XPAN I vs. XPAN II

I'm planning to buy a Hasselblad XPAN. As I understand, Hasselblad fixed in the XPAN II

some 'design flaws' of the XPAN I, most important the absence of any shutter speed

indication in the viewfinder. The XPAN I also had some problem with the finish of the

camera body like paint chipping off. Did they choose better materials for the XPAN II?

 

Is there any other difference between the two models which makes it worthwile to go for

the XPAN II? I could get a used XPAN I for 1.500 EUR or a XPAN II in mint condition for

2.400 EUR (both without the center filter -- as I understand a centerfilter is indispensable,

correct?)

 

Sorry for posting this question in the *Leica* Forum but I got the impression that many of

you also use an XPAN (and Lutz Konermann even wrote an excellent review about the

XPAN I in this forum).

 

Cheers, Markus

I forgot to mention that the prices stated above are for XPAN bodies together with the f/4

45mm lens.

I have had an Xpan II for about a year I usually shoot a few roles through it each month not a whole lotta volume but I had no paint chip issues and the material seemed to have held up well. One of the other advantages of the Xpan II is that the shutter can remain open in bulb setting for upto 540 Seconds.<div></div>

Raymond,

 

What device do you use to scan your XPAN images?

 

Thanks.

 

-jb

I have an original XPan, 45, & 90 and I've never seen enough value to spend another $1,500 for an XPAN II. I got my XPan w/45mm for $1,000.

 

The XPan II offers in-finder readouts, longer exposures (9 min), better IR film handling, multiple exposures, and a couple of other things that I forgot. The longer exposure is the most useful for picture making, but the in-finder would really help when using the camera handheld.

 

Center Spot filter? Absolutely necessary on the 30mm (and included with the lens), not so much on the 45mm. If you have a very even-toned subject, you will see some fall-off with the 45mm, but it's not bad. Stopping down to f/8 makes it almost go away. I should buy a filter myself though, but it's pretty expensive at $250-300. The 90mm does not need a center spot filter at all.

 

Skip

To be honest, the cost involved does not warrant going for Xpan 11. I have Xpan 1 with 45mm and 90mm lens and I would not bother about Xpan 11. Centre filter is essentail with 30mm lens and not with 45mm lens if you shooting colour neg and stop down to at least f:8 every time. I use 400 ISO film and can get away with that. Go for Xpan I and save your money.<div></div>

A much-loved alternative to a Leica here is the Konica Hexar. The XPan has the exact same kind of exposure feedback as the Hexar. Just lights in the viewfinder. One major problem was they didn't back those lights with a solid dark area, so in sunlight it is hard to see the over, under, or right on indicators. This is easily fixed with a tiny patch of black tape applied to the front window. Presto, easy to read in the sunlight lights! The XPan II does work with IR film, so that is a must if you shoot IR. The XPan I finish does chip very easily. Don't know if they hardened it in the II. But I haven't gone II since the main advantage is the in viewfinder shutter speeds, and I can live with the Hexar-like system just fine. (By the way, if you point the camera at your subject, and half press the shutter button and hold it, then the shutter speed to be used will be frozen for review in the back LCD. No big hassle, really.) I don't make 540 second exposures, so the I seems a great value out there...

Jack, I use a nikon coolscan 4000 with the 35mm film insert thingy that comes with it. I cut

away the center divider which is plastic with an exacto knife. I scan both sides and stich in

photoshop. I also have a Epson 4990 flatbed but the Nikon is much much better even though

I have to stich. There is a article on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ that mentions

about using the nikon 4000 the way I do.<div></div>

You may want to consider looking at the Noblex 135u. It has 135 degrees and a better lens for less money. It's not as convenient to use.

I have had both and I regret sellingthem :( here is a cropped picture from the II with a 45 shot on velvia 100.

 

<br>

<br>

<img src='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4957/mossywall2.jpg'>

Markus, thanks for your nice comment on my

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007i3b">Xpan review</a>.<p>

 

Marc, in which way would the lens of the Noblex be "better"? While the rotating principle might have an edge in unvignetted corner to corner performance, its resolution isn't higher and the whole camera is a completely different thing, apt for completely different tasks, IMHO. Please read my review on the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003kmb"> Noblex 135U</a> and its <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Fgu">update</a>.<p>Very nice crop, Jorge, proving how well the Xpan holds up against a Leica as a "mere" 135 camera. Go, get yourself another... ;-)

Thank you all for your answers, they are (as always :-)) very helpful!

 

I'll probably use slide film (Velvia 50 & 100) most of the time and scan the slides -- this

gives me the best control over the whole process. Considering that the f/4 45mm lens is

not fast at all and I intend to use slow films, the center filter will probably be necessary.

What is your experience in situations like this?

 

The next problem of course is: what to do with this unusual format. Is there any film

scanner around (apart from MF scanners), which is able to scan XPAN slides in one step? I

guess stiching them together in Photoshop will become very cumbersome...

Markus,<p>

<i>I scan the slides -- this gives me the best control over the whole process. Considering that the f/4 45mm lens is not fast at all and I intend to use slow films, the center filter will probably be necessary. What is your experience in situations like this?</i><p>

Slide film (and Fuji with blue skies in particular) will tend to accentuate the light fall-off to the corners, aka vignetting. Therefore, you either get the center filter for the 45 (I have it on permanently) or you rely on your PS skills (and I have described a digital remedy to vignetting in one of my threads as linked to above).

