PDA

View Full Version : Panoramic formats comparison on the web???



HeinrichVoelkel
03-10-2008, 06:11 AM
Hello,

for an upcoming project I want to shoot panoramic images...but I cant decide on the format...


Is there any comparison of the various panoramic formats on the web...with different lenses...and please let it better be visual...as numbers, like angle of coverage dont really help me...

Google didn't bring much up so far.....

Thanks in advance,

Heinrich

Ian Grant
03-10-2008, 06:30 AM
You need to decide whether you are going to use something like a 35mm Widepan or a 120 panoramic camera, or going to one of the more exotic sheet film formats like 4x10, 7x17.

The manufacturers have plenty of information on their sites, look at Hasselblad, Fuji, Fotoman or Gaoersi for film cameras. The options are quite extensive and cameras like the Fotoman and Gaoersi can be found in 6x12, 6x17 & 6x24 and as lenses can be changed from WA's such as a 75mm Super Angulon to 300mm, and often the format (a 6x17 can be used as 6x15 & 6x12) the flexibility is vast.

Ian

HeinrichVoelkel
03-10-2008, 07:03 AM
Thanks Ian,

but I want to use a 120 panoramic one. I'm trying to decide between 6x12 or 6x17. I did have a look at the manufactures websites, but with Horseman for example, there only numbers no visual comparison of lenses etc.

Ian Grant
03-10-2008, 07:09 AM
You could try this website (http://www.panographica.com/links/) go down the page and there are extensive links to Panoramic websites.

Ian

Ian Grant
03-10-2008, 07:22 AM
Heinrich, I bought a Gaoersi 6x17 and it's excellent, I can use it as 6x12 as well, but I always want the wider format image, I shoot exclusively with a 75mm Super Angulon, although I do have a 90mm Grandagon fittted to a Gaoersi focus mount too but I never use it.

There's also a 6x17 group on Yahoo, and a few APUG members post there.

Ian

Eyepix
04-19-2008, 05:52 PM
Hey all,
I need a lens unit for the Horseman SW617 that will fit a 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon f6.8. Everywhere I look I only have the option to buy the lens with the lens unit (focusing ring, et all). But I already have the lens and I just want the ring. Does anyone know where I can get this? I emailed Horseman sales department but I haven't heard from them. Any info would be great.

One more question. I had a Gaoersi 6x17 and I always had problems with overlappping of the frames. Does the Fotoman 6x17 have the same problem? Again thanks for any info.

Scott Squires
04-20-2008, 07:11 PM
One more question. I had a Gaoersi 6x17 and I always had problems with overlappping of the frames. Does the Fotoman 6x17 have the same problem? Again thanks for any info.[/QUOTE]

I have the Fotoman 617 and have not had any problem with frames overlapping. It really is a nice well built camera for the price. I already had the 110XL and Fotoman had the cone for it so it saved buying another lens.

Scott

Eyepix
04-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Thanks Scott. Thats good news. Have you heard anyone else complain about the Gaoersi? Since the first day I received it I've had nothing but trouble. I'm still interested in getting another 617 camera and maybe the fotoman is the answer to my troubles.

mammolo
04-21-2008, 03:08 AM
I used for about three years an excellent Horseman SW612 with a Rodenstock 65mm. I bought a 6x12 because I felt - after trying for a few months a rented Linhof Technorama 617 - that 6x12 was less extreme and more useful than a 6x17. During those years I never missed a 6x17.

I sold the Horseman because I needed some money for another project and at the time my photography had shifted away from a 1:2 form factor.

A few months ago I sold all my 4x5 equipment, found myself with an excellent Schneider SA 72mm XL left that I really did not want to part with. For an upcoming project I bought a Fotoman 617 to put the SA on and have been using it since with no problem whatsoever.

All this to simply summarize my opinion:
1. 6x12 or 6x17 is really a personal and a subject matter choice. I would venture and say that 6x24 is probably not my cup of tea now or ever.
2. One should look at the whole chain, e.g., scanning a 6x12 is somewhat simpler than scanning a 6x17 and a bit more affordable.

A last point - somewhat controversial, I understand - has to do with that fact that with panorama formats the risk of not "committing oneself" to a subject is always present. One shoots the nice elongated scene, maybe is a nice sunset, sunrise, younameit, but there actually is no "focus", no "commitment". The playing it safe a.k.a. "I just cover all there is to be covered and I will get a nice photo", I mean. I find that staying away from this pitfall gets trickier the more elongated the format is. And I am the very first one to fall into it more often than not, I confess. But, hey, maybe it's just me.

On this last point I hope I was able to explain myself and hopefully did not ruffle too many feathers.

Cheers!

P.S. On my site you can see some examples of 6x17 negatives (http://www.resonantlink.com/Photo_Our_Bays-E.html)

Ian Grant
04-21-2008, 07:52 AM
I've been using my Gaoersi for about 11 months now, if frames overlap that's purely user error. You do need to do an initial test, determine where you place the frame no's for 6x17, usually 2, 5, 8 & 11, and on the right of the film widow, but there's always plenty of space between each frame.

Lack of a darkroom has meant I shot about 25 films be finally printing but the images from the Gaoersi are superb and the build quality is excellent, I guess maybe they have improved.

Ian

Eyepix
04-22-2008, 01:25 AM
No worries, no ruffled feathers here. Thanks for your input guys. I guess the frames overlapping were due to my not understanding or getting used to advancing the film enough. I also got a little frustrated with it. I guess I like sure things. I myself can't find myself to part with my 4x5 gear. It is too sure a thing for me, I am very comfortable with it. Marco I checked out your panos and I really liked some of them. Very very nice. I especially liked the composition on the San Fran Bay photo. Makes me want to go out and buy another panoramic camera. You were using a 72mm on those? The widest I have is a 90mm. Do you think that a 90mm is too mild a wide angle lens to fully use the dimensions of the 6x17 format?

mammolo
04-22-2008, 03:50 AM
The four "Bay" pictures were taken with the Technorama and a 90mm.

Common wisdom is that a 72mm or a 75mm are too wide for a 6x17 and a 90mm is more balanced.

My project had to do with using the 6x17 as a glorified point-and-shoot in challenging lighting conditions (metropolitan areas at night). I reasoned that the 72mm SA XL - with its huge circle of coverage - could be used wide open and deliver images that one can enlarge 8x-10x and still be on the safe side quality-wise. Looking at the MTFs it seemed possible to cover 6x17 at f/5.6. This is not the standard way of using LF lenses (I mean wide open), but rules are made to be broken, right?

The two pictures below were taken at f/11 and f/5.6 with the center filter on. Please disregard the fact that they are really ugly, it was just a test :-) and that the resizing has shifted a bit one vs the other. Both taken hand-held.

f/11
http://www.resonantlink.com/fotoavv/617-f11.jpg

f/5.6
http://www.resonantlink.com/fotoavv/617-f56.jpg

The fall-off is noticeable at f/5.6 but I think the image is still usable. What is for me more important is that the resolution at f/5.6 is quite good when compared to that at f/11. Not just in the center (that's to be expected) but in the corners as well (I used a 10x lupe).

The shutter ghost images are instead a cause of concern, because if you look at the shadows the sun was way way off, and I did take great care of staying away from it. Since I used the 72mm XL for several years with no such problems and only a few times with the center filter on, my educated guess is that the latter has something to do with the problem. But it's just a guess.

If you already have a 72mm XL - like I did - is one story. If you do not, I think it's an overkill to use such a lens on a 6x17, unless you really need to shoot at f/5.6. It's expensive, it's bulky, filters are 95mm (I use the Lee filter system on it because once you have the filters for other lenses that's the cheapest solution, it requires only a special adapter). And even if you have such needs I would consider the 80mm SS XL instead which is much smaller. Performance-wise is probably a wash: it's a bit faster than the 72mm SA XL, the circle of coverage is a bit smaller, resolution wide open a bit worse, but these are all measurements, I'm pretty sure that a print looks just as nice. And that 10% shorter focal length of the 72mm XL is not dramatically altering the perspective.

For "normal" use I guess the 90mm is a better choice. Just my two cents.

Cheers!

Eyepix
04-22-2008, 10:37 AM
I was looking at badger graphics and I noticed there wasn't a lens cone for the fotoman? The Gaoersi 617 uses several lens cones for different sized lenses. How does this work on the fotoman? Does it come with a universal cone that adapts to several lens sizes?

Do you have to calibrate the lens? I'm asking because I'm wondering if its necessary to buy the Ground Glass.

Ian Grant
04-22-2008, 10:50 AM
There can't be a universal cone due to the large differences in lens to film distance.

The Gaoersi cones are factory set for a specific lens, ie 90mm SA f8 or f8 Grandagon etc, in the past you had to calibrate them yourself. I have a ground-glass but never use it at all, the focussing mounts are accurate.

Ian

Eyepix
04-22-2008, 12:50 PM
There can't be a universal cone due to the large differences in lens to film distance.

The Gaoersi cones are factory set for a specific lens, ie 90mm SA f8 or f8 Grandagon etc, in the past you had to calibrate them yourself. I have a ground-glass but never use it at all, the focussing mounts are accurate.

Ian

So you're saying that all I need on the fotoman is the focusing mount? There is no lens cone?

Ian Grant
04-22-2008, 02:22 PM
So you're saying that all I need on the fotoman is the focusing mount? There is no lens cone?

No just the opposite !!!!

You need a lens cone to fit each lens. The lens cone includes the focus mount.

Ian

Eyepix
04-22-2008, 08:40 PM
Ok.Thats what I would have thought. The problem is the only U.S. seller of this camera (badgergraphic.com) sells all the parts to the Fotoman but not the lens cone. They don't give you the option to choose the proper lens cone for the appropriate lens. ??? I'll look again, maybe I'm missing something.

fotoman
04-25-2008, 10:46 PM
Fotoman offers the most extensive selection of Lens Cones of any panoramic camera... by far. This allows for the use of almost any lens from 72-400mm on 617, provided the lens has a #0 or #1 shutter. On our website (http://www.fotomancamera.com), go to the product page for the camera you are contemplating. Under the camera description will be a compatibility table, listing all of the lenses we have a Cone Assembly for. For example, our 617 camera currently lists over 70 lenses that can be used... even more for our 612.

orto
05-01-2008, 06:54 AM
Hello,

for an upcoming project I want to shoot panoramic images...but I cant decide on the format...


Is there any comparison of the various panoramic formats on the web...with different lenses...and please let it better be visual...as numbers, like angle of coverage dont really help me...

Google didn't bring much up so far.....

Thanks in advance,

Heinrich

There is a very useful, easy and simple way to know. Make yourself a frame in the format you want to have (or more frames) and look through it at whatever you like to take picture of. The distance of the frame from your eye is the focal length you will need for the given composition. That's all. You can have as many "visual tests" as you like - no need to look at someone's else pictures.