Medium format vs panoramic(buy pan or crop medium)

I have been considering adding medium format to my equipment list. I

also want to pick up a panoramic camera to do landscapes and beach

scenes here in S. Florida. Since people have been cropping

panoramics for years out of medium format, should I consider this and

skip the pan camera. If so, what medium format, 6x7? What final

print size can I expect from a cropped medium format panoramic vs a

straight panoramic neg? Thank you.

It's obvious that a cropped MF negative from 6x7 is just as good

as a 35mm panoramic camera like a Hassy Xpan. It's not as good as a

panoramic from a Fuji 617 of course, but it's $5000 cheaper. It won't

have the angle of

view of a swing lens camera like a Noblex, but it won't give the

swing camera distortions either. I think the advantages of each

are obvious to anyone. It's up to you to decide what you want. That

comes first, the equipment comes second.

<p>

Size again is obvious I think. If you like 20x24 prints from 6x7,

you can make equally good 8x24 panoramics. A Fuji 617 will give

you 20x60 prints of the same quality, all other factors (lens

quality etc.) being equal.

To put Bob's response slightly differently: If what you want is a

panoramic aspect ratio (e.g., 1:2), cropping MF is just fine. If what

you want is that aspect ratio with a super-wide angle of view, you

probably need a swing lens panoramic.

The Hassy Xpan does have a potential advantage over say a Mamiya 7

and cropping. That is that chances are very good that a wider lens

than the current 45 will be coming out. The Xpan also has the slight

advantage that there are more film types available in 35mm(the Mamiya

7 has a 35mm adaptor so it shares this advantage).

<p>

The above should make it obvious which camera I recommend should you

go for MF.

Hi,

<p>

This is a question i wrestled with for quite a long time. I decided

the 6x17's were perfect but were out of my price range (5k is a lot)

so i simply bought a panoramic mask for my 6x6 camera. It cost 50bux

and gives me a 1:2 aspect (3cmx6cm). I soon learned the aspect ratio

was what I was searching for. Some people will now say but why not

shoot the whole 6x6 neg and crop. That's a valid point with a few

exceptions (1) I did not want to mess around with cropping tape on a

chrome, generally doesnt come out very well and is quite annoying a

process to have to do. (2) 3cmx6cm is not a big negative but its not

small either, so for prints up to 8x10 they look quite nice.

<p>

Remember those 6x17 monsters are the exact format panoramic agencies

want. It is the industry standard. I am not saying that you could not

sell another format but why shoot yourself in the foot.

<p>

Eventually there will be a 6x17 roll film back for 5x7 cameras and

that will probably end up being the best of both worlds. But camera,

back, lens, etc... will end up costing you about the same as the fuji.

If not a bit more.

<p>

If you decide that you only shoot negative film then by all means get

a 6x7 and crop. But if your shooting chromes find something that will

be ready to go once it has been developed.

<p>

Hope this helped.

I think this one is highly dependant on how you view the world with

your gear. Some of us have a difficult time viewing a centerpiece

out of the middle of the whole composition as a separate image and

would probably benefit by using the dedicated panoramic format.

Takes all the guesswork out of cropping while trying to compose on a

larger view. Others don't have that problem and would be just fine.

It comes down to the same answer as most when "what format' comes

up. No hard & fast answer, just your guessing after reading all the

opinions and sometimes finding out you blew your money on something

that just doesn't work for you and how you view the world through a

lens.

A new medium format system will be a major expenditure. I would

consider a used 4x5 and a calumet 6x12cm roll film panoramic back. The

roll film back will probably cost more than the used 4x5, approx.

700.00. You might also find one of those used too. By going this

route, you can have a pretty extensive selection of accessories that

accompany 4x5 systems. Good luck,

Pete

If 6x12 format is what you want, I'd go with the 4x5 camera. 4x5's have a very large selection of lenses and other accessories, can shoot roll film with special backs and lots of choices for film.

<p>

If you want 6x17, then you might consider a 5x7 camera, but you'll have to put up with sheet film only and a reduced selection compared to 4x5, unless you don't mind cutting up 8x10 sheets to fit or can buy in bulk from the manufacturer. Also, you need longer focal length lenses, almost as long as 8x10s use, so cost goes up and selection is limited, compared to 4x5. For visualizing your panorama a simple mask on the GG will work fine. When you get your sheet film developed you use the same mask for marking the cropping you want.

<p>

Also think about whether you'll ever need professional lab work and, if so, will your lab have a film carrier for their enlarger in your size? If you use sheet film, 4x5 is universal, many labs do 8x10, but even 5x7 can be scarce in places. 6x12 and 6x17 may have to go out of town for printing.

<p>

Frank

You have already gotten quite a bit of good advice. Just a few

additional

comments.

<p>

The Mamiya 7 does have marks in the viewfinder to show where the 35

mm panoramic area is. I would guess that a lens wider than 43 mm is,

indeed, unlikely (as a previous poster stated), but you can get 43 mm,

50 mm (with the new version), 65 mm, 80 mm and 150 mm lenses.

<p>

The Fuji 690 might be a good alternative. It is less expensive and

gives

you a 6x9, which would allow you to chop out a wider panoramic than

the 6x7. There is also a 6x7 version, the 670. The 690 can be had

with

a 90 mm or 65 mm lens for under $1500.

<p>

A 4x5 is certainly a good suggestion in terms of flexibility and

price,

although it is not as convenient and, except in the case of press-type

cameras (speed graphics are cheap), can't really be used hand-held.

<p>

My guess is that panoramic 35 mm, 6x9 and 6x12 will probably be

about as hard/easy to get printed.

