6x17 panorama

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Going smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be
easier, though an XPan is limited in lens choice, and home
built could provide similar restrictions. Anyway, let us know
what you finally decide to get.


Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan adapter...

Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses, is obscuring
the viewfinder window. It should be possible, though obviously some
machining involved. It is a little surprising that there are not more
adapters to fit lenses to the XPan.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
adapter...

Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
the XPan.


I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.

It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.

The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.

And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!

Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
job...)



Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote:

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
adapter...

Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider panoramic format
(24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift. And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you
like less extreme ratios.

That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, though.

The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and
some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.

That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras, but their
80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65 panoramic format.

By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover the 65mm format.

Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A Pentax 6x7 ($300
to $999 used) with the 45mm lens ($600) would be a more flexible camera than
the X-Pan. Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price averse.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Bandicoot"
wrote:

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-
Pan adapter...

Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider
panoramic format (24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift.
And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you like less extreme
ratios.

All true. I shoot 6x6 as my MF SLR, but also do 6x7,8,9 regularly. But any
of these options is very bulky compared to the X-Pan. For 'serious'
panoramics I do 6x12 (have just bought a 6x17 back to play with), but I
really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light compared to just about any
MF equipment I have. The 150 or 180 on the X-Pan would be very nice, and
_comparatively_ portable.


That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, though.

That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient and I have no idea
what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I decide to start using that new back
'in earnest'. Oh well...


The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm. There was a
rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120
and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd
cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of finder)
to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an
MF body with me.

That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras,
but their 80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65
panoramic format.

My thought exactly...


By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover
the 65mm format.

Why not? It is full frame on 6x6, which has a longer diagonal. This wasn't
a particularly serious thought, but it might be fun nonetheless, if only as
an experiment. Maybe I'll make up an adapter to stick it on a Speed
Graphic, then I can see what it covers on a 6x9 back - ie., not all of it -
and so work out what it will and won't do.


Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A
Pentax 6x7 ($300 to $999 used) with the 45mm lens
($600) would be a more flexible camera than the X-Pan.
Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price
averse.

It would, perhaps, if I was starting from scratch and this was all I wanted
to do - but I already have too many different systems! Also, I already have
the X-Pan (and love it) and was thinking more of how to use it to do as a
lightweight kit some of what I already do when more fully 'tooled up'...

Ho hum.



Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote:

but I
really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light compared to just about any
MF equipment I have.

I've seen some lovely handheld work with ISO800 color neg film in the X-Pan.
Not much good for anything other than web display, though.

That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, though.

That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient and I have no idea
what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I decide to start using that new
back
'in earnest'. Oh well...

If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to do 6x17 in two
scans. Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation,
the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to do 6x17 in two
scans. Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation,
the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.

You can also use flatbeds a number of current flatbeds. While initially the
scans are not as sharp as the Nikon's, very acceptable scans can be achieved
with the right post processing skills and you can scan a 6x17 in one pass.
Canon and Microtek now have some decent 6x17 holders standard with their
higher end models.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...mainintro.html

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
adapter...

Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
the XPan.


I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.

Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work okay most of the time
with a super wide on the XPan. The combination would be much cheaper than the
XPan 30 mm lens.



It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.

The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost any place with a CNC
could probably make up adapters easily, though a volume order would be better
to drop costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is any market
for adapters.



The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm.

Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in which lines for shift
distance are etched into the finder. While the ALPA finders are very expensive,
modifying another finder type might not be too tough.

There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.


I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm for the RF, and
some focusing problem reports with the longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have
caused them to think twice about offering something. If they added a viewfinder
magnifier similar to what Leica have introduced, then longer lenses should be
possible with accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would eventually
cause some error.


And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!

Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
job...)

Peter

Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour. Unfortunately, a bayonet
mount is not that quick an operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
better, but the set-up costs are high.

I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut it and resection it
to take a different mount. A metal body cap could provide one source, or a
broken lens could be another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
adapter...

Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
the XPan.


I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.

Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work okay most of the time
with a super wide on the XPan. The combination would be much cheaper than the
XPan 30 mm lens.



It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.

The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost any place with a CNC
could probably make up adapters easily, though a volume order would be better
to drop costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is any market
for adapters.



The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm.

Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in which lines for shift
distance are etched into the finder. While the ALPA finders are very expensive,
modifying another finder type might not be too tough.

There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.


I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm for the RF, and
some focusing problem reports with the longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have
caused them to think twice about offering something. If they added a viewfinder
magnifier similar to what Leica have introduced, then longer lenses should be
possible with accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would eventually
cause some error.


And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!

Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
job...)

Peter

Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour. Unfortunately, a bayonet
mount is not that quick an operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
better, but the set-up costs are high.

I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut it and resection it
to take a different mount. A metal body cap could provide one source, or a
broken lens could be another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Bandicoot"
wrote:

but I really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light
compared to just about any MF equipment I have.

I've seen some lovely handheld work with ISO800 color
neg film in the X-Pan. Not much good for anything other
than web display, though.

Usually Velvia 100F or E100VS for me, and a tripod. I keep meaning to put a
roll of T-Max 3200 in it though, which rated at ISO 1600 is a film I enjoy
for people.


That does require an expensive scanner if you want to
scan, though.

That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient
and I have no idea what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I
decide to start using that new back 'in earnest'. Oh
well...

If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to
do 6x17 in two scans.

Minolta Scan Multi-Pro. I think this will also do it in two, though I
haven't tried it yet. It's more 'nuisance value' than real impracticality
that bothers me...

Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the
ventilation, the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely
attractive.


Not something I know about - is that Nikon specific, if not where can I find
more? (Or should I just do a search on the name?)

Cheers,



Peter

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-
Pan adapter...

Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger
lenses, is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should
be possible, though obviously some machining
involved. It is a little surprising that there are not more
adapters to fit lenses to the XPan.


I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any
of this - a 6x7 one marked down would work fine, or I
could build something with wire. I don't see using the
rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple,
but it would be very lens specific, and of value only with
wider lenses where the RF would have a hope of giving
accurate focus.

Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work
okay most of the time with a super wide on the XPan. The
combination would be much cheaper than the XPan 30 mm
lens.

Got one of them :-)

Very nice it is too - bought it, along with the rest of the X-Pan kit, with
some money left me by my grandmother, who _many_ years before gave me my
first SLR. I think she'd approve.


It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters
for the X-Pan, I wonder if there is patent protection still
in force for the mount.

The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost
any place with a CNC could probably make up adapters
easily, though a volume order would be better to drop
costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is
any market for adapters.

There seems a steady market for adapters to put P6 lenses onto most 645
bodies, and (which I understand a little less well) most 35mm mounts too.
I'm sure I'm not the only X-Pan owner who'd like the idea of shift lenses,
glass longer than 90mm, faster glass, and/or that fisheye...

If I was sure there'd be no problem with a patent on the mount (ie., if I
had time to research it) I'd order up a batch of ten or twenty X-Pan to
T-Mount adapters or something similar (so they could be given any front end)
and sell the rest on *Bay.




The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm.

Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in
which lines for shift distance are etched into the finder.
While the ALPA finders are very expensive, modifying
another finder type might not be too tough.

Silvestri et al use a tilting finder to deal with shift: shouldn't be too
hard to build something like that. Of course, even more fun would be being
able to use tilt for vertical panoramas - but that's definitely a bridge too
far for the X-Pan (for me at least). I'll still go to MF (and LF) for that.


There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm
for it at one time, but they never did. I'd love to use my
Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-
Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of finder)
to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't
have an MF body with me.


I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm
for the RF, and some focusing problem reports with the
longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have caused them to think
twice about offering something.

Good point, the Bronica debacle would be enough to scare anyone off.

If they added a viewfinder magnifier similar to what Leica
have introduced, then longer lenses should be possible with
accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would
eventually cause some error.

Yes, a magnifier would be a very nice, simple, solution. Wonder why not...



And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!

Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a
machinist to do the job...)

Peter

Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour.
Unfortunately, a bayonet mount is not that quick an
operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
better, but the set-up costs are high.

They charge more here, and as you say, a bayonet takes some time.


I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut
it and resection it to take a different mount. A metal body
cap could provide one source, or a broken lens could be
another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.

Alas the body caps are plastic. I suppose I could experiment with one just
to see how rigid it is: it would wear out in use, but maybe be cheap enough
to regard as a consumable. Broken X-Pan lenses seem to be rarer than hens'
teeth.


Peter