6x9 with 35mm adapter or horizon camera?

[kingbuzzie]

Thinking of buying a horizon camera. Would I be satisfied enough using 35mm in a 6x9 folder?

 

[Oren Grad]

A short focal length lens that is rotated during exposure to project an image through a moving vertical slit onto a curved film plane (Horizon) will produce a radically different picture of a given scene compared to a fixed long focal length lens projecting an image via instantaneous exposure onto a flat film plane (cropped 6x9 folder). Only you can decide which rendering suits you.

 

[summicron1]

Or you could just buy a 21mm lens for your 35mm camera, use fine grain film and crop the heck out of it.

But Horizons are fun. Be wary of the original models from the 60s, they have pretty severe light leaks that are not easy to fix.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A short focal length lens that is rotated during exposure to project an image through a moving vertical slit onto a curved film plane (Horizon) will produce a radically different picture of a given scene compared to a fixed long focal length lens projecting an image via instantaneous exposure onto a flat film plane (cropped 6x9 folder). Only you can decide which rendering suits you.

The Horizon sees a 120 degree angle of view. If that's what the OP wants, there are few alternatives.

That said, my humble Century Graphic is a 2x3 (remember, 6x9 is a poor metric approximation to the format's usual dimensions of 56 x 82 mm) folder. It will focus a 38/4.5 Biogon to infinity. That lens covers ~ 84 mm with good image quality and illumination. It just misses the corners of a 24 x 82 mm strip on 120 film. 94 degrees horizontal angle of view.

I doubt the OP is up for finding a 38/4.5 Biogon in shutter, but they exist. There are other short lenses that will make infinity on a Century (or a 2x3 Crown, for that matter) and that are easier to find and less expensive. 35/4.5 Apo-Grandagon (99 degree horizontal angle of view on 2x3) and 47 Super Angulon (f/8 and f/5.6, both 82 degrees) will do.

Oren, as you said, it all depends on what the OP wants to accomplish. A new Horizon from, say, Lomography, will cost much less than any of the alternatives I suggested.

OP, adapting a w/a lens to what I think you understand "6x9 folder" means is a poor and difficult solution.

 

[BAC1967]

I use a KMZ FT-2. It has some quirks that you should research before getting one like the special film cassettes. I don’t use the cassettes, I sealed it with felt, cut the end post off a 35mm reel and load the camera with loose film in a changing bag. It has a swing lens and a curved film plane.

KMZ FT-2 by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Ferry Wide 1 by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Zig Zag Split Rail Fence by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[Oren Grad]

The Horizon sees a 120 degree angle of view. If that's what the OP wants, there are few alternatives.

Dan, FWIW, I have a Horizon 202 and have also dabbled with 6x12 rollholders. For my taste, the geometric projection is as important a characteristic of a panoramic camera as the horizontal field of view. A swing-lens camera and a fixed-lens camera are just very different beasts, produce qualitatively very different renderings. I know you know this, but many newcomers asking about panoramic cameras don't understand it, and so that was my starting point for commenting.

Also, I don't think the OP was proposing to adapt a 35mm lens to a 6x9 folder, rather just to use 35mm film in a 6x9 folder. Still likely to produce poor results, though.

 

[kingbuzzie]

Thanks your opinions. I bought a Horizon 202 off fleabay. The S3 pro was actually cheaper, but I just couldn't get over the weird bubbly look of that one.

 

[David Brown]

I have the Horizon. The above comments about the different results from a swing lens and a fixed lens are spot on. A better comparison would be a pano camera such as the Hasselblad Xpan with its 45mm lens vs simply cropping an image from, say, an RB67 and it’s 50mm lens.

 

[tezzasmall]

Thanks your opinions. I bought a Horizon 202 off fleabay. The S3 pro was actually cheaper, but I just couldn't get over the weird bubbly look of that one.

I've only recently bought a panoramic camera, so have only used it a little at the moment, but it was great fun taking it out. I took pictures with and without the tripod and getting it all level or turning it vertically and shooting that way. Whether straight on shots or obviously distorted, I had and continue to see me having a lot of fun rephotographing subjects that I've taken in the past.

The couple of negs with HP5 (developed in ID11 @ 1+1) that I have printed so far, look great on a larger sheet of paper and with such a larger negative, and ie smaller amount of enlargement required, the grain in the prints just wasn't noticeable at all!

Have fun!!!

Terry S

 

[Huss]

Thanks your opinions. I bought a Horizon 202 off fleabay. The S3 pro was actually cheaper, but I just couldn't get over the weird bubbly look of that one.

Ahh but the S3 has more shutter speeds and more apertures. And a really good VF that shows the level in the VF. Also the bubbly look really helps you hold the camera w/o getting your fingers in the shot.
I now use a Noblex 135 which is similarly bubbly looking.

 

[kingbuzzie]

Ahh but the S3 has more shutter speeds and more apertures. And a really good VF that shows the level in the VF. Also the bubbly look really helps you hold the camera w/o getting your fingers in the shot.
I now use a Noblex 135 which is similarly bubbly looking.

haha I read the opposite of that. That the bubbly camera made it harder to hold.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm looking at getting a Horizon. Figured this is as good a place as any to ask opinions.

