with both 45mm and 90mm lenses: the 30mm sounds amazing but I am not ready to take out a second mortgage just yet. I actually already own a pocket digital camera (Canon S400) which I have been using almost exclusively for the past year but now I would like to get more creative.
I would be interested to hear from Mr. Torralba where I can get the cheaper Fuji TX (although I would prefer the II). Is there a particular dealer you can recommend?
Hopefully I will be able to post some examples of my efforts in the future (although, given the problems I am probably going to experience re: processing/scanning, don't hold you breath).
Andy
p.s. I will get the centre filter for the 45mm lens. Any recommended makes for a polariser to avoid vignetting?