How about a panoramic m43 format?

[Dutch Newchurch]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

 

[Soulhand]

If you have to go for a FF mount (because of the sensor size), what does this give over cropping a FF picture?

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

If you have to go for a FF mount (because of the sensor size), what does this give over cropping a FF picture?

It's a good question.

The same advantage that the XPan gave over medium format; size. That, and a different way of seeing the world, simply because of the differently shaped viewfinder.

The camera body should be a lot smaller than a full sized dslr.

 

[Martian Flatcat]

If you have to go for a FF mount (because of the sensor size), what does this give over cropping a FF picture?

It's a good question.

The same advantage that the XPan gave over medium format; size. That, and a different way of seeing the world, simply because of the differently shaped viewfinder.

The camera body should be a lot smaller than a full sized dslr.

I don't think it would be much smaller. The mount ring will need to be about the same size as a FF format, and that will force the rest of the camera to be scaled up. I think to help with the wide format, the mount depth would also need to be increased from MFT depth.

 

[Thomas Kachadurian]

The Panasonic GH2 has a multi-aspect sensor that gives you full 16 megapixels even in the 16x9 format. Because the sensor itself is actually wider the lens covers more as well. It is great for landscapes and the reason I have kept mine despite its age.

Tom

 

[Martin.au]

I think software, both desktop and in-camera has eaten the market for this camera.

 

[SpinOne]

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability?

Do what? Make a sensor with a 1:3 ratio? Make lenses that can cover a sensor that size? Crop a sensor to different aspect ratios? None of those are a problem.

In fact, the X1D will offer 4:3, 1:1 and 1:3 ratios.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm.

Or, better yet: Get a 35mm sensor camera that offers 1:3 crops.

I believe there are Canon firmware hacks that do this, obviously only on the LCD. Eventually, I expect some mirrorless manufacturers will offer it. It's not like it's a complicated feature.

That will have a much broader appeal and more functionality. And it's not like the lenses would be smaller, as they have to offer the same coverage.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

This need is met by in-camera pano modes or stitching. Since many pano opportunities involve scenics with no motion, these solutions generally get the job done.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

If you have to go for a FF mount (because of the sensor size), what does this give over cropping a FF picture?

It's a good question.

The same advantage that the XPan gave over medium format; size. That, and a different way of seeing the world, simply because of the differently shaped viewfinder.

The camera body should be a lot smaller than a full sized dslr.

I don't think it would be much smaller. The mount ring will need to be about the same size as a FF format, and that will force the rest of the camera to be scaled up. I think to help with the wide format, the mount depth would also need to be increased from MFT depth.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

The Panasonic GH2 has a multi-aspect sensor that gives you full 16 megapixels even in the 16x9 format. Because the sensor itself is actually wider the lens covers more as well. It is great for landscapes and the reason I have kept mine despite its age.

Tom

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability?

Do what? Make a sensor with a 1:3 ratio? Make lenses that can cover a sensor that size? Crop a sensor to different aspect ratios? None of those are a problem.

In fact, the X1D will offer 4:3, 1:1 and 1:3 ratios.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm.

Or, better yet: Get a 35mm sensor camera that offers 1:3 crops.

I believe there are Canon firmware hacks that do this, obviously only on the LCD. Eventually, I expect some mirrorless manufacturers will offer it. It's not like it's a complicated feature.

That will have a much broader appeal and more functionality. And it's not like the lenses would be smaller, as they have to offer the same coverage.

I'd overlooked that new Hasselblad! Perhaps because its cost is an order of magnitude greater than I've ever paid for any camera.

That seems to be very similar in concept, but perhaps more versatile.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

This need is met by in-camera pano modes or stitching. Since many pano opportunities involve scenics with no motion, these solutions generally get the job done.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

This need is met by in-camera pano modes or stitching. Since many pano opportunities involve scenics with no motion, these solutions generally get the job done.

--
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Up to a point. To do it properly, one needs a tripod with a panoramic head

Only if there are foreground elements nearby, within a few meters. I do handheld exposure brackets for stitching into HDR panos all the time and have never had a problem stitching. FWIW, I have a pano head, but I rarely use it because for the broad vistas I shoot, I simply don't need it. If I wanted to feature foreground elements or do critical architecture work, I would certainly use it.