<p>

As has been said, it all depends on what you want to use it for. If

you

want capability and a good price/performance ratio, a view camera is

your answer. If you want convenience, the Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690 would

be a good choice. For price, the 690 (at less than $1500) is a good

choice and the speed graphic could be gotten running for well under

$1000 (camera, lens and roll-film back).

<p>

Derick

I think the best approach will be to go ahead and buy the older version of the Fuji G617. Why?

<p>

The simplicity. one lens only (angular coverage is about the same as for a 21mm lens for a 35mm camera, on the long dimension) a simple viewfinder. This forces you to concentrate on the tricky part of panoramics, the composition. Composition with a camera that has almost a 1:3 ratio is different from making squarer formatted images. the lens is also wide enough that you have good height coverage in the frame. If you have a lot of money you might want to consider the older Linhof Technarama II as well, this camera has a 90mm lens.

<p>

The downside to shooting 1:3 images is getting prints made. For an image to be 8 inches high the print has to be 24 inches long. So you will generally end up paying for a 20"x24" print.

<p>

another alternative is a Cambowide with a 6x12 back. Though the format is 1:2, the lens availible are shorter so you can cover the same horizontal angle, and also do away with the need for the center weighted neutral density filter that you will need (and usually comes with used) Fuji G617 or the Linhof. You'll also have the option of shooting 4x5, 6x7 or 6x9, depending on which backs you get. And you'll also have the polaroid option.

If I were to buy a rollfilm panoramic camera I'd probably go for a

6x12(probably the Horseman due to price and lens selection). The

reason is that 6x12 can be enlarged in a 4x5 enlarger where 6x17

needs a 5x7(5x7 enlargers being, or at least seeming much more rare).

<p>

The Horseman is available with some very wide lenses including a 35

and if you want the 1:3 aspect ratio, it can always be cropped. It

will also accept 6x7 and 6x9 backs.

The answer to your questions depend on how much you are willing to

spend and how much time you will take to get your panoramic photos.

I had a 6X12 back for my 4X5 but sold it because it took too much

time to use. I drove up to Alaska last summer and ended up printing

photos from my Hasselbald to 16X20 and then cropping and matting them

to 10X20 image size. They turned out spectacular. I don't like

masks because they lose image info that cannot be replaced (35mm and

120 masks are infamous for this). Shoot full frame and crop later if

you wish.

If you are looking for true panoramic dimensions (1:2), you are

running into serious considerations about print costs. To keep these

affordable - and this would be a prime concern for me - I'd be

comparing a 35mm back in a 6x6 or 6x7 MF, or an Xpan, with 645. The

increased cost of special handling for the long 35 negs & prints would

probably be more than the overall cost of 645 negs & prints. However,

the long dimension of the 645 neg is not that much less and

cropping would not seem to be too drastic. A 645 system might have

much greater versatility, including some really wide wideangles, at

lower cost and weight. Just a different way of approaching the

original dilemma.

Cropping a negative that has been fully exposed, without a mask,

has another advantage: you can get the horizon in the picture where

you like even if you have the camera leveled (to avoid the distortions

that follow when a camera is pointed up or down). Those who are

fortunate enough to own a good wide angle lens seem to use this method

instead of using a camera with shift. With panoramics from a medium

format negative it makes sence, since the quality still will be

quite good. I have used this method with a 80 mm lens for a 6x6

camera and I rarely find that I would have liked the horizon in the

middle of the picture, which makes cropping a better choice for me than a

panoramic mask. I still use a panoramic mask for slide film though,

but not for negatives.

Then again, an Xpan would be cheaper than to buy a wide angle lens for

my medium format camera... (A review of the Xpan, from a user, can be

found at http://hawk.foto.no/pinhole/nikon/ )

Peter:

Why not get a Fuji GSW690? It is cheaper than the xpan (which is also a Fuji camera), and it gives you quite a bit more real estate to fool with. You get a world class medium format lens with a free body and film back thrown in. The 65mm lens is about the same angle of coverage as the widest lens on the xpan.

I can't for the life of me figure out what the appeal of the xpan is. Must have something to do with that fine Swedish name that is stuck on the front.

I think the appeal of the Xpan is:

<p>

(1) Relatively small and light<br>

(2) Interchangable lenses (2 now, maybe more to come)<br>

(3) 35mm film - bigger choice of emulsions, easy to process and scan, more frames/roll<br>

(4) It's also a "normal" rf camera as well as a panoramic<br>

(5) built in meter, auto exposure modes, winder<br>

This is obviously a very, very late answwer, but since a lot of people use this database for searching I feel this reply is still valid.

My reply is simple: scanning.

There still are no good afforable medium format scanners, but my HP PhotoSmart S20 will scan 35mmm panoramics at 2400 dpi. And I'm sure many other 35 mm scanners will.

I'd like to emphasise what Jan said above: 35mm film is great for scanning. I've got a Hewlett Packard Photosmart S20 scanner and Zenit Horizon-202 (swing lens) camera. I can get 5400x2200 pixel scans from this combination which have a 120 degree angle of view.

Another way of getting wide 35mm photos would be to use a Bronica ETRS with 35mm wide back. I think this would be an excellent combination because you could switch between using 645 film or wide 35mm depending on the subject. Bronica's seem fairly cheap 2nd hand but the wide 35mm back is hard to find, unfortunately.<div></div>

warwick, how many frames of the Horizont can the S20 digest. Or to put it different: when I cut my roll of film, how long should the strips be?

I just ordered an S20 (not arrived now) and I get my rolls uncut from the lab. I guess the S20 can not scan entire rolls.

warwick, how many frames of the Horizont can the S20 digest. Or to put it different: when I cut my roll of film, how long should the strips be?

 

I just ordered an S20 (not arrived now) and I get my rolls uncut from the lab. I guess the S20 can not scan entire rolls.

Warwick last seen May 10, 2004