Nikkor 24mm with E-screen or XPan for panorama pics?

[cony_dowen]

Hi,

After spending a lot of time stitching the images from my 4MP digital

camera and not being 100% satisfied with the results and the effort

involved at the shooting and behind the PC, I thought I'd try a

different approach. The XPanII is tempting but I am seriously

hesitating to spend that kind of money, especially since I could very

well use my F3HP or FM2n with an E grid focussing screen (perhaps

masked with two pieces of thin black paper) and my Nikkor 24/2.8 lens

and then crop in PS. After all, the viewing angle of the XPan 45mm

lens corresponds with a 28mm lens in 35mm photography, doesn't it? I

would save a lot of money that way or am I missing something here?

The negative of the XPan is of course larger but I don't intend to

enlarge that much anyway. Thank you for your thoughts on this.

[eric friedemann]

Conny-

 

 

1. Before you give up on digital panos, you might read Bruce Dale's pano tutorial and look at some of his panos:

 

 

http://brucedale.com/panoramatutorialhtm.htm

 

 

http://brucedale.com/Panoramas/images/prevs/prev14.jpg

 

 

http://brucedale.com/Panoramas/images/prevs/prev6.jpg

 

 

2. The problem with cropping from 24x36mm frame is that you aren't working with much film to begin with. Rather than XPAN, I shoot Mamiya 7IIs. If I want to crop to a pano, I have slightly more film horizontally to work with- 69mms plus v. 65mm on the XPANs. This is good if my horizon line is slightly off an I need to scan the negative on a slight angle to square the horizon line- I have more room on the sides of the image to crop off.

 

 

Also, you'll note that Bruce Dale is able to position his horizon lines to allow more or less sky or foreground by using perspective correction lenses. I can do the same thing by taking my pano from the bottom or top of the 6x7cm frame.

 

 

Regards, E

[vivek iyer]

You may want to consider the new Gizmo from Roundshot. You can put digital or film camera on it.

 

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/f641.cfm

 

I guess it is less expensive than a XPan set.

 

Vivek.

[cony_dowen]

Thank you for the interesting links.

[Miha]

Hi, Connie,

 

I'm also using one SLR with 24/2,8 lens and for some time I also have the XpanII. I bought it since carrying around a RB67 and then cropping the slides wasn't much fun. I must tel you the sharpness of Xpan slides (24 x 65 mm) can only be compared with 6x7 cm slides. Cropping 24x36 mm slides gives you only about 12 mm x 36 mm surface to use - it's waaay to small for quality results. I think you should choose between the Xpan and Mamiya 7 whichever suits you best - the Xpan being smaller to carry around (and may be cheaper if you buy additional lenses), the Mamiya 7 giving you larger slides.

 

Hope this helps, Miha.

[cony_dowen]

Miha, I haven't been able to check XPan negs or slides 'live' - only on the web, so I can't say much about the sharpness difference with 35mm negatives/slides. In my mind the 24x65mm XPan negs seemed not sooo much bigger than a regular neg. (and a lot smaller than 6x7 or 6x9 negs from MF cameras anyway) Could you perhaps explain how working with the XPan compares to a SLR equipped with a 24mm lens and a grid screen? For example, would the Xpan help seeing the world differently and would this be harder with that SLR?(I imagine so because the viewfinder image of the XPan would be bigger and brighter)

Thanks in advance, Conny.

[timothy_nelson]

Conny,

You should also think about how you will be printing or showing the images. Will you

be scanning? Do you have a medium format scanner for the XPan or other panoramic

negs/slides? If not, you may end up stitching together your panoramas, just as you

have been doing to date. There are a number of improved panorama-stitching

programs out there now, that make blending of the overlaps more smooth and

automated. Perhaps you'd be happy just finding better pano software than you've

been using, instead of getting a new camera. Of course, if you want to make dynamic

panoramas, street shots, people pictures, etc., a pano camera is better than stitching.

[cony_dowen]

Timothy, making more dynamic panos is indeed the second reason I want to get away from stitching. I agree a better stitching software would be great for static landscape and cityscape panoramas like I have been doing until now, and I know there is better software out there which is not very expensive either. Wide close-ups, people and city action shots is what attracts me now, in addition to the landscapes. That calls for direct in-camera panos. But if I can do them with my existing equipment (as described in the title of my question) then I can save the money for the XPan, but perhaps the 'feeling' is not the same and maybe the images won't reveal themselves to me through the masked finder of a 35mm SLR the same way as they would through the VF of an XPan? I could start with scanning the XPan negs/slides on my Epson 1240Photo flatbed scanner (for the time being) and move up to a better scanner later. I don't work professionally and I only need moderate enlargements that fit A4-size inkjet paper and images for the web.

[richard_tucker]

Conny

Be advised that there are only a handful of companies that can/will print an Xpan pano (24X65mm).

 

Read about some of this at Hassy forum:

http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/7/7845.html

 

Regards

 

Richard

[arturo_de_la_fuente]

Hi. I'm sorry I'm a bit late in this thread, but I thought I may have something to bring. I have both a Nikon system with a Nikkor 24/2.8 (the autofocus version) and an XPan II with the 45mm lens. I think the 24 is my favorite lens for the Nikon system and I shoot a lot with it. I bought recently the XPan as second body, and the rangefinder system complements nicely the automatism of the Nikon SRL (of course it is an awfully expensive second body...). Aside the difference in the size of the negative, the difficulties to get the XPan film enlarged/scanned and so on, for me the difference between the Nikon and Xpan is a question of feeling and approach. The handling of the cameras and the composition of the picture are radically different. There is no comparison when you look throught the viewfinder. So for me the point is not that much about the result (ie, the pictures you get) but about the act of shooting. I don't know to what extent you will benefit from this difference between a F3HP and the Xpan. What do you enjoy best, shooting or looking at your pictures?

 

I also tried for a while to stitch digital pictures, but I was not satisfied with the result.

 

Did I mention that the Hasselblad 45mm lens is amazingly good? I would bet it is better than the excellent 24mm Nikon.

 

Arturo