wanting a panoramic camera

[Lachlan 717]

try with www.fotoman.cc
they have better panoramic , i have their 617 excellent camera .

Better than what? The Fuji? The Shen?

Still a P&S, with the similar limitations as the Fuji. No movements, limited lens choices, size/volume of nose cones and limited close focus. Also, harder to use than the Fuji, as you don't have a lever advance (if "rapid" shooting is your method).

Finally, more expensive than the (similar) DaYi/Gaoersi.

[luis a de santos]

Is there such a lens as a Nikkor T450?

I guess I meant 400T

[Scott Davis]

There's always a Canham 5x12 if your budget allows. That's a sweet camera. I'll try and shoot a few with mine this weekend and post them. The lens requirements are effectively the same as 8x10, so if it covers 8x10, it covers 5x12.

[Lachlan 717]

I guess I meant 400T

The Fujinon 400mm T? Nikon also doesn't make a 400mm Tele.

[gmed]

Would I be able to use my Rodenstock 90mm with all the movements with the Shen? or do I need to by a lens suited for 5x7? that would be an additional cost.

What about my Nikon 150mm for the 4x5?

[Louis Pacilla]

I guess I meant 400T

Hey Luis. I bet you meant the Nikon Nikkor-M- 450mm f9 in Copal #3.

[Lachlan 717]

Hey Luis. I bet you meant the Nikon Nikkor-M- 450mm f9 in Copal #3.

I bet that he didn't; the Shen doesn't have the bellow draw for that lens.

[Lachlan 717]

Would I be able to use my Rodenstock 90mm with all the movements with the Shen? or do I need to by a lens suited for 5x7? that would be an additional cost.

What about my Nikon 150mm for the 4x5?

Have a look at this spreadsheet. Should give you a good idea of what will/won't cover 6x17cm format.

[Scott Davis]

IIRC, the Fuji 400T actually covers LESS than the 300T. I had the 300T and it would cover 5x7 with minimal movement, so it would work for 6x17 as well, but still, minimal movement. And unlike more conventional lenses, the falloff isn't from useable image circle to even illumination, it's a pretty abrupt cutoff - from good image circle directly into no image at all.

[Otto Seaman]

I've only used the Linhof and Fuji 6x17s but what I found that as you go wider with 120 film, film flatness plays a major role in final sharpness and image quality. I found this out doing some large group portraits, using my 4x5, a borrowed Fuji, and a rented Linhof. The Fuji looked good at first but wasn't as sharp as either the Linhof or my 4x5 when I compared and enlarged them in direct comparison.

The suspicious side of me thinks that you get what you pay for, seeing the difference between a pretty well-regarded Fuji versus the more expensive and higher build quality Linhof. What surprised me is that my 4x5 held its own against the Linhof 617... and the only reason I can deduce is that the 4x5 had better film flatness than any of the roll film cameras.

It's what has kept me from getting some sort of inexpensive Chinese rollback based camera that relies on even more primitive film spooling and tension controls than the Fuji or Linhof. What is there to keep the film in tension after you advance it? Heck it probably is billowing during a long exposure....

You could pick up that $500 5x7 Wista Rittereck in the classifieds, throw the 90 on it, buy some 5x7 film and probably blow away any roll film system, IMHO.

I like that modified Holga idea as well, just for fun. And I wouldn't discount a swing lens Noblex since you already have a 4x5. Noblexes are darn sharp and they do hold the film taunt.