[HN Gopher] The Curse of the Hasselblad XPan
___________________________________________________________________
The Curse of the Hasselblad XPan
Author : mindracer
Score : 30 points
Date : 2022-07-14 10:04 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (casualphotophile.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (casualphotophile.com)
| [deleted]
| spython wrote:
| 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.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Cagey about what he paid for Hasselblad. (I don't know why people
| are that way.) Looks like on eBay they're going for about $6K.
|
| Yeah, that's steep. I maybe paid $500 for one of my nicer TLR
| cameras....
| kweks wrote:
| 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.
| quercusa wrote:
| I had a YashicaMat, which was a _cheap_ TLR, but Plus-X through
| that was gorgeous.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, got a Yaschica Mat 124G. It's a great film camera.
| cesaref wrote:
| 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.
| kweks wrote:
| Likewise the Fuji TX-2. Same camera, different logo. Still
| expensive, but less expensive.
| spython wrote:
| Mamiya 7 is great but got really expensive in the last years,
| not much cheaper than XPan.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I've wanted a Fuji 617 for years.
|
| I don't need one by any means; I just WANT one. Amazing camera
| that did it's own thing.
| fmajid wrote:
| 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.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| 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.
| kweks wrote:
| It really is an incredible piece of kit. I'd picked mine up
| (the Fuji TX-2 version) on a trip to Hong Kong for 2kUSD at the
| time.
|
| Dragged it literally around the world, but stopped using it
| because it was starting to show the wear, and I was scared of
| ruining it.
|
| I've shot a lot of digital and film since then, but nothing has
| ever come close to capturing the sheer beauty that drops out of
| this camera.
|
| Shooting on slide film and then diving in with a loupe abd a
| lightbox is like reliving the moment.
|
| If anyone is interested, this is my favourite roll of film from
| the camera (on the legendary Fuji Velvia 50 no less)
|
| http://travel.ninjito.com/2006-09-22
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| aeturnum wrote:
| 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.
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| cesaref wrote:
| 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!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| 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.
|
| Keep in mind this page was written over ten years ago:
| https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1...
|
| 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.
|
| On the full-frame front, a Canon 1Ds hit theoretical maximum
| signal to noise ratio at 100 ISO, and at ISO 800 still had
| better S/N ratio than ISO 50 film:
| https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/...
|
| 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."
|
| They wouldn't be alone; Steve Yedlin screened shots done on
| film and then digital, post-processed to look like film, and
| industry pros couldn't tell the difference:
| https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...
| asdff wrote:
| 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.
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| > 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.
| vr46 wrote:
| 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.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I like it because it's fun. There's a great deal of
| intentionality required when you only have 36 (or fewer)
| exposures, and each one costs you money.
|
| I also have a mirrorless that I use, but my film cameras are
| much more _fun_.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| 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.
| babo wrote:
| Web Archive:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220716173006/https://casualpho...
| lifeformed wrote:
| 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.
| haywirez wrote:
| 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.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| 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.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| 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.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| 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.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Gave my Mamiya RB to my daughter. We travelled with it -- in
| a van one summer (driving up the California and Oregon
| coast). Fun times.
|
| I prefer the smaller TLR's like the Yashica these days.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-16 23:01 UTC)