Medium Format Family

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Xpan vs cropped 35mm neg

lutz_konermann

New Member
Has anybody veryfied if there truely is a gain in resolution comparing an ISO 400 x-pan panorama shot @ f:4 to a cropped ISO 100 Leica neg shot @ f:2...? I was looking at some candids shot with the 90/4 at full aperture. The signature (angle, dof) was pretty much that of a cropped 50/2 Leica neg...
 

bill_pearce

New Member
> Lutz has raised a very interesting and important point here. Are there > no responses? What was the point, don't remember the original post.
 
4

4nicholas

if so that would be calming for me. i have always wanted to here about zeiss vs leitz comparisson, on an apples for apples basis. some one out there has a response....
 

fotografz

Active Member
Sorry Nicholas , but the X-Pan lenses aren't made by Zeiss... they're Fuji glass made to Hasselblad specs.

I can offer an opinion on the X-Pan verses Leica M. Using the 45mm in non-pano 24X36 format with the same film as a M with a 50mm f/2 current.. both @ f/5.6 The Leica M wins hands down. I use the X-Pan in pano format 95% of the time. For the record, I have and use both cameras.
 

xpanlover

New Member
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2003

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 1:19 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<has>
It would be interesting to compare Xpan result 24x65 mm with same ratio of 14X36 on a leica format of 24X36 - both shot on same film material and enlarged propotionately. The Xpan to 36 inches long and Leica one to 20 inches long and then do the comparison.
 

fotografz

Active Member
No need to juggle the numbers.

Both cameras will shoot 24X36. Just do that and compare enlargements. But, we have to remember that the X-Pan was maximized as a Medium Format type camera, and can do something the Leica can't do... shoot a full panoramic 35mm piece of film.

IMO, comparing ISO 100 Leica shots verses ISO 400 X-pan shots isn't a practical, real world situation. If I could use ISO 100 in a given situation, I could also use it in the X-Pan... and under those conditions a proportionate Panoramic crop of the M film won't hold a candle to the full Panoramic film of the X-Pan.

It's just the old 35mm verses Medium Format debate again.
Film territory wins, even if the glass is a bit unequal in performance.

Yes, in my test I shot in exactly the same light (in studio with ProFoto strobes and Generators ), with both cameras on a tri-pod using a cable release. Same film, (Portra 160 NC), The negs were processed together in the same batch and were uncut by the processor. The prints were from uncropped negs and printed at exactly the same enlargement ratio (to approx 11X14.) Subjectively, the Leica prints were superior to my eye (which to me is all that counts). However, we must remember that the Leica M 50/2 is one of the best 35mm lenses in the world, and is maximized for 35mm film.

I ran this test after shooting a wedding with a Leica M and the X-Pan. Afterwards, I felt the 24X36 X-Pan shots were lacking a little something that was there in the M shots. It's not a big deal, and if I hadn't shot both cameras on the same job, I may never have noticed.
 

lutz_konermann

New Member
>hi marc, >IMO, comparing ISO 100 Leica shots verses ISO 400 X-pan shots isn't a practical, real world situation. If I could use ISO 100 in a given situation, I could also use it in the X-Pan... and under those conditions a proportionate Panoramic crop of the M film won't hold a candle to the full Panoramic film of the X-Pan. >well, I disagree when it comes to available light situations. when @f2 I will still be able to shoot ISO 100, @f4 I most probably won't. I would have to load ISO 400 for the identical shutter speed. now, the question is: while the Leitz glass, as you confirm, holds up well to enlargement, how does the grain of the two emulsions (ISO 100 vs. ISO 400) compare when the former is enlarged more strongly (by a factor of 1.8 - if Afzal's and my math are correct)?I still haven't made that comparison, maybe I should. happy new year!
 

lutz_konermann

New Member
Just wondering whether it's possible to upload a pano...

 

lutz_konermann

New Member
okay, the above is an ex&le of a 90mm, f4, 1/60 shot @ ISO 400. I would have been hard pressed to shoot that @ ISO 100. But not so with a cropped 50mm, f2, 1/60. get my point?
 

fotografz

Active Member
Ahh, unavailable light is the criteria.

I guess a 35mm pano crop from a Leica shot verses a Pano crop of a Hasselblad V shot would have the same effect... which I've never seen happen in practice. The Hasselblad 400 speed film crops were always better than the ISO 100 35mm crops. But I wasn't running a test, and it was just an impression while printing. (I do a lot of Pano crops or shots for weddings because there is a pano mat for the albums I use).

Before the X-Pan, I use to have a Mamiya 7 that took an adapter to use 35mm film. The lenses for that camera are slower also. I also had the impression they were better than a cropped 35mm pano.

I suppose a real controlled test is in order, but the times I would require that set of criteria are to few to worry about. Mostly I shoot the X-Pan with ISO 160 film. When the light goes I might switch to 400... or reach for the M ; -)
 
Top