Another XPan owner here. Yes, it's a great camera, and the lenses are lovely, and the aspect ratio is really great, with plenty of interesting uses. I rarely use the 'normal' 3x2 mode you can select, but there is a certain joy of realising that if you switch to it, it shuffles the film back by counting sprocket holes so that you don't lose any space on the film.
The sprocket reading mechanism uses IR if I remember correctly, so you can't use IR film in the XPan without getting leaks from this mechanism.
Also, labs used to automatically mess up cutting negative into strips for this due to the unusual framing, so you are best to home develop or use a pro lab that understand this sort of thing.
If you like the look, but can't or don't want to afford an XPan, the other option that I can think of is to get a Mamiya 7 with their 35mm adapter plate, giving the same aspect ratio. I've not tried it, because instead, I just shoot 120 film in a Mamiya 7 and crop if this is the aspect ratio I want. I also get shift for free doing this...
The other option i've tried, which is mind blowingly awesome is a Fuji 617, which is the XPan aspect ratio on 120 film. The problem is that you need an 8*10 enlarger to print these, and obviously the cost per shot is higher, but the quality is beyond what you can imagine.
I had both the X-Pan II and the Fuji G617, sold them 3 years ago when I disposed of almost all my film cameras. Amazing cameras, the X-Pan notably makes a Leica feel insubstantial.
It's surprising there isn't a digital equivalent yet other than the incredibly expensive (and discontinued) Seitz Digital 6x17.
I suppose you could rig something like a trio of Ricoh GRIII or GRIIIx mounted on a rail with three overlapping fields of view, with a single electronic control so they are triggered at the same time, and then stitched later.
If you think you might want an XPan, spend eighty bucks on a Lomography Sprocket Rocket and see if 24x72 is really a way you want to make photographs.
You see, the thing about the sprocket rocket is it comes with an insert to mask the sprocket holes...well and the other thing is you won't worry about dropping it because it is both cheap and rugged enough to survive three feet onto concrete and lacking electronics falling into the stream adding foreground interest to your volcanic Iceland panorama.
Plus it weighs nothing.
I ain't saying it is as good an Xpan, but if sharpness is the most interesting part of your pictures, it will be the cure.
And with all the money you'll save you can book a nice trip to Iceland.
I was lucky enough to buy my Xpan years ago, but I just want to put in a brief argument to not think of cameras lenses attached to interchangeable dark boxes. Especially now, a lot of the "value" of an expensive camera is the ability to select an interface that will best allow you to work. The Xpan, aside from having some neat lenses, is also one of the most advanced film cameras ever made. It will adjust from pano to traditional mid-roll, it will detect the film iso, it will wind the film for you. Sharpness is, imo, the least of it.
All that said, getting lomo cameras to try out a format is a very good idea and one I heartily recommend.
Agreed. Another cool feature is that the film is shot backwards - it unwinds the film, then shoots the film in reverse, winding it into the canister. This way, worst case, you loose one exposed frame if the back opens. It's this sort of clever thinking that sets this up as a great camera.
And I also picked one up years ago when they were relatively cheap!
Aside from the pano to traditional adjustment of course, everything else, the winding and the detecting ISO is pretty par for the course for late era film cameras. My olympus point and shoot does all that and more, it also has autofocus and autoexposure (spot and area) and multiple flash settings. Canon also had some very interesting film cameras, they had the eye control AF in them and it didn't come back to the digital lines until recently afaik.
I had a bunch of film cameras that would auto set the iso and auto advance the film.
How it did this is 35 mm film had the iso and length encoded on the canister as “dx” coding. There were a bunch of sensors in the camera that measured if one of the squares conducted or didn’t. It’s kinda a neat solution and worked well.
For some cameras that didn't allow custom iso adjustments (e.g if you were going to push or pull the film) you could scratch off or put tape over the dx code to make the camera think it was getting a different iso film and adjust autoexposure accordingly.