, care with exposure

I just set my base exposure manually (based on in-camera preview), choose 3-, 5-, or 7-stop bracket and rattle off the shots in a few seconds.

and time in post production

Maybe 1-2 minutes per image to Merge to HDR and Pano in LR. For non-HDR panos, it only takes about 30 seconds. I'm shooting dozens, not hundreds, of panos in a day of exploring a landscape, so this is no burden.

. A small hand-held camera is more convenient.

Always.

You could use the same argument against any format; four of the smaller ones could be stitched to equate to one of the larger (where smaller is m43, or FF, and larger is FF, or MF).

I do use that argument. The only person who has to agree is me, and I won the argument with myself easily. That's why I shoot landscapes with MFT instead of larger formats. Having shot for 30 years with 35mm & 67 film and digital APS-C, APS-H, 35mm & MFT formats, I'm perfectly familiar with what each can and can't do for me. I find stitching HDR panos with MFT a wonderful way to work.

--
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

This need is met by in-camera pano modes or stitching. Since many pano opportunities involve scenics with no motion, these solutions generally get the job done.

--
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Up to a point. To do it properly, one needs a tripod with a panoramic head

Only if there are foreground elements nearby, within a few meters. I do handheld exposure brackets for stitching into HDR panos all the time and have never had a problem stitching.

, care with exposure

I just set my base exposure manually (based on in-camera preview), choose 3-, 5-, or 7-stop bracket and rattle off the shots in a few seconds.

and time in post production

Maybe 1-2 minutes per image to Merge to HDR and Pano in LR. For non-HDR panos, it only takes about 30 seconds. I'm shooting dozens, not hundreds, of panos in a day of exploring a landscape, so this is no burden.

. A small hand-held camera is more convenient.

Always.

You could use the same argument against any format; four of the smaller ones could be stitched to equate to one of the larger (where smaller is m43, or FF, and larger is FF, or MF).

I do use that argument. The only person who has to agree is me, and I won the argument with myself easily. That's why I shoot landscapes with MFT instead of larger formats. Having shot for 30 years with 35mm & 67 film and digital APS-C, APS-H, 35mm & MFT formats, I'm perfectly familiar with what each can and can't do for me. I find stitching HDR panos with MFT a wonderful way to work.

--
The way to make a friend is to act like one.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

You might be interested in having a look at Sean McHugh's website ('Cambridge in Colour'), if you don't already know it. He's the first photographer I came across to use that technique. Personally, I don't have the patience, but I admire those who do! His gallery is not easy to find on his website, but this is the link: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/gallery/cambridge.htm

 

[Jacques Cornell]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

This need is met by in-camera pano modes or stitching. Since many pano opportunities involve scenics with no motion, these solutions generally get the job done.

 

[Elemental Photography]

as has been pointed out, we already have sensors that are 36mm wide and lenses to accommodate them. Sony a7 cameras are small and support IBIS. Cropping in post is fast and could easily be added in firmware for framing if the demand was there.

If you compare that to the cost of designing a new format of sensor for fabrication, combined with the greater per unit cost of a niche sensor over a common one, you are looking at a vastly more expensive camera with no advantage (and many disadvantages) over an existing 135 format system.

 

[Tommi K1]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

Way before that (1991-1992) there were already a panorama cameras for 135 format that covered 2-3x wider field of view. Friend bought one on trip to Asia back then and it was very interesting as you could just use normal film with it. But just with a fixed lens.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

4/3 standard doesn't define sensor size. It only defines the image circle size. That is to fit a 4/3" sensor with IBIS movements. And this is as well one reason why many 4/3 and m4/3 lenses covers APS-C sensor area.

To get thing done, just use UWA lens and crop. If wanted for higher resolution, just shoot at burst and stack.

 

[Tommi K1]

Up to a point. To do it properly, one needs a tripod with a panoramic head, care with exposure and time in post production. A small hand-held camera is more convenient.

Panoramic head does it easily for everyone, just requires that tripod.

1. Set camera to M and set your exposure value

2. Set the lens to its nodal point position (you have calculated it previously accurately for the focal length)

3. Take a shot, rotate camera to point edge, take a shot...

4. Use automatic panorama stitching in most image editors or use something more special like Hugin.

You can easily do many things with it like exposure bracketing or use focus bracketing or just shoot dozen frames for increased resolution and no noise, and then rotate the camera. Works great with large vistas.

You could use the same argument against any format; four of the smaller ones could be stitched to equate to one of the larger (where smaller is m43, or FF, and larger is FF, or MF).

Against? That is the common style with any format. It is for the work, not against the format.

 

[tradesmith45]

A new format was launched in 1998 with the Fujifilm TX-1, also available as the Hasselblad XPan. It used 35mm film as a medium format film. It could expose negatives that were 67mm x 24mm, a panoramic format that was nearly twice the area of standard 35mm, and roughly half the area of medium format exposures.

It was a rangefinder camera, with interchangeable lenses. The widest was 30mm and the others were 45mm and 90mm.

The wide angle lenses, and panoramic, letter-box format results could be stunning, and offered better quality than cropping 35mm films.

Possibly killed by digital photography, the range was discontinued in 2006.

I wonder if the technology is now sufficiently advanced to launch a digital camera with similar capability? I'm going to assume that a modern m43 sensor can offer similar quality to 35mm film. On that basis, I suggest that the XPan format could be scaled to 50% of the original linear dimensions; 25% of the original area.

This gives a sensor measuring 34mm x 12mm. The width is about that of a 'full frame sensor' and the height similar to a m43 sensor. (Obviously it would not be a m43 camera, as it would not comply with the standard for sensor size.)

The lens mount could be one of the existing 'full frame' mounts. A 14mm lens would give a similar angle of view to the 30mm on the XPan, a 21mm or 24mm (according to taste) would do the job of the 45mm, and a standard 50mm that of the 90mm. Lenses currently on the market would do fine.

The Olympus IBIS and high resolution technology could be useful. So too could focus peaking. Possibly this could be a camera intended for use with manual focus lenses.

As a former owner of an X-Pan (actually made by Fuji), Widelux F7 & current pano shooter w/ both m43 & Fuji X, I read through this whole thread w/ much interest.

So far the discussion has been much too technical when compared to the emotional & esthetic experience of actually shooting one of these pano cams vs a convention format. For me having the pano view in the finder stimulated an exploration of subject, light &.... & joy of shooting that I've never gotten from visualizing the crop in a conventional cam. One of my favorites was doing street photography in Paris. You can't do that w/ stitching. If you take a look at Jeff Bridges contemporary work w/ the Widelux, you'll see fruits of his similar experience.

IMHO, there is huge value in having a pano live view. And digital would open so many low light subjects we were never able to do w/ film. Yes, I know we can do some of this w/ current cams. I shot a 3x7 220º pano of the Presides Meteor shower & milkway. But that was a different experience than seeing even half that in the finder.

BTW, when I sold my complete used X-pan kit a year ago, I got more than I paid except for inflation. I sold because I can't carry & use both digital & X-pan.

I agree a new cam may not be needed for this and just a firmware hack of an existing cam can probably put a letter box view on the EVF/LCD. Since Canon & Sony I believe are the only open firmware cams right now, some enterprising 3rd party might be able to do this.

Pixel shading is an important challenge in doing this in digital w/ a huge AOV & that might take a special camera &/or lens to do it well. When researching what to move to for night landscapes, I considered going FF but was shocked at how much vignetting prime UWA lenses for FF have - some over -3 EV! Smaller aperture UWA zooms generally have less. The image circle for the Fuji 30mm on the X-pan must have ben huge but it still required a center weight filter to reduce vignetting. A firmware hack would need to make this adjustment in live view.

But the real issue here isn't how to do it but creating a market demand for someone to supply. I would love to see this & there is a market. The various movies shot in extra wide formats (anyone see the original 2001 Space Odyssey initial release?) says there's a market for this in video too.

 

[tradesmith45]

BTW, have you seen the Rhinocam Fotodiox adapter. There's a market for pano gear.