6x17 panorama

"Paul Friday" wrote in message
...
In message , Pieter Litchfield
writes
At the risk of inviting the wrath of the LF purists, I was going to
suggest
spending a few bucks and getting a Russian Horizon 202 panoramic on e-bay.

There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.

Unfortunately, they don't focus.

Paul Friday wrote:

There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.

...which has a number of problems and is so ridiculously expensive that
it makes a second-hand Noblex 150 look like a bargain.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote:

If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
47mm
F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.

I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Me too. Somewhere around 40 years old 'striking' became irrelevant.
Lugging a 6x17 to the top of a Colorado 14er became just too hard.
35mm became good enough.

Roger I McMillan


Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Roger I. McMillan wrote:


Planning wall size murals ?


It doesn't take wall-size mural to spot the difference. I have 35 mm and
MF swing lens panorama cameras and the difference is just as striking as
between 35 mm and MF in general.

Ralf

Bigger is better then.

I would recommend some other references:

http://www.panoramicassociation.org/

Panoramic Photography by Joseph Meehan, 1990 AMPHOTO



..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:

No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.

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

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote:

If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
47mm
F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.

I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...

I'll bet you have seen it before.
Here it is: http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote:

If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
47mm
F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.

I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...

I'll bet you have seen it before.
Here it is: http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/

You're right. But it's worth seeing again. Lovely work.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

".::SuperBLUE::." wrote:

What is the best way for me to start?

In a way, you already started. If you have an interest in panorama
images, and that aspect ratio, then finding the gear would seem to be a
next step. However, I suggest you consider first how you are going to
get the images printed, or scanned, since these are the likely first
options for using these images.


What is the cheapest option?

Large format camera, or home built from two 6x9 folder cameras. A lens
with a focusing mount is expensive, so in some combinations, a large
format camera and roll film back might end up lower cost.


Is Linhof or Fuji 617 unavoidable or is there a cheaper solution?

Fotoman, Patz, and sometimes a few other oddities, some built to order
only.

http://www.fotomancamera.com
http://www.PatzImaging.com/Patz616.html




Maybe Russian/Chinese?

Swing lens cameras, or strange rotating cameras like the Seitz Roundshot
that takes medium format roll film (expensive). Depending upon how good
a craftsman you are, you might be able to make your own.

Other options are the Hasselblad XPan (close to same aspect ration, but
35 mm), a 6x12 (Horseman, VeriWide, Linhof, roll film back on 4x5 large
format camera), or cropped down 6x9 (ALPA, or home built from folder
cameras). Of these, a used XPan is around $1500 with the 45 mm lens,
Horseman slightly higher, some older options maybe in need of repair, an
ALPA at luxury pricing, or cropping 6x9. The advantage by cropping 6x9
is that the film has slightly better ability to stay flat than with a
6x17 camera, so that enlargements and scans could easily be just as
sharp, if not better in some situations. Also, a smaller than 6x17
camera could be easier to carry around.

If you get a chance to look at a Linhof or Fuji 6x17, you might be
shocked at how crude the construction is, though the lens and focus
mount are well made. I don't think you need either of those to get a
good lens, and large format lens choices would get you there. 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.

Ciao!

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

"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

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