6x17 panorama

Paul Friday <Devce DeleteThis @devce.demon.co.uk> wrote:

 > There's a rather huge 120-film version of the thing, too.

...which has a number of problems and is so ridiculously expensive that
it makes a second-hand Noblex 150 look like a bargain.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fotoralf.de" target="_blank">http://www.fotoralf.de</a>
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

Me too. Somewhere around 40 years old 'striking' became irrelevant.
Lugging a 6x17 to the top of a Colorado 14er became just too hard.
35mm became good enough.

Roger I McMillan


Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
 > Roger I. McMillan <NOrimcSPAM RemoveThis @NOaustin.rr.comSPAM> wrote:
 >
 >
  >> Planning wall size murals ?
 >
 >
 > It doesn't take wall-size mural to spot the difference. I have 35 mm and
 > MF swing lens panorama cameras and the difference is just as striking as
 > between 35 mm and MF in general.
 >
 > Ralf
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

Bigger is better then.

I would recommend some other references:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.panoramicassociation.org/" target="_blank">http://www.panoramicassociation.org/</a>

Panoramic Photography by Joseph Meehan, 1990 AMPHOTO



..::SuperBLUE::. wrote:

 > No, just 60x170cm, 60" width later. city , nihgt prolonged exposures with
 > cars passing in front of monuments and buildings, geometric erotic, people
 > in large group shots (schools, football, army,...) , etc.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:

 > If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
47mm
 > F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.

I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote in message
news:ct6o72$u0a$1@nnrp.gol.com...
 >
 > "jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:
 >
  >> If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
 > 47mm
  >> F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.
 >
 > I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...

I'll bet you have seen it before.
Here it is: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/" target="_blank">http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote in message
news:10vfhsj2fack3a5@news.supernews.com...
 > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote in message
 > news:ct6o72$u0a$1@nnrp.gol.com...
  > >
  > > "jjs" <john@xstafford.net> wrote:
  > >
   > >> If the OP would like, I can post pictures of a handmade 4x5 that uses a
  > > 47mm
   > >> F5.6 Super-Angulon. It covers 56x120, ideal for a rollfilm back.
  > >
  > > I can't speak for the OP, but I'd like to see it...
 >
 > I'll bet you have seen it before.
<font color=purple> > Here it is: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/</font" target="_blank">http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sw4x5/</font</a>>

You're right. But it's worth seeing again. Lovely work.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

".::SuperBLUE::." wrote:

 > What is the best way for me to start?

In a way, you already started. If you have an interest in panorama
images, and that aspect ratio, then finding the gear would seem to be a
next step. However, I suggest you consider first how you are going to
get the images printed, or scanned, since these are the likely first
options for using these images.

 >
 > What is the cheapest option?

Large format camera, or home built from two 6x9 folder cameras. A lens
with a focusing mount is expensive, so in some combinations, a large
format camera and roll film back might end up lower cost.

 >
 > Is Linhof or Fuji 617 unavoidable or is there a cheaper solution?

Fotoman, Patz, and sometimes a few other oddities, some built to order
only.

<http://www.fotomancamera.com>
<http://www.PatzImaging.com/Patz616.html>



 >
 > Maybe Russian/Chinese?

Swing lens cameras, or strange rotating cameras like the Seitz Roundshot
that takes medium format roll film (expensive). Depending upon how good
a craftsman you are, you might be able to make your own.

Other options are the Hasselblad XPan (close to same aspect ration, but
35 mm), a 6x12 (Horseman, VeriWide, Linhof, roll film back on 4x5 large
format camera), or cropped down 6x9 (ALPA, or home built from folder
cameras). Of these, a used XPan is around $1500 with the 45 mm lens,
Horseman slightly higher, some older options maybe in need of repair, an
ALPA at luxury pricing, or cropping 6x9. The advantage by cropping 6x9
is that the film has slightly better ability to stay flat than with a
6x17 camera, so that enlargements and scans could easily be just as
sharp, if not better in some situations. Also, a smaller than 6x17
camera could be easier to carry around.

If you get a chance to look at a Linhof or Fuji 6x17, you might be
shocked at how crude the construction is, though the lens and focus
mount are well made. I don't think you need either of those to get a
good lens, and large format lens choices would get you there. Going
smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be easier, though an XPan
is limited in lens choice, and home built could provide similar
restrictions. Anyway, let us know what you finally decide to get.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"Gordon Moat" <moat.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:41F966CB.C9260612@attglobal.net...
[SNIP]
 > Going smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be
 > easier, though an XPan is limited in lens choice, and home
 > built could provide similar restrictions. Anyway, let us know
 > what you finally decide to get.
 >

Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan adapter...


Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

Bandicoot wrote:

 > "Gordon Moat" <moat.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote in message
 > news:41F966CB.C9260612@attglobal.net...
 > [SNIP]
  > > Going smaller with similar aspect ratio might even be
  > > easier, though an XPan is limited in lens choice, and home
  > > built could provide similar restrictions. Anyway, let us know
  > > what you finally decide to get.
  > >
 >
 > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan adapter...
 >
 > Peter

The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses, is obscuring
the viewfinder window. It should be possible, though obviously some
machining involved. It is a little surprising that there are not more
adapters to fit lenses to the XPan.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"Gordon Moat" <moat.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:41FA79F5.4DE19823@attglobal.net...
 > Bandicoot wrote:
 >
[SNIP]
  > >
  > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
  > > adapter...
  > >
  > > Peter
 >
 > The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
 > is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
 > though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
 > surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
 > the XPan.
 >

I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.

It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.

The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
body with me.

And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!

Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
job...)



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

Bandicoot wrote:

 > "Gordon Moat" <moat.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote in message
 > news:41FA79F5.4DE19823@attglobal.net...
  > > Bandicoot wrote:
  > >
 > [SNIP]
   > > >
   > > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
   > > > adapter...
   > > >
   > > > Peter
  > >
  > > The only thing I wonder about with adapting larger lenses,
  > > is obscuring the viewfinder window. It should be possible,
  > > though obviously some machining involved. It is a little
  > > surprising that there are not more adapters to fit lenses to
  > > the XPan.
  > >
 >
 > I'd thought I'd just use an add on finder anyway for any of this - a 6x7 one
 > marked down would work fine, or I could build something with wire. I don't
 > see using the rangefinder - an adapter could be built that would couple, but
 > it would be very lens specific, and of value only with wider lenses where
 > the RF would have a hope of giving accurate focus.

Guess focusing by distance scales on the lens would work okay most of the time
with a super wide on the XPan. The combination would be much cheaper than the
XPan 30 mm lens.

 >
 >
 > It has really surprised me that no one is making adapters for the X-Pan, I
 > wonder if there is patent protection still in force for the mount.

The one I saw a few months ago looked home built. Almost any place with a CNC
could probably make up adapters easily, though a volume order would be better
to drop costs; of course that brings a question of whether there is any market
for adapters.

 >
 >
 > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
 > though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
 > 90mm.

Shift lens could be covered by an ALPA type of finder, in which lines for shift
distance are etched into the finder. While the ALPA finders are very expensive,
modifying another finder type might not be too tough.

 > There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
 > time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
 > Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some
 > sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
 > body with me.
 >

I have a feeling that the lessons of Bronica with the 135 mm for the RF, and
some focusing problem reports with the longest Mamiya 7 lenses, might have
caused them to think twice about offering something. If they added a viewfinder
magnifier similar to what Leica have introduced, then longer lenses should be
possible with accurate focusing. Scale focusing longer lenses would eventually
cause some error.

 >
 > And then there's the 30mm fisheye, come to think of it!
 >
 > Oh well, I can dream (don't think I can afford to hire a machinist to do the
 > job...)
 >
 > Peter

Around here, machinists are still $50 to $75 an hour. Unfortunately, a bayonet
mount is not that quick an operation for manual or DRO milling. A CNC would be
better, but the set-up costs are high.

I think the best would be to get the XPan bayonet, then cut it and resection it
to take a different mount. A metal body cap could provide one source, or a
broken lens could be another, though perhaps not common enough pieces.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:

   > > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-Pan
   > > > adapter...

Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider panoramic format
(24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift. And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you
like less extreme ratios.

That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, though.

 > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very tricky to compose
 > though!) and more particularly to use something longer than the X-Pan's
 > 90mm. There was a rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
 > time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120 and 180mm, and
 > Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd cheerfully carry along the 150 (and
some
 > sort of finder) to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an MF
 > body with me.

That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras, but their
80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65 panoramic format.

By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover the 65mm format.

Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A Pentax 6x7 ($300
to $999 used) with the 45mm lens ($600) would be a more flexible camera than
the X-Pan. Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price averse.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote in message
news:cterll$5cr$1@nnrp.gol.com...
 >
 > "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
   > > > > Still waiting for someone to come up with a P6 to X-
   > > > > Pan adapter...
 >
 > Another option is to just shoot 6x7. That gives you a wider
 > panoramic format (24 x 69mm) with +/- 12mm of shift.
 > And the option for 34.5x69 (2:1) if you like less extreme
 > ratios.

All true. I shoot 6x6 as my MF SLR, but also do 6x7,8,9 regularly. But any
of these options is very bulky compared to the X-Pan. For 'serious'
panoramics I do 6x12 (have just bought a 6x17 back to play with), but I
really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light compared to just about any
MF equipment I have. The 150 or 180 on the X-Pan would be very nice, and
_comparatively_ portable.

 >
 > That does require an expensive scanner if you want to scan, > though.

That's covered - though 6x12 is currently inconvenient and I have no idea
what I'm going to do with the 6x17 if I decide to start using that new back
'in earnest'. Oh well...

 >
  > > The lenses I'd like to use would be my shift ones (very
  > > tricky to compose though!) and more particularly to use
  > > something longer than the X-Pan's 90mm. There was a
  > > rumour of Fuji/'blad bringing out a 135mm for it at one
  > > time, but they never did. I'd love to use my Zeiss 120
  > > and 180mm, and Schneider 150mm on the X-Pan. I'd
  > > cheerfully carry along the 150 (and some sort of finder)
  > > to use on the X-Pan on occasions when I didn't have an
  > > MF body with me.
 >
 > That's a point. Those are only 56mm wide on 6x6 cameras,
 > but their 80mm image circle will easily cover the 24 x 65
 > panoramic format.

My thought exactly...

 >
 > By the way, I'd expect the 30mm fisheye to _not_ cover
 > the 65mm format.

Why not? It is full frame on 6x6, which has a longer diagonal. This wasn't
a particularly serious thought, but it might be fun nonetheless, if only as
an experiment. Maybe I'll make up an adapter to stick it on a Speed
Graphic, then I can see what it covers on a 6x9 back - ie., not all of it -
and so work out what it will and won't do.

 >
 > Still, I'd think that cropping 6x7 would make more sense. A
 > Pentax 6x7 ($300 to $999 used) with the 45mm lens
 > ($600) would be a more flexible camera than the X-Pan.
 > Or a Mamiya 7 if one is more weight conscious than price
 > averse.

It would, perhaps, if I was starting from scratch and this was all I wanted
to do - but I already have too many different systems! Also, I already have
the X-Pan (and love it) and was thinking more of how to use it to do as a
lightweight kit some of what I already do when more fully 'tooled up'...

Ho hum.



Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 6x17 panorama