wanting a panoramic camera

[gmed]

I have a dilemma.

I currently own a Chamonix 45n-1 with Nikon 150mm and Rodenstock 90mm lenses.

I want to get into the panoramic photography as currently use my Nikon D800E and stitch, which gives me great shots so long as there isnt any movement.

question is, do I:

1. buy a used Fuji g617 or
2. Sen Hao 617, and if so, what lenses would I need? would my 90 work?

[richardman]

Get the Shen Hao, and yes, your lens will work as long as they more or less cover 5x7.

[Regular Rod]

Can you cope with a nominal 6x12 on 120 film?

98501

You could build your own HolgAgon (http://freepdfhosting.com/b316cbe2ff.pdf) quite easily with just a few hand tools and a short list of bits from eBay. Mine cost me £167 to build in Rip Off Britain. It would be much less in the USA.

You can see some of the results here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/regular_rod/).

RR

[Lachlan 717]

Shen Hao will give you choice of many lenses, as well as movements.

Fuji is easier to use as a P&S.

I've owned both. I now only own the Shen. So many more options/uses.

Where are you based?

[Carsten Wolff]

There are so many choices of course; you could also buy a decent used 5x7" camera and a 6x17 back (or even a 6x17 adapter for your 4x5", but you'll be limited esp. on the wide-angle end):
E.g. my most commonly used 6x17 toy is my old 5x7" Arca-Swiss onto which I grafted a nice Canham 617 back. Most of my 4x5" lenses go well with that. (IC needed is 179mm + movements)
Lastly, and alternatively, you can just get a 6x12 back and crop a bit if you prefer that ~1:3 ratio, or even just crop your 4x5" sheets accordingly.
In that case, for a wider look, you could get e.g. a 65mm lens, but you might find the 90mm still a perfect match.

[Otto Seaman]

Noblex... 617 flat backs are going to be just like your 4x5s cropped.

[Jim Becia]

Noblex... 617 flat backs are going to be just like your 4x5s cropped.

Could you explain what you mean?

[Jon Shiu]

Make a pano shaped mask and tape it to your 4x5 ground glass.

Jon

[luis a de santos]

If you already have good lenses then the Shen Hao is your best choice.
I have the 6x17 and I am getting the 6x24.
It works quite beautifully, full movements and very light and portable.
I use a Schneider 72XL, Nikkor 90,Fuji 210 and Nikkor T450 and there is enough bellows.
Go ahead you will enjoy the camera.

Luis

[Lachlan 717]

One other reason to get the Shen: You'll be allowed to post your results here. The G617, being a P&S 120, is not considered LF on this site...

[Lachlan 717]

I use a Schneider 72XL, Nikkor 90,Fuji 210 and Nikkor T450 and there is enough bellows.

Luis

Is there such a lens as a Nikkor T450?

[rich815]

I agree with some of the above: just crop your 4x5 shots by masking your ground glass. Done. You now have a pano camera.

[Jac@stafford.net]

One other reason to get the Shen: You'll be allowed to post your results here. The G617, being a P&S 120, is not considered LF on this site...

Seriously?

OP - there is also the Horseman 6x12 with 35mm Rodenstock Grandagon.

[Lachlan 717]

Seriously?



Yep. And so, too, most 6x12. It's tough enough to argue 6x17 is LF, let alone anything smaller.

6x17 is only tolerated if taken on a Field-style camera.

[Otto Seaman]

I wonder how many digital images are "misremembered" as large-format?

[Yo' Vinny]

I've got a 4x5 and an 8x10 on the way. I've shot 120 film on a 6x12 back as well as standard digital panoramic with nodal point swing equipment. You can't beat the convenience of digital panoramic and the stitching technology is better than ever, but there are still limitations. There is no discounted the 'single click' accuracy of large format wide lenses laid across a panoramic crop. 120 film is definitely more convenient than sheet film, but honestly I've reach a point where I go to film when I want the best results and have the patience and time to get the shot I really want. This is why I've committed myself to start taking 4x10 shots with an 8x10 half darkslide setup. I figure if it the scene is grand enough to lug the equipment there in the first place, it's good enough to permit the patience and eventual image quality of an 8x10 format cropped to landscape.

IMHO.

[rich815]

Some beautiful work there RR.


Can you cope with a nominal 6x12 on 120 film?

98501

You could build your own HolgAgon (http://freepdfhosting.com/b316cbe2ff.pdf) quite easily with just a few hand tools and a short list of bits from eBay. Mine cost me £167 to build in Rip Off Britain. It would be much less in the USA.

You can see some of the results here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/regular_rod/).

RR

[Vaughn]

Make a pano shaped mask and tape it to your 4x5 ground glass.

Jon

On larger formats I have modified darkslides to get two pano images on a single sheet of 8x10. But 4x5 film is cheap enough to just crop to one pano shot. The following are about 7x19 inch silver gelatin enlargements from 4x5 negatives. All with a 150mm lens.

[Otto Seaman]

Can you cope with a nominal 6x12 on 120 film?

98501

You could build your own HolgAgon (http://freepdfhosting.com/b316cbe2ff.pdf) quite easily with just a few hand tools and a short list of bits from eBay. Mine cost me £167 to build in Rip Off Britain. It would be much less in the USA.

You can see some of the results here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/regular_rod/).

RR

I'm too lazy but somebody should do a little cottage industry run of these for $x hundred bucks.

[kim4650]

try with www.fotoman.cc
they have better panoramic , i have their 617 excellent 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. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF6x17cm.html) 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.

[sanking]

If you want great sharpness over the entire format get a Noblex 150 or 175. This swing lens camera is a lot of fun to work with, and in terms of sharpness over the whole fiield can really beat up on both the Fuji and Linhof 6X17.

Sandy

[LF_rookie_to_be]

'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....


Otto, how would you compare film flatness in later Graflex backs to Linhof backs? Specifically I mean a RH-50 (70mm film) back vs. Techno Rollex 6x12 back. My idea is to widen the window in RH-50 (which would eliminate pinch rollers) to 12 cm in order to get 6x12 shots on 70mm film. Also, looking at the rubber rollers in RH-50, the top of the rollers is just slightly above the level of the pressure plate. I thought to thin the rollers down to exactly the same level as the plate, and then paint them black, to reduce reflections when using films with no anti-halo layer. Could this work?

[Otto Seaman]

I don't know. But why would anyone want to use 70mm film?