Is there a reason why there is not more Xpan alternative?

[doni]

I've been down a rabbit hole of exploring photos by the Hasselblad Xpan/II

They are really beautiful! Then I got looking at the price and they are crazy!!

I tried looking at alternatives (actually googling "Xpan alternatives") and did not come up with a lot of pings.

There is the Sprocket Rocket which does not have the same quality.

Fuji TX1 (which costs an arm and a leg as well)

There are "Frankensteins" like the Presspan and Cameradactyl.

Lastly, there is the horizont camera.

There are also threads on 35mm to 120mm conversions.

As someone new to film, is there a reason why the major manufacturers didn't create one? Based on what I'm reading, there seems to be a market for it!

In the meantime, lll wait for a lucky day when I can afford one of these things (along with the Makina Plaubel 67).

--
...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde

 

[Overrank]

Apparently there were 16,800 XPans made, so at £5k per time that would be £84M, so you would think there would be a big enough market. However I suspect there’s only a tiny fraction of those 16,800 in play at any one time - if you were to make that many again, my guess is you’d have a lot of unsold stock and XPan prices would go to £1k or less. So in short I doubt it’s profitable, and there’s not sufficient demand

 

[FrancoD]

The Xpan was made in Japan by Fujifilm , so in fact just a variant of the Fuji version.

It came out in 1998 at $2000, that is about $3700 now.

To start up produduction again it would have to sell for way more than that and be sold in the many thousands for several years, something I doubt they would be able to do. (I doubt that the tooling/machinery used then still exist, it does cost a lot to build those...).

Anyway, I think that even way back then the Xpan/TX1 would not have existed if making a profit was the major aim.

 

[Gesture]

Interesting. I think two factors are: (1) the format being outside the standard photo processing parameters. Yes, if you can afford the camera, you can afford more expensive processing, but probably less specialist vendors available.

And (2), technically, challenges in keeping the film flat across the exposure plane; and achieving a uniform exposure?

I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad and Fuji cameras are twins.

 

[Rock and Rollei]

There have been a few others over the years - Widelux swing lens models in both 35mm and 120 versìons; updated versions of the Horizont - I've had a Horizon 202 for 20 years or so, there are several other models; several 120 film options, the most obvious being the Fuji 617 series and rhe Linhof Technoramas (somewhat bizarrely now among the cheaper options at the high quality end) , but there are even a couple of Holga alternatives, one a pinhole, the other with an Optical Lens, no less; several panoramic backs for large format cameras; at least one medium format SLR camera with a 35mm panoramic back option (Bromica 645, and the Mamiya 7 rangefinder camera also with a panoramic 35mm option; the Lomography Belair 612 folder, with aperture priority autoexposure and interchangeable lenses that would be a half reasonable option of you could find the glass lenses for it; the Lomography one whose name escapes me with the liquid-filled lens; and several 3D printed options.

I've got a Belair, the Horizon, and a Sprocket Rocket. All lots of fun.

Only Lomography have made a serious effort to produce mass-market genuine panoramic cameras, and they're obviously mostly at the toy camera end of the market.

The others are expensive cameras, produced in fairly low numbers due to historically pretty low demand, due to running costs amd the one-trick nature of the cameras. It would be very expensive to tool up to make a dedicated high quality panoramic.

For me, the Horizon is probably the best current compromise between cost and quality, but it's not without issues.

 

[Overrank]

Interesting. I think two factors are: (1) the format being outside the standard photo processing parameters. Yes, if you can afford the camera, you can afford more expensive processing, but probably less specialist vendors available.

Yes, that is a problem. Other people have mentioned on here being charged extra for half-frame processing, and I imagine “double” frame would be the same. Although really it’s only the scanning that might cost more. Not everywhere does though, Harman (Ilford) charges the same for normal or XPan but only allows high res scanning for XPan (which makes sense)

And (2), technically, challenges in keeping the film flat across the exposure plane; and achieving a uniform exposure?

