6x17 panorama

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:ctf20t$73r$1@nnrp.gol.com...
 >
 > "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > > but I really like the X-Pan: it is so small and light
  > > compared to just about any MF equipment I have.
 >
 > I've seen some lovely handheld work with ISO800 color
 > neg film in the X-Pan. Not much good for anything other
 > than web display, though.

Usually Velvia 100F or E100VS for me, and a tripod. I keep meaning to put a
roll of T-Max 3200 in it though, which rated at ISO 1600 is a film I enjoy
for people.

 >
   > > > 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...
 >
 > If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to
 > do 6x17 in two scans.

Minolta Scan Multi-Pro. I think this will also do it in two, though I
haven't tried it yet. It's more 'nuisance value' than real impracticality
that bothers me...

 > Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the
 > ventilation, the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely
 > attractive.
 >

Not something I know about - is that Nikon specific, if not where can I find
more? (Or should I just do a search on the name?)

Cheers,



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

"Gordon Moat" <moat DeleteThis @attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:41FBDBED.A1ADBA01@attglobal.net...
 > Bandicoot wrote:
 >
  > > "Gordon Moat" <moat DeleteThis @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.

Got one of them

Very nice it is too - bought it, along with the rest of the X-Pan kit, with
some money left me by my grandmother, who _many_ years before gave me my
first SLR. I think she'd approve.

  > >
  > > 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.

There seems a steady market for adapters to put P6 lenses onto most 645
bodies, and (which I understand a little less well) most 35mm mounts too.
I'm sure I'm not the only X-Pan owner who'd like the idea of shift lenses,
glass longer than 90mm, faster glass, and/or that fisheye...

If I was sure there'd be no problem with a patent on the mount (ie., if I
had time to research it) I'd order up a batch of ten or twenty X-Pan to
T-Mount adapters or something similar (so they could be given any front end)
and sell the rest on *Bay.

 >
  > >
  > >
  > > 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.

Silvestri et al use a tilting finder to deal with shift: shouldn't be too
hard to build something like that. Of course, even more fun would be being
able to use tilt for vertical panoramas - but that's definitely a bridge too
far for the X-Pan (for me at least). I'll still go to MF (and LF) for that.

 >
  > > 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.

Good point, the Bronica debacle would be enough to scare anyone off.

 > 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.

Yes, a magnifier would be a very nice, simple, solution. Wonder why not...

 >
  > >
  > > 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.

They charge more here, and as you say, a bayonet takes some time.

 >
 > 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.

Alas the body caps are plastic. I suppose I could experiment with one just
to see how rigid it is: it would wear out in use, but maybe be cheap enough
to regard as a consumable. Broken X-Pan lenses seem to be rarer than hens'
teeth.


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

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
  > >
  > > If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large enough to
  > > do 6x17 in two scans.
 >
 > Minolta Scan Multi-Pro. I think this will also do it in two, though I
 > haven't tried it yet. It's more 'nuisance value' than real impracticality
 > that bothers me...
 >
  > > Film flatness is a bear, though, so if you've got the
  > > ventilation, the Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely
  > > attractive.
  > >
 >
 > Not something I know about - is that Nikon specific, if not where can I
find
 > more? (Or should I just do a search on the name?)

Nikon specific.

FWIW: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm</a>

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

Bandicoot wrote:

 > . . . . . . . .
  > >
  > > 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.
 >
 > Got one of them

Lucky you!

 >
 >
 > Very nice it is too - bought it, along with the rest of the X-Pan kit, with
 > some money left me by my grandmother, who _many_ years before gave me my
 > first SLR. I think she'd approve.

My grandmother encouraged my painting skills, and is one reason I finally got
an art degree. I think if she were still alive, she would be happy at some of
the achievements I have made.

 >
 >
   > > >
   > > > 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.
 >
 > There seems a steady market for adapters to put P6 lenses onto most 645
 > bodies, and (which I understand a little less well) most 35mm mounts too.
 > I'm sure I'm not the only X-Pan owner who'd like the idea of shift lenses,
 > glass longer than 90mm, faster glass, and/or that fisheye...

I know a CNC programmer who would jump at the job, though of course the issue
of patents needs to be solved. Perhaps Hasselblad could be encouraged to allow
a short run to test the concept.

 >
 >
 > If I was sure there'd be no problem with a patent on the mount (ie., if I
 > had time to research it) I'd order up a batch of ten or twenty X-Pan to
 > T-Mount adapters or something similar (so they could be given any front end)
 > and sell the rest on *Bay.

I am not so sure about T-mount adapters. The Xpan lenses are basically a 645
style of construction, though the size makes a few other choices possible.
Current Hasselblad SLR lenses might be one direction. A Nikon mount,
considering how many manual focus lenses they have on the market (new & used),
is another consideration, and that would allow using other adapters. A Leica M
mount would unfortunately not work due to the too short mount to film distance.

 >
  > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > 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.
 >
 > Silvestri et al use a tilting finder to deal with shift: shouldn't be too
 > hard to build something like that.

I have looked at their design. I think it would be complicated to graft onto an
existing camera, though I agree that it is a nice solution.

 > Of course, even more fun would be being
 > able to use tilt for vertical panoramas - but that's definitely a bridge too
 > far for the X-Pan (for me at least). I'll still go to MF (and LF) for that.

Consider something like a Nikkor 35 mm Shift lens has a view angle like a
cropped 21 mm (approx.). Using a 21 mm finder, and etching lines to show
changes of shift amount, would work nicely. Any shift lens with marked shift
distance could use that type of solution. The medium format shift lenses might
be a better choice due to greater coverage.

 >
 >
  > >
   > > > 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.
 >
 > Good point, the Bronica debacle would be enough to scare anyone off.

I still like the RF645, and think it is a wonderfully ergonomic design.
Unfortunately, it seems that Tamron will not put any more development into it.

 >
 >
  > > 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.
 >
 > Yes, a magnifier would be a very nice, simple, solution. Wonder why not...

Sales might not be good enough currently to entice Hasselblad to manufacture
something. This is another thing that a third party company might be able to
produce in small quantities, if permission is given by Hasselblad.

 >
 >
  > >
   > > >
   > > > 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.
 >
 > They charge more here, and as you say, a bayonet takes some time.

I am still working on my project camera, though it is going slowly. I have a
couple different shutters now, but a few details still need to be worked out. I
am leaning towards doing a 6x6 version to allow some shift, and make it more
like an SWC.

 >
 >
  > >
  > > 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.
 >
 > Alas the body caps are plastic. I suppose I could experiment with one just
 > to see how rigid it is: it would wear out in use, but maybe be cheap enough
 > to regard as a consumable. Broken X-Pan lenses seem to be rarer than hens'
 > teeth.
 >
 > Peter

The plastic body cap could be used to make a mold, then a casting could be
done. Anyway, it at least provides some dimensions to start. I would not trust
a plastic mount with any lenses, even though some companies sell cameras and
lenses like that currently.

Ciao!

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

" -" <xvvvz.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OxEKd.672$Ix.496@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
  > > If you have the Nikon 8000/9000, it's just large
  > > enough to do 6x17 in two scans. Film flatness is a
  > > bear, though, so if you've got the ventilation, the
  > > Kami-fluid carrier sounds extremely attractive.
 >
 > You can also use flatbeds a number of current flatbeds.
 > While initially the scans are not as sharp as the Nikon's,
 > very acceptable scans can be achieved with the right
 > post processing skills and you can scan a 6x17 in one
 > pass. Canon and Microtek now have some decent
 > 6x17 holders standard with their higher end models.
 >

Thanks for that thought. I use my old flat bed to do low res. scans of 4x5
(I have to send it out for really good scans, but this is OK for making
thumbnails and images to email). Unfortunatley the transparency hood for it
isn't long enough to cover a 6x17, so I think I'm stuck with the two pass
approach in my Minolta scanner for now. Still, it's something to bear in
mind when/if I replace my flatbed, since it isn't going to last forever.

 > Doug
 > --
 > Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of
 > 120/220 medium format film:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html</font" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html</font</a>>
 >

Hmmm - I've archived the link so that if I ever get a better flatbed I can
go back to that. Thanks.


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