Or you can just buy a mid-range digital mirrorless or DSLR camera with a sufficiently wide FOV lens and then crop the photo. Most decent cameras offer an in-camera aspect ratio crop, or various grids, if you want to have the composition assistance.
A current sony mirrorless camera will blow the XPan out of the water in every possible sense unless you're shooting VERY high quality, VERY low ISO film, and the exposure time required for working with such a low ISO film means you probably lose whatever resolution advantage you might have gained.
Film is dead. It has worse resolution, dynamic range, sensitivity, and perhaps most importantly: workflow.
Film is so dead, in fact, that in cinematography, people shoot in digital and then apply postprocessing to make it look like film. Just as one can make a pristine recording sound like vinyl, one can make a digital camera look like film, because in both cases, digital is vastly technically superior.
I'm betting quite a few "I shoot 35mm film" snobs walked out of the theater after seeing Knives Out thinking to themselves "film's not dead, it's still better."
People like film because its a different process. You don't have to futz about lightroom to get the tones you want. You can get great shots with a camera you got at a thrift store. The battery lasts for what, months? The high cost per shot makes you shoot more for quality vs quantity. When I bring my digital camera someplace, there is a tendency for me to take 400 shots and then have a chore later going through that in lightroom. When I bring a film camera I take only a few dozen if that, and don't fret or do any post processing because I just accept how it develops and scans at my local lab. Post processing takes time, even if you have an automatic import workflow that takes time to establish and set up and chances are you are tweaking it all the time anyhow depending on lighting conditions.
Anecdotally the film lab in my city has been very busy with mostly younger people. Every time I go to drop off film I am waiting in line. People still shoot film and still buy polaroids even, despite this age of everyone having a phone that looks like a spider with the amount of lenses on the back.
> People like film because its a different process.
Some people like the process of large format film photography, even though it requires hauling 60 pounds of gear around with you. And hey, whatever works for your artistic process.
For professional use however the parent is right. Resolution, dynamic range, and the quality improvements of an all-digital workflow mean that from a technical standpoint you'd have to be nuts to choose film. And so the only reason left to choose film is because from an artistic standpoint the process better matches the artist's needs.
People are still shooting film, but it has gone from mainstream (remember film photo albums and polaroids?) to a niche product in a small and shrinking market. I feel like every so often I hear about another renowned photographic film being discontinued, or people complaining about another processing house closing its doors. At some point it will level out the way vinyl has, but for now I expect a very slow drumbeat of bad news for film lovers.
We're seeing the start of that process with DSLRs in the digital realm. None of the CaSoKon companies are making heavy investments in DSLRs, and the number sold has dipped below mirrorless cameras. It's already well along in the compact market segment, which has been absolutely wrecked by cell phones.
The thing that surprises me is that GoPros aren't the main way to film anything.
I would like to have a dedicated camera, that is more rugged than my old mirrorless. I don't want to pay for a weather sealed mirrorless. I don't want to buy an iPhone.
Why cant they make a GoPro-style camera that works like a very high end phone camera, with a zoom and a wide lens, and depth sensing?
Something you can keep in your pocket, use in pouring rain, but that's a bit better for filming other people doing stuff.
I shoot a Leica Q2 and a Contax G2, amongst other cameras, and the Q2 is fantastic, but there are things that the G2 lenses can do that nothing else can. I don’t care if it’s film or a sensor inside.
I also shoot with an old Rollei SL66. There are things that camera can do that no mirrorless can do. Reversible lenses? Scheimpflug adjustment? If you understand the tools technically and visually, then your mind’s eye is just more capable. Either I’m sat at a computer or stood in a darkroom - except other people do the darkroom bit for me, I have to do the computer bit myself.
Photography’s boundaries are no more about resolution, noise, dynamic range or workflow, any more than rock music is.
Sight isn’t in the eyes, hearing isn’t in the ears, defining senses by the sensors gathering the data is simplistic.
