6x17: Down the Slippery Slope!

[Lachlan 717]

A lot of responders don't fully understand the Technorama 617 S III concept. Yes, it takes 2.5 x 6.75" panoramas, And yes, that could also be done on a 5x7 view cam,era with two images per sheet. But have you ever walked above Dead Horse Point or through Death Valley or around Arches or through San Francisco carrying a view camera and however many holders you can carry along with a tripod and head big enough to hold the camera system?

The Technorama, if used without its shift adapter, is totally hand holdable. The finder has a very accurate frame that shows 90% of the field and that has a visible level that, if you use it, ensures that you prevent convering verticals in both portrait and landscape positions. In addition a refernce in the finder ensures level horizons. With a pocket full of 120 or 220 film you can wander and shoot, hand held, and make beautiful 5 and 6' wide prints!

Look exposure times, not a problem! One, you don't need a heavy tripod, should you feel you want to carry one for the T 617 S III, Even a Linhof Light weight Pro with a simple ball head is more then enough. Two, brace the camera against a tree, wall, rock, etc. for long exposures.

Using the 72mm, 90mm, 110mm, 180mm hand holding is no problem. With the 250mm it may start to become a problem. Also if you want to use the shift adapter you would also want to use the GG adapter and then you would need a tripod so you see what you shot as hand holding would not guarantee that you didn't re=position the camera and the view finders do not show the shifted field.

So yes, it is easy to shoot on a view camera but not nearly as convenient, or inconspicuous. A T 617 SIII may not be a miniature camera but carried on your shoulder and shot hand held it ios much more candid then a 5x7 on a tripod with a darkcloth.

In the interest of providing full information to the OP, the Fotoman, DaYi, Gaoersi and Art Panoramas can all do this as well on 120 film. At a fraction of the price of the Linhof (if price is a concern).

[Bob Salomon]

In the interest of providing full information to the OP, the Fotoman, DaYi, Gaoersi and Art Panoramas can all do this as well on 120 film. At a fraction of the price of the Linhof (if price is a concern).

120 is 4 shots per roll, you carry a lot less film and spend a lot less time loading and unloading on 220.

[Lachlan 717]

Again, in the interest of full information for the OP, 220 film is now very thin on the ground for options.

I also neglected to add the 2 Fuji Panoramic cameras to the options I listed.

The G617 and GX617 will shoot 220.

I also believe that the Horseman 617 shoots 220.

But, do your research. Do the films you intend to use come in 220? Do you switch film types often so don't need 220's added frames? Do you even want to shoot handheld?

[Kuzano]

Certainly worth consideration and a try, but limited in its application.

Your points are well taken. Using software to created panoramas does dictate being cautious in rapidly changing light, moving subjects and exposure times, not to mention close attention to a horizontal fixing of the camera AND a horizontal plane of rotation for the tripod head or camera base if handholding. I have hand held and successfully stitched up to three shots of 6X9 for close to 6X24.

But some examples that may get tricky are, for instance:
1) A marina full of power boats
2) A marina full of sail boats with tall masts
3) A marina full of sail boats with wind and rolling waves...

If you can image. The still marina with power boats will be easy at the stitches, but one must take care on directional change of sunlight reflecting on the water for exposure values. Taking those things into consideration, this shot should be easy to put together.

Second example will be the care taken to make sure the masts on the sail boats are fairly steady, as they will be an issue in the stitch areas of the panorama if moving much at all.

Third example, the rolling of sailboats and mast movement would like blow the image out at the stitch points, precluding any workable images.

So, yes, there are considerations and potential issues with stitched panoramas. However, knowing and working around these issues, I've still gotten more keeper than not, and found out my feelings about panoramic image production. I like it, and I have not spent any money on equipment to find that out. It remains to be seen whether I like it enough to purchase hundreds of dollars of equipment to continue, or plug along with my panoramic workaround.

I'm pretty sure that if I go with dedicated equipment, it will be a 6X17 Fuji, rather than a panoramic back for a large format camera.

I have used the cut down dark slide method on 4X5, achieving close to 6X12, and getting four pano's to a double film holder.

It just seems to me that packing a dedicated camera and using roll film is easier in getting around and setting up than any of the large format add_ons.

[Lachlan 717]

I'm pretty sure that if I go with dedicated equipment, it will be a 6X17 Fuji, rather than a panoramic back for a large format camera.

My only advice here is, if you already have lens/lenses mounted on Linhof-style boards, consider a camera that accepts these (whether this is a 4x5/5x7 with film back or something like the Shen Hao cameras is something you'll decide). Having access to multiple lenses at short notice is a very important criteria for me. It might/might not be for you.

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

I have in the past, every now and then, used the dark slide mask to divide 13x18 (5x7), and even 8x10" transparencies in two panoramic images. Gorgeous!
Nowadays, the prohibitive color film prices and development are less than encouraging to follow that route. Not to mention that such films are getting rare...
For simplicity's and price sake, I went panoramic with 120: with a Horseman 6x12 back for the 4x5" cameras, and with a Horseman SW612Pro. Both ways allow for movements and interchangeability of lenses with the ease of use of roll film. If I had the funds for it, I would like to try the Horseman 617 (I find the Horseman models much more interesting than the Fuji, or even the Linhofs, because of the shift capabilities, ease of use of ground glass, etc. The Rodenstock lenses are GREAT!).
Another consideration is the 6x17 backs for 4x5 cameras, but I haven't made up my mind yet. That's probably the cheapest way to go, although you need a tripod (I always use one with such equipment anyway!).
If perspective correction is important for you, you should not buy something that doesn't allow for movements, no matter how nice and good it is. That's my modest opinion.
Greetings,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY

[Lachlan 717]

There is, of course, the Glide 617 that nobody ever seems to mention.

Mind you, for the price, you could get a 2 lens Linhof system...

[shadowleaves]

Horseman sw617 only accepts 120 film.

The back paper of 120 film adds an extra layer of protection against fogging and many people prefer the extra safety. Also in many countries other than the US, 220 film is not widely available.

Again, in the interest of full information for the OP, 220 film is now very thin on the ground for options.

I also neglected to add the 2 Fuji Panoramic cameras to the options I listed.

The G617 and GX617 will shoot 220.

I also believe that the Horseman 617 shoots 220.

But, do your research. Do the films you intend to use come in 220? Do you switch film types often so don't need 220's added frames? Do you even want to shoot handheld?

[antinapple]

None of these cameras have a Grafloc back -- is one of those a prerequisite? What are my options, or where can I go to learn about this stuff? My Google-fu seems to be weak today...

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

There is, of course, the Glide 617 that nobody ever seems to mention.

Mind you, for the price, you could get a 2 lens Linhof system...

Yes, there were times that I dreamt about a Dr. Gilde camera...
But if some of the cameras that we've been discussing here are expensive, the Gilde ones are REALLY so.
220 film capability is, in my opinion, more and more irrelevant, as the market schrinks and shrinks. We can be happy that we still have something to shoot in 120! For how long?
As a matter of fact, I can't remember shooting any 220 film for the last 25 or so years. I also don't own any more a camera that can use it, I guess. I also don't miss it!
Greetings,
Rui