panaromic film backs

[david_frentress]

I need some info on panaromic film backs for use on my 645 pro tl.

I dont know if the only format available is 35 mm or if a true

medium format is avail.also what results people have had good or bad.

What kind of film and lense types am I restricted to and what works

best.

[robert_kennedy]

On any 645 size camera (or any camera really...) the max size of image is the standard film size (there may be a few strange exceptions, but overall...). This is because lenses have to be sized to the film.

 

For example, if you stuck a lens from a 35mm on a 645 sized camera, the image the lens projects onto the film would be too small.

 

So you need lenses sized to the film.

 

Of course if you have a lens that is designed for larger film, you can use it on smaller film.

 

Which is what the 35mm panoramic backs do. Simply put they stretch 35mm film across the film plane and get a wider than normal image on the film. You could get the same result by literally cutting a strip out of the center of a 645 neg.

 

If you want truely panoramic images, you need a panorama camera.

[andrew l. booth]

The Mamiya panoramic 35mm back looks like a bad idea. You get a normal 24x36mm shot using 35mm film, or you can use 'panorama mask' which cuts this to 13mmx35mm. This is a tiny piece of film! If you want to shoot a panorama with your 645 you'd be better off shooting 120 film, and cropping during printing.

[eric friedemann]

My take on 35mm pano backs for 120 cameras generally is that you are spending $300 and up to shoot a smaller piece of film than the camera is capable of shooting in 120. Some people are stuck on this idea because they want to print black border panos, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

However, if you don't care about the black border, why not shoot 120. You will be able to crop vertically anywhere you want.

[dave_schneider]

Of course you can print black borders with any size negative cropped to any proportion you want. All it takes is a little bit of craft in the darkroom.

I too have never seen the value of panoramic backs in medium format or even panoramic 6x12 roll film holders for 4x5 cameras. It seems like it is a lot easier to expose the largest possible film size and then crop to the area and proportion you want to print. It seems like that would give you more flexibility as well. By the way, I am definitely not one of those who feels that the only valuable print is one that is printed, uncropped, from the negative.

[eric friedemann]

"Of course you can print black borders with any size negative cropped to any proportion you want. All it takes is a little bit of craft in the darkroom."-

 

I'm talking about folks who want to show sprockets and frame numbers. Though, of course, you could now do this digitally as well.

A friend of mine bought the X-Pan and he is in black-border-pano heaven.

 

"I too have never seen the value of panoramic backs in medium format or even panoramic 6x12 roll film holders for 4x5 cameras."-

 

At least with roll film backs for view cameras, you can save some time not loading 4x5 film holders. Though, you could also use 4x5 quick loads.

 

I have a pair of Mamiya 7IIs now. Aside from setting you back more than $200, the 35mm insert setup is a tweaky little contraption that certainly isn't as easy to use as 120/220 film.

[robert_kennedy]

A 6x12 back on a 4x5 is a much better idea than a 35mm back on an 645. Just because of ease of use and cost.

 

Since the 4x5 uses sheet film, your film costs will be higher if you crop instead of using a 6x12 back. A roll of 120 which would give you 6 6x12 panoramics costs a couple bucks. By the time you shoot three Quickloads you are over the cost of one roll of 120. And you get half the pics. If you use regular sheet film, you have to load each carrier, make sure there is no dust on the film, etc. in complete darkness, then haul all the carriers around.

 

A 120 roll is just easier to use in this case. And cheaper.

 

But with 35mm, you don't really gain any advantage.

[eric friedemann]

Robert, you're preaching to the choir to the extent that I hate sheet film. I guess the efficacy of a 6x12cm roll film back on a 4x5 camera depends on how often you would want to shoot panos.

 

A Horseman 6x12cm back for 4x5 is about $1,000. You'd have to run more than a few rolls of 120 film through that back to make up for the price difference between 120 film and quick loads.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Dave, Eric and Robert...

 

My horseman 6X12 back for my Sinar did nor cost me much, and I also have a Sinar 6x9 and (on order) an adaptor for a Hasellblad magazine.

 

The main advantage is that My pola. sprint scan 120 will not coep with anything bigger than 6x9.

 

This will allow me to use the shift to get 4 exposures and stick them thogether without perspective distortion... 6x23cm or 6x25!!

[ole_tjugen]

Back to topic:

 

I have a 35W (24x56mm) back for my Bronica ETRS - and occasionally use it.

 

Arguments for using it: It is a lot easier to look for panorama subjects (for some reason, mine are always vertical) when your panorama back is the only one with film in it.

Sometimes, especially on summer holidays, I run out of film in some benighted holiday place where 35mm (and APS, but that's almost as bad as 110) is the only size available. I'd rather shoot panorama than nothing.

 

Arguments for not using it: Why not crop the 6x4.5?

Answer: Because - see above.

 

And besides, a 24x56mm panorama slide is a lot better than the microcopic things you get from 35mm cameras...

[Robin Smith]

Like Ole I don't think they are useless, 35mm is much easier to get and cheaper to process and so a panoramic back can be useful. If the image is the same format as what you see, it doesn't matter a bit whether the film was this size to start with, or cut down from a larger format. There are some films available only in 35mm. This is surely why the XPAN is successful.

 

There is no such beast for the Hasselblad, but it is a feature I might use on an Mamiya 7, say, if I had one.