Re: XPan, etc.

[Clayton Bennett <cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

PanHandlers:

Robert Erickson wrote:

> IMHO- The 35mm Hassy would be the last camera in the world I would consider.
It is just a medium format camera that shoots 35mm format film. If you want
a Hassy then buy a real Hassy. You would be MUCH better off buying a used
120/220 format Hassy and cutting the film to 35mm format if that was what
you desired.

That's an interesting take on the XPan. Having bought one recently and being
very happy with it, I thought I might mention why. (Disclaimer: Robert
Erickson's opinion is entirely valid. I won't try to convince him or you
that because I like the XPan, others should, too.)

I'm a former newspaper photographer. My work is in editing and writing now,
so I had a closet full of idled pro Nikon gear. I'm also the proud father of
a photogenic toddler and infant. Most of the time, an Olympus Stylus is the
right camera for me. When I want more control, I use an Olympus IS-3.

Between the changes in my work and personal lives, I lost the ambition to
carry around a Domke bag full of lenses. I wasn't even thinking about buying
anything new or selling my old system, but a friend showed me the XPan, and
I was intrigued by its dual format.

For a week after I first handled the XPan, I saw images and scenes that
would be interesting to shoot in a 1:2.7 aspect ratio. These were the same
things and places I've been seeing for years, but because I "knew" how the
world looked in 2:3 proportions, I had stopped seeing photographically.

My interest in shooting for pleasure had returned, because I could try a new
format without giving up the one I still used. What's more, my interest in
black-and-white photography was rekindled just as winter was approaching. I
sold my F4 and most of my Nikon lenses, and am now selling the rest.

While it's true that the XPan merely reduces the film plane to put 35mm film
in what would otherwise be a medium-format camera, I didn't really _want_ a
medium-format camera. Sure, I'd looked at the Mamiya 7 for the same 35mm
capabilities, but I'm only a hobbyist now, and still best set up for 35mm.

I've also never seen a medium-format camera as small as the XPan. The Fuji
645 rangefinders are close, but they don't do what I want, so the comparison
really isn't fair. And despite the obvious appeal of a "real" 6x6 or 6x7, I
wanted something for shooting the same format I've used, with results good
enough for my purposes, for years.

Now, about the results: In either regular 35mm (24x36) or "panoramic"
(24x65) modes, the XPan delivers beautiful images. The sharpness and
contrast are equaled by tremendous shadow detail, even with handheld
exposures. That's just about all I want from a rangefinder anyway.

Robert Erickson also wrote:

> IMHO- if it's panorama that you want to do you would be a damn fool not to buy
a Roundshot 35/35 for $1750, or a Noblex 150FE for $2300.

I'm sure Robert Erickson didn't intend it this way, but that comment seems a
little condescending. There's an important technical difference between
dedicated panoramic cameras and hybrids, such as the XPan or the Mamiya 7
with the 35mm adapter, but it doesn't reduce the value of images created
with the dual-purpose cameras.

If you want to define panoramic photography in a very narrow way (pardon the
ironic phrasing), you can discount most 35mm wide-view cameras and the
images they create. But if you think of panoramic photography as images that
emphasize wide (and usually horizontal) angles of view, any means of
achieving that effect is valid.

The images at <http://perso.wanadoo.fr/panorama/francais/gallery.htm> are
beautiful examples of panoramic photography. I'm that much more impressed to
learn that Gildas Le Lostec, the photographer, whose skill is obvious, also
makes the cameras.

At <http://perso.wanadoo.fr/panorama/nouv_padyn/Panos.html> on the same
site, though, you can see QTVR panoramas that could have been made with
Gildas Le Lostec's Scan Tech cameras, any of the current digital cameras,
including those sold in blister packs, or even a Minolta SRT-101.

Note that I used quotation marks around the word panoramic a few moments
ago. That's because the XPan doesn't make 180- or 360-degree images, and
doesn't even get close to what the 617 does. But as a well-made 35mm
rangefinder with a terrific lens that can also make double-width exposures,
it's worth the attention of photographers who aren't concerned whether their
panoramic images will be considered authentic by the cognoscenti.

Meanwhile, Simon Nathan wrote:

> seconded. so called panoramic hasselblad is really by fuji and marketed
through hasselblad so it need not muddy up the image of g617. look at 500c
patents. us patents. note the name bjoern heden.need to know more. contact
me directly. 

I'm amused to think that Fuji would consider Hasselblad a down-market name,
and am not sure what Simon Nathan believes anyone is hiding. Among the first
things I learned about the XPan were that it was the result of a joint
venture between Fuji and Hasselblad, and that the Fuji TX-1 would be sold
only outside the United States. That sounds like a distribution agreement,
not a patent-cloaking conspiracy.

Back to the subject of making panoramic or pseudo-panoramic images, though.
It doesn't matter what kind of brushes Close uses, or what brand of
microphone Terkel uses, or what type of canvas Christo uses. To quote
Brahms, if only from memory: The music is not in the piano.

-- Clayton Bennett
cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx