Xpan verses Widelux Questions

I've owned a Widelux an the images from it compared to Xpan images is like comparing an apple to an orange. the Xpan is sharper, anytime you have a lens moving across the film versus one that doesn't your going to see it. The only thing you get from the Widelux is a some what unique perspective.
 
Until now, I have never heard anyone suggest the moving lens is an issue for sharpness. It may be an issue for even exposure. A more commonly-mentioned issue for image quality is that with a Widelux or similar, the whole negative is exposed by center "sweet spot" of a normal lens. With an Xpan or similar, the extremities are exposed by the periphery of a wide-angle lens. I expect less image quality in the latter situation.
 
Matthew, think about it. The noise and vibration from the mechanism moving the lens is transferred to the lens and on to the film. It ain't rocket science.
 
I think a better comparison would be with the noblex 135. And I have used both and they are very close, I think I would give the nod to the noblex 135. But between the x-pan and a widelux I would go with the x-pan.

It's like what's better a Ferrari or a Lotus, one is all power and the other is all handling, the only thing that's the same is they are both cars.

wbill
 
BTW, most of your x-pan shots at your gallery are with a rotational camera so do you own the widelux, or do you have a Horizon at the moment???

wbill
 
Brince said:
Matthew, think about it. The noise and vibration from the mechanism moving the lens is transferred to the lens and on to the film. It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...
My point is not rocket science either. In a fair amount of reading about different panoramic cameras, I have never heard a suggestion that the movement of the lens made any difference. Moreover, I have never seen your point made in marketing literature for fixed-lens panoramic cameras. I've certainly never seen a suggestion that the moving lens hampers the Noblex or Seitz cameras. I have frequently heard that a Noblex will kill most anything for image quality. But I have used neither of the cameras being discussed.
 
Last edited:
Brince said:
Matthew, think about it. The noise and vibration from the mechanism moving the lens is transferred to the lens and on to the film. It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

The lens on a rotational panoramic is fixed relative to the slit in the drum that exposes the film. The size of the slit and the drum speed determine the exposure. This is no different to a horizontal focal plane shutter curtain, except that its curved. I haven't noticed that my Leica is inferior to my Xpan (or more correctly to one of my lens shuttered cameras) because of the all the "noise and vibration" and my Horizon 202 is only a bit inferior because of the cheaper non focusing lens.
 
Last edited:
Jim, if you don't think movement of any kind (drum speed) within a camera doesn't effect image quality then why do the better SLR'S have a mirror lock-up option ?
 
How much vibration is there really in 1/20 or 1/100 of a second? I do not think the movement is really an issue.

Steve
 
Well, Steve if your not one of us after the ultimate image, then your probably right. Whats a few thousandths among friends.....Right.
 
Brince said:
Well, Steve if your not one of us after the ultimate image, then your probably right. Whats a few thousandths among friends.....Right.
Click to expand...

The main vibration in a swing lens camera is after the image is recorded - the abrupt stop of the swing. During the swing there should be very little vibration if your camera is in good order and lubricated properly. For an SLR it would be vibration before the image as the mirror is moved up and abruptly stopped. That may continue as the image is made.

I am always after the ultimate image and use a camera which does not have a mirror or camera swing - fully manual Linhof 617s. Do you always use a tripod and cable release?
 
Steve, I always use a tripod but seldom a cable release more times than not I use the camera's Self-timer. A few years back I owned a Fuji 617 and really liked it.
 
Hi all - I have had both these cameras, and while I couldn't really notice any difference in sharpness, there is a huge difference in perspective. The Xpan takes shots that look exactly as they are - one exposure capturing an instant on a very wide lens. The Widelux (and Noblex and Horizonts etc) looks more like the camera is looking 'around', like a person turning their head from one side to the other.

Also, you do get a considerable amount of lateral distorion (i.e. things are wider than they should be) on the left and right edges of an Xpan neg. This is easily fixed in photoshop, but is something to be aware of.

I only have the Xpan now, but even though it is easier to use, I somehow prefer the perspective of the Widelux - it's just a bit more interesting.

Anyway - best of luck - there are some great shots on your gallery!

Cheers,

Jonathan.
 
Brince said:
Jim, if you don't think movement of any kind (drum speed) within a camera doesn't effect image quality then why do the better SLR'S have a mirror lock-up option ?
Click to expand...

Brince,
Of course I didn't say anything about "movement of any kind" not effecting image quality. Just the reason why drum motion does not in a properly operating swing lens panoramic. To further qualify, if used on a tripod or at suitable handheld shutter speed. I certainly avoided mentioning SLR's (a dirty word on RFF?), but thanks to Steve for clarifying all of the points here.

If I were after Ultimate image quality I would not be using 35mm film anyway, but a minimum of 120 roll film. The SW617 would be an attractive (if expensive) proposition, but I do like the perspective of swing lens panoramics, which for me would be the bigger descision between cameras, but not the question Whitecat originally asked. The Widepan Pro II looks attractive to me.

A friend of mine uses a special version of the Roundshot that takes rolls of fiilm that are 5 inches across and is the size of a small suitcase. The Roundshot can do 360 degrees as many times as you want, but he usually limits to about 90 - 120 degrees giving a negatives of about 5 x 14 inches. His final prints are usually between about 4 & 10 feet long. When you see his carefully hand crafted toned B & W prints you think 'that is pretty much ultimate quality'. The film (previously used mainly as reconnaissance film) is now no longer made so he had to have Ilford make him a batch, which he has frozen (sufficient to last him out he recons).

Jim
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom