Considering the rapid development in digital cameras I was hoping there would surface something refreshing, like a pocketable or at least, small sized panoramic camera anytime soon. I like things square, or wide. Square I can manage by cropping, but panoramic...
At the end of my film days I had the Hasselblad X-pan II with 45 and 90mm lenses and I absolutely loved the camera as such. Lenses were superb and I loved the panoramic format. The 16:9 option on my little Leica is nice, but it doesn't really cut it for printing big.
I think stitching works, in a pinch, but I would love to frame and compose on the spot and do as little post pro as possible when it comes to the composition. I am not thrilled by the 4:3 format but I think the size of the cameras are starting to look like something, like the Oly EP-1. Imagine a panoramic camera, not that much bigger...
Given todays sensor technology why not join two sensors side by side and make a camera that would produce excellent panoramic images in a smallish package? Or has it been done already??!
The closest thing would be the GH1 in 16:9 mode. Unlike the G1, the GH1 maintains full resolution in the 3 main apect ratio modes (4:3, 3:2, 16:9) since it uses a 14MP multi-fpormat sensor like the LX3's to deliver 12MP files in each of those modes (1:1 is however cropped down).
I don't think we'll see one that is affordable anytime soon. That's the big shame of digital in my mind: the total homogenization of camera offerings. I know people wax endlessly about the differences between a D300 and a 5DII, but they are essentially the same thing. Gone are XPans, TLRs, 4x5s, Holgas, Pen-Fs, 6x17s, minoxes, nickelodeon photoblasters, rangefinders, pinholes made out of a hatbox, swing-lens panoramic camers, etc.
Yeah I know that technically equivalents to some of those do exist, but the choices are pretty limited for reasonable prices. Little P&S with crummy controls, amateur dSLR, and professional dSLR. From a handful of manufacturers too.
Jos: that is exactly what I want to avoid; lugging a tripod and having to work with several images to achieve just the one panoramic. I'd much rather use a panoramic camera and crop down later if needed than stitch up.
Well, one of these days an Xpan-sized panoramic digital is bound to come, that's what I am hoping for. I ain't holding my breath but I think there definitely would be a market for it.
Yeah, there probably is a market. But small, so it'd be expensive. And the manufacturer probably wouldn't have access to the expertise and economies of scale that Nikon and Canon do, so the tech wouldn't be quite as good. People would decry it for being over priced, especially since there's banding in the shadows at ISO 1600, and it's not as good as a D700. Why spend all that money when you can just stitch two 1DIIIS frames together. And on and on.
I hope someone does it too. It'd be pretty cool. It'd be like a Leica M8 all over again in these forums though :P
There are quite a few advantages for a digital panoramic camera over, say, the Xpan.
The size could be equal, if sensors were two 24x36mm side by side - which would be intriguing for sure and something to wish for though I am sure two 4/3rd sensors would perform remarkably well and keep cost and size down. High ISO performance would be of lesser importance (than in your average dSLR) but judging from what the 4/3rd sensors are capable of I think ISO 800 would still look great.
There could be a version with interchangeable lenses (why not use the excellent Fuji/Xpan lenses as a starting point?) or it could be a short zoom, ranging from quite wide to normal or short tele. If the lens is integrated then the package surely would become somewhat smaller and short focusing distance would be easier to achieve. As for viewfinders... ...well, imagine a camera as small as the Oly EP1 - just a tad wider... ...I could then live with a screen, wouldn't mind one that swivels out though.
Also, considering how great the electronic level in the Ricoh GRDII works, of course this would be incorporated in the design.
In short a panoramic camera, the size of a widened Oly EP-1 with a better back display, a lens that does ... say equivalent of 24mm up to 60/80mm? WIth a electronic level, antishake, dust shaker-thingy and a sensor that would give some 16-24MP on the wide side of things?
I would turn my wallet inside out to get it and go traveling a lot for sure.
I think any panoramic format would have the same issues with vignetting that a full-framed rangefinder would have. Film is a lot more accepting to light coming in at oblique angles. A double wide chip is going to have those problems most likely. Unless of course you design big retro-focus, telecentric lenses. To cover something that is 72 mm wide while still being nice and telecentric, you're talking about medium format territory, *not* xpan type lenses. So it'd pretty big most likely. Many of the real panoramic cameras that I know of rely on film's acceptance of light coming in at crazy angles. Even then, a lot of them have heavy vignetting on the outer parts of the frame.
Of course you could use a 36x12 sensor instead. Then your probably looking at lenses the size of the normal Canon and Nikon lenses and cameras roughly dSLR sized. Unless it was a high pixel density chip, you could just of course use your Canon or Nikon and crop down to 3:1.
I'm not saying that it's impossible. I think it would be great. But I have a sneaking suspicion it's a ways off in the future. Film has a big advantage here over digital - you can mount it flat, curved, at large angles, etc, and it still records an image.
Yep, you have a point there. I could do with a 36x12mm sensor if the camera was small enough though I would much rather have a somewhat larger sensor.
I am aware of the issues with verrry wide angles on digital sensors but since the lens can be realised without having to accommodate for a mirror it could still be made small, and if the objective is to create a more or less pocketable camera with say, an f4 lens covering a wide angle I am sure it can be done already. Just look at the Oly EP-1 and the relatively small 14-42 lens. Now make it just a wee bit bigger and you are there. I could live with the lens being a f3.5/f4 and equivalent of 24-60mm. That would serve me just fine. (Just like the Leica D-Lux4 I have - just a wee bit bigger ... )
As for the Xpan lenses I thought they were in fact covering (almost) medium format despite their small size, which is hardly a surprise as they have to cover twice the width of the small format. Yet, they do this with small lenses. The 45 and the 90 are relatively small, although they are f4 lenses.
I would not mind the lens being f4 if it kept them small. I wouldn't mind "some" extra bulk if the optics and sensors are first rate. If it worked anything like the Xpan the lenses would be dual lenses just like on the Xpan, for added versatility.
Also I share your belief that we won't see one just around the corner... ...I just hope we are both wrong.
kosmoskatten wrote:
As for the Xpan lenses I thought they were in fact covering (almost) medium format despite their small size, which is hardly a surprise as they have to cover twice the width of the small format. Yet, they do this with small lenses. The 45 and the 90 are relatively small, although they are f4 lenses.
I probably shouldn't say this because I've never really looked at the xpan lenses, but I'm guessing they were kept small in large part due to the fact that they are symmetric lens designs and not retrofocus.
Take a look at the difference between the 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC and the 40mm Distagon for the Hasselblad SLR. The Biogon is much smaller, sits much closer to the film plane, and can't be used on an SLR with a mirror. All while being actually better than the Distagon in terms of distortion. Those kinds of designs are very tough to use on digital because the outer edges of the film/sensor are being hit by rays of light far from perpendicular.
So with film SLRs you had one problem using symmetric lens designs for wide angles - you didn't leave enough space between the back of the lens and the film plane for a mirror assembly. With digital (SLR or not) you have the additional problem that sensors like their light coming in perpendicular to their surface. Micro lenses can help this, but at this point in time, there's only so much you can do.
I would think a digital xpan equivalent is going to be much harder than a full frame digital Leica M. If and when Leica (or someone else) solves that problem, maybe an xpan equivalent is next.
Just buy 2 GF1's and stick them together on a connecting piece attached to the tripod sockets. Use a split remote release and voila. This wouldn't be much bigger than more panoramic cameras. Someone else does something very similar with Powershots for 3D images.
Do you mean, printing panoramic? Because the Xpan is 135 and the 617 uses 120/220 rolls. All are still processed, though usually in less populated area away from urban centers, you won't find a lab to turn it around in 24 hours or less.
As to scanning - I'm sure a service bureau that uses either Nikon 9000s, Minolta Dimages or even drum scanners or Flextights, etc. can scan any of those formats handily.
mogan wrote:
Does anybody still do processing for panoramic film> xpan 35mm? 617? What about scanning?
Do you want to buy my Gaoersi? Its a medium format film based camera that can shoot 6x17, 6x15, and 6x12.
It has a Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm lens, viewfinder, and magnetic rear ground glass. No electronics of any kind but it shoots great panos that can be scanned to huge files...
You can buy other lens mounts to fit other LF lenses etc...