First, the attitudes around film v digital in still photography don’t have significant overlap with that of motion photography. Trying to clump the two together with a smug superiority is a misfire. The separation increases when talking about hobby/art still photography and comparing it to commercial cinema.
In fact, decommissioning of cinema film has been a boon for the quirky hobby photography market.
The superior process is the process that works for the person doing it. A photograph is ‘technically superior’ than a painted portrait but it is not a replacement.
> “Note that a Canon 40D, an APS-C camera that came out in 2007, had the image quality of medium format film, with greater dynamic range.”
Yeah, no it absolutely did not. It was 10 noisy megapixels and I have had one since it came out. The 5Dmk2 was close enough to be equivalent if you didn’t like grain. Also, a great deal of 40Ds just broke for no reason while sitting quietly in the shelf, quite literally dead. I have unmaintained cameras from the 60s that work fine.
Long before digital was a high fidelity choice, plenty of people intentionally chose ‘inferior’ video formats because they wanted the look it gave. People sometimes cut and paste with scissors and magazine pages, even if Photoshop is ‘superior.’
I generally try to use my own cameras to mimic a format to see if I like it, but this one does present enough of a challenge that a cheaper one to try it first might be in order.
Slightly off topic, but as much as I love panorama shots I personally prefer shooting square, even for landscape. I have my Canon set to mask square for that view, though I do save the whole RAW.
What an incredible article, conveying the excitement and passion for a niche subject so well and clearly even for the uninitiated. It's so rare these days. Much to learn about writing here too.
The pictures it produces have a very 'filmic' quality to them, as we are accustomed to the anamorphic format of motion pictures. Always wanted one after seeing Kai's pictures on this DigitalRev video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38plXCYCvKQ
Seeing how it has such a cult following and how much the prices have shot up on eBay, it boggles the mind that they won't make another version. There are a number of DIY projects on various websites that use medium format lenses with integrated shutters, however they usually end up quite expensive as well.
Why do websites insist on customizing their scrolling speeds? I'm used to my defaults so I get motion sickness browsing this website. It literally adds nothing positive to the experience - it doesn't look or feel nicer in any way, instead it feels worse and uses more processing power.
I find the camera to be perfect for environmental portraits. Not just because of the image quality or even the unique framing, but also because the camera itself looks so basic in comparison to over-designed professional-looking DSLRs. It feels much less threatening to your surroundings. Had a lot of fun with it as a travel camera: https://rybakov.com/blog/guinea_babka/
P.S. I own two XPans and would be willing to sell one. Hit me up if you are in Germany/EU and are interested.
I couldn’t find my preferred film in 35mm before a recent trip to Europe, so I brought my hasselblad 500cm with an 80mm lens. I found so many instances where I wished I had this camera, but I reserved myself to shooting 6x6 and cropping to 4x5 ratio.
I probably would fall into the trap of buying this camera for landscapes, taking a few photos with it that were amazing, not using it enough and selling it, then regretting that as well.
I always need to remind myself not to have this lens too wide open otherwise I can get the focus - it looks more or less fine on the screen, then when I develop the film it is on the nose instead of the eyes. Also I hate it that I can't come closer than 90 cm to the subject. My Mamiya RB is so much better in this respect, but completely unpractical for traveling.
My typical travel camera is a Leica with a DR summicron 50mm from the early 60s, but the film shortage messed up my plans. I get nailed by the super shallow depth of field on the hasselblad all the time, if you’re at 2.8 or 4 it’s so much more shallow than 2 on the 35mm. So I just take any low light photos with my iPhone and don’t waste the film, I’ve missed too many times.
The downside to travelling with 120 is now I have 18 rolls of film to dev and scan, instead of 6 rolls.
If you're in the market, I can suggest the Fuji TX-2 - which is exactly the same camera. They're both expensive, but you pay more for the Hasselblad logo.