I'm looking between the 202 and the S3 Pro. The S3pro on theBay is about $50 more than the 202. Is it a $50 well spent?

 

[Huss]

I'm looking at getting a Horizon. Figured this is as good a place as any to ask opinions.

I'm looking between the 202 and the S3 Pro. The S3pro on theBay is about $50 more than the 202. Is it a $50 well spent?

I think so as it has a greater range of shutter speeds/apertures to use and I feel the design is better. But check for light leaks when you get any of these.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think so as it has a greater range of shutter speeds/apertures to use and I feel the design is better. But check for light leaks when you get any of these.

I've held off on getting one of these. As much as I'd like one it seems to be a bit of a uni-tasker. The application that I need it for is going to be very cold weather and I've read these things don't deal with the cold well.

 

[jtk]

none will be anywhere near as satisfactory from an image quality point of view as simple pano shot digitally to whatever very high quality standard,, simply linked as a pano by Photoshop or several pano-oriented applications. If you want to shoot film more than to produce image, have fun. But if you're into image there's no rival to simple multi shot digital pano.

 

[Cholentpot]

none will be anywhere near as satisfactory from an image quality point of view as simple pano shot digitally to whatever very high quality standard,, simply linked as a pano by Photoshop or several pano-oriented applications. If you want to shoot film more than to produce image, have fun. But if you're into image there's no rival to simple multi shot digital pano.

Something to be said for the aesthetic though. A proper film pano has a specific look that can't easily be duplicated with photoshop stitching.

 

[kingbuzzie]

Beware a kid in Maine selling a horizon 202 on ebay right now. The price is right but he wouldn't mail me the handle for some bizarre reason. I went through a month long ordeal with him before reporting and sending the camera back.

 

[Mick Fagan]

If you do get another 202, then check out the inside of the handle, that is where one stores the filters; which came with mine as standard equipment when I bought it in 1994.

Having now exposed film alongside electronic panoramic cameras with their multiple shot method, I feel that by and large, the 202 is a very nice way to get images that are really different to a computerised panoramic. I found the best sized paper for largish images, is 12"x16" cut in half; some quite neat pictures are the result.

Mick.

 

[Huss]

none will be anywhere near as satisfactory from an image quality point of view as simple pano shot digitally to whatever very high quality standard,, simply linked as a pano by Photoshop or several pano-oriented applications. If you want to shoot film more than to produce image, have fun. But if you're into image there's no rival to simple multi shot digital pano.

Why are you mentioning Digital here? You could try to use that response for any film topic. Wrong forum, we use film here.

 

[Cholentpot]

Why are you mentioning Digital here? You could try to use that response for any film topic. Wrong forum, we use film here.

Because even using film, panoramas tend to be stitched together digitally.

If I shot a frame on the Horizon I'd still need to stitch digitally to get the full resolution that I'm looking for.

 

[Huss]

Because even using film, panoramas tend to be stitched together digitally.

If I shot a frame on the Horizon I'd still need to stitch digitally to get the full resolution that I'm looking for.

Again, talking about digital in a film forum. Why not just jump into a 35mm film discussion and talk about digital there saying how much more resolution you get from digital cameras?

This is a film forum:

"This area is ONLY for discussion of 100% Analog/Traditional photographic processes. No Hybrid discussion or Digital discussion should be posted. This includes off-topic suggestions that fall outside of '100% Analog' processes, for example,"Hey, you can do this in photoshop"."

 

[Cholentpot]

Again, talking about digital in a film forum. Why not just jump into a 35mm film discussion and talk about digital there saying how much more resolution you get from digital cameras?

This is a film forum:

"This area is ONLY for discussion of 100% Analog/Traditional photographic processes. No Hybrid discussion or Digital discussion should be posted. This includes off-topic suggestions that fall outside of '100% Analog' processes, for example,"Hey, you can do this in photoshop"."

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Forgive us father for we have sinned and evoked the evil and wrenched blasphemy of the darkness. Foul foul that it is, nay! We shall reign in conversation that may verge on the forbidden!

Sinners! Sinners! Cast out from thy midst the naysayers and soothsayers! For yea shall all be struck down with darkness and doom if the wrath of the Light Ones are invoked.

Grovel! Bow! Beg for forgiveness! We have strayed and sinned, woe is us, woe woe!

Ashes and sackcloth. Sulfur and salt! Brimstone and pillars of smoke!

 

[Cholentpot]

'And that was Father McKalky. Hear him every week Sunday Afternoons. Coming up, The Lotto and You.'

 

[Huss]

The drone section seems appropriate for you:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1066

 

[Cholentpot]

The drone section seems appropriate for you:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1066

I had a rocket years ago that took 110 film. At the apex of it's flight it would snap some photos.

So I was doing drone photography before drones were a thing.

I'm beyond hip and cool.