Re: XPan? Are you kidding?

["simonwide:\"First simonwide:Last\"" <simonwide@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i must now disagree with
robert erickson who says that the xpan is the last panoramic camera he
would buy. i know of two that are worse, but i don't want to start a war
with mr. erickson. simon nathan

Clayton Bennett wrote:

Panhandlers --

Well, this ought to be my last post on this topic. For that matter, I think
it should be my last to this list.

A few days ago, Robert Erickson wrote: "The 35mm Hassy would be the last
camera in the world I would consider." He stated an opinion and acknowledged
that it would be the last camera _he_ would consider. Fair enough, but I
didn't care for the suggestion that I'm "a damn fool" for choosing the XPan.

He went a little further in writing that there's "Nothing wrong with 6x12 if
it's 180 by 360 degree view!" That suggests he considers any field of view
smaller than 180 degrees not to be panoramic. Also fair enough, as no one
has established an agreed standard definition.

Simon Nathan added his opinion in the following message:

> 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.

You'll notice he added extra comments on separate and unrelated topics,
seemingly for the sole purpose of complaining. In part because of the sloppy
typing, I thought Mr. Nathan was simply misguided. I've since been assured
that he is actually very knowledgeable and helpful, which is nice to learn,
but it certainly hasn't shown in his recent posts.

Because I thought other list members might like to know why someone might
buy, use, and appreciate the XPan, as I have done, I gave my opinion about
it. Rather than repost my previous message, I'll just repeat my main point:
"...as a well-made 35mm rangefinder with a terrific lens that can also make
double-width exposures, [the XPan is] worth the attention of photographers
who aren't concerned whether their panoramic images will be considered
authentic by the cognoscenti."

Because the XPan does not meet Erickson's or Nathan's criteria for true
panoramic coverage, it seems, they are offended by its existence, and by my
reasons for liking it. Both seemed to miss the single most important issue
my post raised: that the XPan _is_ a good choice for _some_ users.

Luckily, other list members read what I wrote (rather than what they wanted
to see) and responded with their own comments, all of which supported the
idea that panoramic photography is not exclusively limited to film-based
images created by dedicated single-format cameras.

For example, Joel Seaman wrote: "For me it is not the amount of pan but how
a particular format is used that is the value." He also wrote: "I love my
Noblex. Additionally, I have a Horseman 6X12 for times when the swing lens
or the 136 degree Noblex is too much for the situation, and then a Fuji
SW690 for even less coverage." I'll assume he knows what he's writing about.

Then Kevin Frest added: "We see so much in the panorama field about the
number degrees of the photos and all about the technology but in the end it
is not the camera but the creative artistry with which the camera is used."
Again, this is someone who also uses a "real" panoramic camera. From later
in his message: "For my work I use Noblex 150 & 35mm but Panorama is not
right for all subjects and moods so I use a Pentax 645 and Cannon 35mm when
this is the appropriate camera for the job."

In other words, these two are more interested in the results they get from
their equipment than they are in its specifications. I'd like to think
that's true of most artists -- hence the quotation from Brahms.

Things flared up when Clyde Soles wrote: "From what I've gathered off this
list, the Noblex and Roundshot are nice cameras but not suitable for rugged
travel. The Xpan seems to have advantages for my purposes..."

Robert Erickson responded with the message "Re: XPan? Are you kidding?"
Apparently, Erickson didn't see -- or didn't care to see -- the words "for
my purposes." Instead of asking what those purposes are, or gathering from
Mr. Soles's message that the purposes may involve rugged travel, Erickson
proceeded to criticize the XPan in unsubstantiated and subjective ways.

Curt Miller, whom I already know to be a thoughtful and intelligent person,
responded with an objective, point-by-point refutation of Erickson's
complaints, and I thank him for adding those specifications to the list
archives. I'll refrain from further comment on Erickson's last message.
Instead, I'll just summarize what I've gathered from the posts I've seen on
this topic:

Erickson and Nathan feel that panoramic cameras and photographs are defined
by angle of view. The XPan, at least, does not provide a wide enough view
for them to consider it a "real" panoramic camera. In making their
arguments, however, both Erickson and Nathan veer away from personal opinion
into generalizations and value judgments that don't need to be made.

While Mr. Erickson is clearly passionate about what constitutes panoramic
photography and cameras, he is not qualified to tell others what they should
buy and what they would like -- especially because he doesn't ask whether
the camera in question is appropriate for that person's purposes.

This is akin to having a salesman pitch an Excelsior-Henderson V-twin at a
customer who's looking for a Land Rover. Sure, they cost about the same, and
one obviously does some things, such as ride on two wheels instead of four,
much better than the other. But if that's not the feature the customer
values most -- or cares about much at all -- the salesman is dead wrong.

Meanwhile, Mr. Nathan responded to my earlier post with a barely coherent,
poorly spelled, and off-topic string of insults in all caps. Not only did
Nathan raise the very subjects about which he is now trying to rail at
others, he is obviously all alone in even thinking about some of them.

Nathan did not respond to my original request for more information when he
suggested that the arrangement between Fuji and Hasselblad was somehow
underhanded. He also did not write to me off-list to ask for clarification
of my first message. With manners like that, I don't care how much someone
knows; simply dealing with him is unpleasant.

On the other hand, Curt Miller was exactly right to compare the cost and
features of the XPan with those of a 6x6 Hasselblad. Just yesterday, I was
visiting a client (I'm a writer; he's an architect) when the conversation
turned to photography. I showed him the XPan, which I had along because it
fits so neatly in my briefcase, and he laughed and pulled out his 40mm lens
for his 6x6 Hasselblad.

His lens alone was more massive than the XPan with lens attached, and seemed
to weigh more. The apertures were the same. Add any 6x6 Hasselblad body,
finder, and back, and you have a kit that costs more (used or new), won't
fit in most briefcases (let alone leave room for other items), can't get as
wide an image (the 65mm width of an XPan exposure is greater than the width
of the 6x6 film plane, something that seems to have escaped Mr. Erickson),
can't take regular 35mm images (for those of us who want or need to do
that), and requires cutting and hand-mounting in custom-made frames to be
used in a similar way. That's enough advantage for me, and might also be
enough for Mr. Soles and Mr. Miller.

Now:

In subjective matters, force of opinion is no substitute for clarity of
thought. I'm grateful for the level-headed messages from Joel Seaman, Kevin
Frest, and Curt Miller. They reassure me that Robert Erickson and Simon
Nathan simply have stronger feelings than they have facts.

On another list to which I subscribed for a while, members would get
downright evangelistic about the relative merits of one video card over
another. The debates were comical in their use of exclamation points. But at
least the list members were polite enough not to insult one another's
intelligence, methods, goals, or worth.

I'd be glad to continue participating in conversations with other
photographers, hobbyists and professionals alike, who are fascinated by the
possibilities of panoramic photography, broadly defined. But I have no use
for elitist condescension, technical bigotry, or rampant and inaccurate
generalizations about cameras and the photographers who use them.

Right after I send this message, I intend to unsubscribe from this list. I
will still be available if others want to exchange messages privately,
because I'd enjoy telling interested people what I like about the XPan and
how I've used it so far. As for Erickson and Nathan, they can continue to
preach to this choir if they like.

One last comment, this time for Curt Miller: Now that you've become
interested in the XPan, I recommend you consider buying the Fuji gray-market
version from KEH. The kit is available with both the 45mm and 90mm lenses
for under $2000 and, from what I've learned here, the Fuji name is far more
prestigious. We all know how important it is to impress others with the
brand names of our equipment.

-- Clayton Bennett
cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx