Would you buy a digital XPAN?

Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
9:49 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,480
I wonder if the time is near when the XPAN could enter the digital age. All they would have to do is make a wide sensor of about 24 x 65mm (I know, it's not really that easy).

It costs more to make a larger sensor than a small one. I understand the failure rate--the ones that have to go in the trash bin--is higher. But with the advances, over time, in manufacturing, maybe the time is near when this would be feasible.

And there is the problem of making the sensor work at the extreme angles of incidence. They would have to use the Leica idea of offset microlenses.

The sensor would not have to be the full 65mm, if that is not feasible. If it were 60mm, or 54mm, that is still very wide with the 30mm lens.

The same lenses and mount as for the film XPAN could be used.

Would you be interested?
 
I wouldn't be interested really, but you could achieve similar results with a full frame DSLR, wide angle lenses, and crop the results. Not ideal, but the I think the market for a digital XPAN is likely tiny, and it'll never happen, so probably best to look at alternatives.
 
I very recently "invested" in a used XPAN..after years of drooling over pix of them on the Web. (Now, I'm selling gear to pay for my new toy.)

At the cost of the after market film XPANs, is the question more of a "Could you buy a digital XPAN?".

How much would a digital XPAN cost, I wonder?

Robt.
 
I think the popularity and ease of stitching images would preclude any manufacturer taking up this neat idea. It always was a niche and now it's a niche with a cheaper shortcut.
 
It may not be necessary to have a digital X-Pan if you can live with the panoramic modes some cameras, such as the Fuji X-100, have.

Bob
 
Stitching makes it nearly impossible to get real peak moments in panoramic format.

The lenses would take full advantage of a 100 MPX full frame panoramic sensor, possibly more, they are that sharp.

In short, yes, I would buy one, but for a price not more than $8,000 for the body...
 
xpanded said:
Yes, but unfortunately I doubt it. I wonder if they would have to do some trick like Leica to insure every pixel is evenly lit.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that they would. The extreme angles would make it that much more critical.
 
I sold up my digital SLR kit to go with an xpan at christmas last year. I am still learning film, how to use it etc, but I must say shooting film is a LOT nicer than shooting digital.

I bought a Leica M8, and I am now slightly wishing I bought an M6 instead. The digital images are nice, but film is just classic and beautiful, even if you stuff an image up it can still be nice. Digital just doesn't offer that, and im not sure a digi xpan would be as good?
 
I definitely would buy a digital XPan because I use mine primarily as a travel and "walking around" camera for recording "the moment".

If I didn't have to scan these "spur of the moment" shots, it would save me a lot of time.

I still would use larger format film cameras whenever maximum quality for family photos and blowups is desired.

Texsport
 
Last edited:
KM-25 said:
Stitching makes it nearly impossible to get real peak moments in panoramic format.
Click to expand...
Not if you had three identical lens/sensors arrayed on a base(essentially a still camera version of the old Cinerama camera), each using about a 28mm lens (FF 135 equivalent) with horizontally oriented 1.5:1 sensors with moderate overlap in the coverage. Triggered from a single switch, it'd be instantaneous and as wide as a Widelux. Switch focal lengths(in sets of three!) to change the field of view. Photomerge does the rest. If I had the dough, I'd be building it now.
 
Kinda sorta but I would probably just use the M9 and crop accordingly... Maybe a frameline adaptor for the M9 would be of more interesting to me in my own age of austerity...
 
pluton said:
Not if you had three identical lens/sensors arrayed on a base(essentially a still camera version of the old Cinerama camera), each using about a 28mm lens (FF 135 equivalent) with horizontally oriented 1.5:1 sensors with moderate overlap in the coverage. Triggered from a single switch, it'd be instantaneous and as wide as a Widelux. Switch focal lengths(in sets of three!) to change the field of view. Photomerge does the rest. If I had the dough, I'd be building it now.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one old enough to remember 3-panel Cinerama! A little history: when Mike Todd, who was a part-owner of Cinerama, saw the distortion that can occur at the join lines of the three panels, he sold his interest in the company to fund the development of a process that required only one camera and one projector. The result was Todd-AO, developed in conjunction with the American Optical Company. Eventually the 70mm Todd-AO process spun off a few others: MGM Camera 65; Panavision; and Super Cinerama.

The distortion at the join lines becomes worse as the angle of view of each segment increases. One way to minimize it is to hold down the width of each section. So instead of using a 3:2 proportion horizontally, it would be better to make each panel undersquare, rather than oversquare. Cinerama used undersquare panels.

To use this idea with a digital XPan, you would have to somehow expose each panel so that stray light from each lens would not spill onto adjacent panels. Cinerama used three separate cameras; a digital XPan might need three separate dark chambers. But you would still have the discontinuity that causes horizontal lines to "break" at the join lines. I remember watching a bus move across the Cinerama screen. The roof line of the bus had a break in it that appeared to move along the length of the bus as it moved across the screen. That was weird!

I think a digital XPan would need to use a single sensor and one lens, just as Todd-AO used one film and one lens.
 
About 3 years ago I suggested to a photographic magazine that a digital X-Pan would need a curved sensor, as is the film in e.g. the Horizon 202 swing lens camera. That would give full coverage and I would be interested.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the allure of Xpan in general.
The negative you get is tiny (compared to a 6x17 system) and they are not easy to scan or to print.

Agree with the sentiments, I can stitch panoramic images using just an ordinary DSLR with a tripod.
 
Harold Gough said:
About 3 years ago I suggested to a photographic magazine that a digital X-Pan would need a curved sensor, as is the film in e.g. the Horizon 202 swing lens camera. That would give full coverage and I would be interested.
Click to expand...

I think that would be a valid approach; though the camera should probably have a swing-lens to go with the curved sensor. Then it would be a digital Widelux, not XPan!
 
I would buy it in a heartbeat even if I have to sell all the gear I own.

However, 24x65mm is 1560 square mm. A typical MEDIUM FORMAT digital back is 44x33 is ~1500 and they cost $12K to $25K.

Still though, if they make one, I'd buy one, one way or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top