RE: Voyageur

["M. Denis Hill" <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've been following Gildas' progress with this camera and a more expensive
predecessor, helped translate a page on the older camera before doing some
similar work (gratis) on the Voyageur manual. I think he has a great concept
as far as trade-off between cost, function, flexibility.

I've verified with him that the camera must be built for a single lens. I'm
sure you noticed also that the shutter speeds and degrees of rotation are
limited. But I was recently thinking about it: with a 50mm lens, this is
almost a RoundShot 65/70 for 1/6 the price. Since I have standardized on 3:1
aspect ratio prints, I have my eye on two Voyageurs. With a 50mm lens, 180
degrees would be 3:1 on 120 film. With a 24mm lens, 360 degrees would be
3:1.

M. Denis Hill
Area 360 Communications
http://www.area360.com
360.678.8351

Have you visited the discussion forums at http://www.colorfulcoupeville.com?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katherine Enos [mailto:enos@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:11 PM
> To: panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Voyageur
>
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from people on the list who have
> used Voyageur
> cameras. The Voyageur uses 120 format film but is built to take only one
> focal length lens. It strikes me as possibly a good compromise between
> expense (the Voyageur is some $1300 by the time it gets to the United
> States) and features. Other restrictions I know of so far are that it can
> only accommodate a 15 degree tilt and is not made for
> hand-holding (I don't
> know how flexible most other rotational cameras are; I do know
> that the 35mm
> Lookaround will do verticals). As someone who has no experience with pan
> photography, I'm just not interested in putting $5,000 to $10,000 into a
> first panoramic camera.
>
> Anyway, I was very impressed by the artistry of the shots on the Voyageur
> Web site. But I'm interested in hearing from list members who've tried the
> camera.
>
> Thanks,
> Katherine
>
>
>