I'm pretty sure the Hasselblad and Fuji cameras are twins.

 

[BG28]

FYI, the Widelux is being revived by Jeff and Susan Bridges!

NEWS: Susan and Jeff Bridges Revive the Widelux Camera with SilvergrainClassics

Susan and Jeff Bridges have joined forces with the team at SilvergrainClassics magazine to embark on a new venture: the creation of a new swing lens panoramic film camera. Aiming to revive a classic camera, the project is focused on producing a modern version of the Widelux camera. Last produced...

www.35mmc.com

I've wanted a, xpan-frame camera for a loooong time! Even a 52x24" frame would be great. The time for mass-produced variants has passed, though. I thought long and hard about making the Cameradactyl panoramic camera, but in the end decided to make a Kraken 6x12.

It is probably a lot cheaper to pay someone to custom make a 35mm panoramic-frame camera out of old Nikons and medium format lenses than to buy a hypothetical commercially-produced xpan descendant. The original Xpan would probably be cheaper, by that point! :-D

 

[Overrank]

FYI, the Widelux is being revived by Jeff and Susan Bridges!

https://www.35mmc.com/03/07/2023/ne...-the-widelux-camera-with-silvergrainclassics/

I've wanted a, xpan-frame camera for a loooong time! Even a 52x24" frame would be great. The time for mass-produced variants has passed, though. I thought long and hard about making the Cameradactyl panoramic camera, but in the end decided to make a Kraken 6x12.

It is probably a lot cheaper to pay someone to custom make a 35mm panoramic-frame camera out of old Nikons and medium format lenses than to buy a hypothetical commercially-produced xpan descendant.

Like this http://trastic.com/?page_id=787 ?

The original Xpan would probably be cheaper, by that point! :-D

 

[BG28]

It is probably a lot cheaper to pay someone to custom make a 35mm panoramic-frame camera out of old Nikons and medium format lenses than to buy a hypothetical commercially-produced xpan descendant.

Like this http://trastic.com/?page_id=787 ?

Bingo!

Yes, that's exactly who I was thinking about, but I couldn't remember his name. I absolutely love his builds! He does such a great job.

 

[cathal gantly]

The Hasselblad x-pan and Fuji TX1 are the same camera, using different branding. The bodies and three available lenses were all made by Fuji. Fuji also made the lenses for the Hasselblad H system. The TX1 was sold exclusively in Japan, while the x-pan wasn’t available there, but was to the rest of the world.

when the line was discontinued, the reason given was the cost of reengineering the camera to pass COSHH regulations was too high. If it wasn’t economic then, it won’t be now! If memory serves me correctly, the production run wasn’t long.

An x-pan with all three lenses would cost quite a lot to by used today. It’ would be a high risk strategy, as sadly the camera is (depending on fault) now unrepairable.

 

[Rock and Rollei]

The Hasselblad x-pan and Fuji TX1 are the same camera, using different branding. The bodies and three available lenses were all made by Fuji. Fuji also made the lenses for the Hasselblad H system. The TX1 was sold exclusively in Japan, while the x-pan wasn’t available there, but was to the rest of the world.

when the line was discontinued, the reason given was the cost of reengineering the camera to pass COSHH regulations was too high. If it wasn’t economic then, it won’t be now! If memory serves me correctly, the production run wasn’t long.

From my memory, the specific issue was to do with reengineering for lead-free solder.

An x-pan with all three lenses would cost quite a lot to by used today. It’ would be a high risk strategy, as sadly the camera is (depending on fault) now unrepairable.

 

[FrancoD]

The Hasselblad x-pan and Fuji TX1 are the same camera, using different branding. The bodies and three available lenses were all made by Fuji. Fuji also made the lenses for the Hasselblad H system. The TX1 was sold exclusively in Japan, while the x-pan wasn’t available there, but was to the rest of the world.

when the line was discontinued, the reason given was the cost of reengineering the camera to pass COSHH regulations was too high. If it wasn’t economic then, it won’t be now! If memory serves me correctly, the production run wasn’t long.

From my memory, the specific issue was to do with reengineering for lead-free solder.

An x-pan with all three lenses would cost quite a lot to by used today. It’ would be a high risk strategy, as sadly the camera is (depending on fault) now unrepairable.

I have pointed out many times that often very small details put a stop to something that appears to be very simple to do.

Many Kickstarter projects, as an example, fail because of that.

This is a very good case in point .

 

[Rock and Rollei]

The Hasselblad x-pan and Fuji TX1 are the same camera, using different branding. The bodies and three available lenses were all made by Fuji. Fuji also made the lenses for the Hasselblad H system. The TX1 was sold exclusively in Japan, while the x-pan wasn’t available there, but was to the rest of the world.

when the line was discontinued, the reason given was the cost of reengineering the camera to pass COSHH regulations was too high. If it wasn’t economic then, it won’t be now! If memory serves me correctly, the production run wasn’t long.

From my memory, the specific issue was to do with reengineering for lead-free solder.

An x-pan with all three lenses would cost quite a lot to by used today. It’ would be a high risk strategy, as sadly the camera is (depending on fault) now unrepairable.

I have pointed out many times that often very small details put a stop to something that appears to be very simple to do.

Many Kickstarter projects, as an example, fail because of that.

This is a very good case in point .

Indeed. It sounds like an utterly trivial issue, doesn't it? But (again from memory, and my memory is good at this sort of trivia, rubbish at anything important), the issue was that the PCBs couldn't withstand the higher soldering temperature because of the way they were designed, so would require a complete redesign, which would have been difficult, because of the space available, and costly particularly given sales volumes at the time - which were reasonable, but not huge, and this was very much at the time when film camera sales were in freefall. 10 years later, maybe the decision might have been different. Ditto 10 years earlier.

Spot on.

 

[cathal gantly]

From my memory, the specific issue was to do with reengineering for lead-free solder.

This is my recollection also.

 

[Mike B USA]

The Xpan negative is 24mm x 65mm wide. Buy any interchangeable lens 6x7 MF camera and crop the negative to 24mm high when printing. For instance make a custom enlarger negative mask the full width of the negative and 24mm tall.

Presto! Xpan negatives.

 

[FrancoD]

The Xpan negative is 24mm x 65mm wide. Buy any interchangeable lens 6x7 MF camera and crop the negative to 24mm high when printing. For instance make a custom enlarger negative mask the full width of the negative and 24mm tall.

Presto! Xpan negatives.

To get a similar angle of view of the 30mm Xpan lens you need the Pentax Takumar 6x7 35mm F4.5 Fish Eye.

Probably the curved lines can be corrected but I am not sure it would be a match .

 

[PhilippeG]

The Xpan negative is 24mm x 65mm wide. Buy any interchangeable lens 6x7 MF camera and crop the negative to 24mm high when printing.

Or use a 135 adapter. 135 film is less expensive than 120, offer more emulsion choices, and you should get around 20 shots per roll.

 

[Overrank]

See this https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2023/05/when-is-an-x-pan-not-an-x-pan/ (just to be clear, I think this uses 120 film - at first I thought it used 135 and couldn’t understand how it converted the film movements through 90 deg in the Hasselblad back).

 

[FrancoD]

If I understand correctly what I have seen in that blog, it is just a "panorama crop" not a panorama in the sense of getting a wider field of view. So you could get the same photos simply by cropping during printing.

To visualise the final result one could just make a mask for the viewfinder .

Or to put it another way, the Xpan uses twice the film area of a 35mm frame , this one uses half of the film area of the 120 version.

But maybe I am missing something here.

 

[Overrank]

I presume it”s like the A16 (645) back which gives you 16 6x4.5 images on a 120 roll, this will give you something like 24 6x3 images on a 120 roll.