Since use of your slides will most probably be made digitally (6x7 slide projectors are impossibly expensive and I, personally, couldn't think of any occassion in which I would want to set one up for projection...), i.e. either web use or digital printing, your scans will have to be scanned, anyway. Which leads to your second point:<p><i>

 

The next problem of course is: what to do with this unusual format. Is there any film scanner around (apart from MF scanners), which is able to scan XPAN slides in one step? I guess stiching them together in Photoshop will become very cumbersome...</i> The answer to your question is NO, at least none of the current 35mm scanners come with a panoramic option out of the box. As mentioned above, there are workarounds, plus the flatbeds aren't that bad nowadays for scanning resolutions fit for prints up to A3+ - from MF slides...! On the other hand, PS stitching is a snap and involves just a fraction of the time you will want to spend in PS on a slide worthwhile printing big. For small prints, a flatbed is more than sufficient. For poster size prints have your slides drumscanned.<p>A last tip: To take advantage of conveniently priced Frontier formats (special online offers, etc.) you may combine two or three panoramics in PS to make them ONE file(!). Have that file printed on a large format paper and cut it into stripes. Cheers.

<i>your scans will have to be scanned, anyway</i> good point, eh? ;-) "slides" it is of course. BTW, if you shoot b&w the center filter is dispensable - and so, of course, is scanning, if you have a wet darkroom.

I currently have both I and II. I just got II the other day. The I is just as good as the II but

the biggest change is the viewfinder read out.

 

I do not have the center filter for the 45mm and I don't feel I need it as I only shoot B+W

film.

 

The xpan I does have a few paint chips but not much. I have seen some really awful, very

used models. They look cool to my eye.

 

I will probably sell my xpan I. Contact me privately if you are interested.

The XPAN II also has the problem of paint chipping off. Outrageous, for the price but true.

 

The center filter is essential for critical work with the 45mm lens. EBay should get you a good deal on it.

 

I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the glass carrier to scan my XPAN work in.

To add on some excellent advice above, some personal comments:

 

The main disadvantage of the original XPan was the lack of shutter speed readout in viewfinder.

 

In the first production models (not sure if it was for first year or what but early production runs anyway) the Bulb setting topped at about 30 seconds. The paint also peeled off very easily. Hasselblad/Fuji corrected these faults in later production of the XPan, well before the Xpan II came out. The longest B exposure was extended to about 4-5 minutes and the paint sticks better though it still does peel off easier than in most other cameras.

 

The XPan II has some other minor improvements as well, such as rear curtain flash sync. But it has one major disadvantage: The exposure compensation wheel has been moved from a simple wheel in top of the camera to be menu operated from the rear screen.

 

The original XPan used normal cable release while the new one has electronic one. I prefer the old normal one since it is one less item that needs to be bought and carried separately.

 

A better designed, lockable, lens hood was introduced with the II model for the 45/90 lenses. The new hood works with old lenses, but of course needs to be bought separately. I have one new and one old and it is a good combination, not needing to move the hood when changing lenses.

 

In my opinion, the 45 lens needs the expensive CF filter. At least when using slide film.

 

I am happy with my 'old' XPan. I think the benefits of the new version are very minor overall and certainly not enough for me to want to change. I would put it this way: If you plan to use it a lot handheld on auto exposure, then get the II with its better readout. If you mainly use it on tripod and often use the exposure compensation, then get the old one even if it costs the same. If you do get an old XPan, try to avoid getting one so old that it has the peeling paint (easy to recognise if the camera has been used at all), and short B setting.

My XPan II has become a "must have" buddy for my M7 as well as my Hassy 503CW kit. I bought it after trialling an XPan I for a few weeks.

 

If you are serious about pan shooting - definitely go for the version 2. The enhancements are very very worthwhile.

 

If you will be an occasional user, then there is no real issue about saving some money with the version 1 (just convenience in shooting).

 

I don't like very wide angle beyond about 35mm AOV in 135 or 6x6 formats; but I just love the panorama 25mm and 50mm equivalent AOV using the XPan 45 and 90 mm lenses.

 

BUT, to really best understand this superb camera, my tip is to think of it as an MF camera - compact and rangefinder with the convenience of a standard 135 format neg available too. It is to misunderstand this camera to think of it as a 135 format camera with pan capability. Then you will understand the lens speed limits and need for a grad ND centre filter on the wider angle lenses.

 

The Fujonon lenses are superb! very flat field of view; excellent correction of aberrations and lovely colour and good fine detail to the edges.

 

Using the ND centre grad filter on the 45mm lens in pan mode is a MUST do - don't try to save money by avoiding buying one (very expensive) and just accept the overall 45mm lens cost with the filter - on any measure the total cost is very reasonable.

 

I use my XPan II exclusively in pan mode and my M7 for all other conventional 135 format shooting.

 

I have taken a lot of time shooting all sorts of stuuf to best understand this camera's capabilities. It is an extremely high quality unit, but it does have some limits (eg auto-exposure metering EV limitations). But once you work that out and if you like pan images, you will love this camera.

 

Yes, the Mamiya 7II is a superb camera too with great lenses. But I have an MF kit so was looking for a very convenient kit to buddy both my 6x6 and 135 formats and the XPan is a perfect fit.

 

Functionally the XPan II version sits very well with the Leica M7 and my brain can switch between the 2 easily. M6 users would have similar ease. In fact if you are an M6TTL or earlier M body user, the XPan version 1 will fit very well since they are not used to having shutter speeds displayed in the viewfinder. Of course there are a few other enhancements on the version 2 as well, but my point is if budget is limited there is no big bad issue in buying the version 1 if pan is what you are after.

 

Good luck.