Mamiya Press Pan

[Jeremy Mudd]

This is some nice work. I'm already nosing around eBay looking at 50mm Mamiya Press lenses and finders.

https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera...lad-xpan-alternative-introducing-the-presspan

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wouldn't mind having one of those -- pounds lighter than my RB67 and similar frame to loading 35mm in a 220 6x7 back -- but it's still out of my comfort zone on price, especially since I don't already shoot Mamiya Press system.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I did something similar with a TL-Electro

Pano conversion 24x60mm

80mm Lens from a Mamiya TLR. I actually have a 65mm from a Mamiya Press at the moment to make it a little wider, haven't had a chance to install it yet.
Original idea was to use a 50mm from a Bronica SQ which I have, because it mounts nicely inside a Copal 0, but it looks really ungainly sticking out the front and as though it could break off at any moment

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

That looks really nice Daire. Freeman had mentioned that he can also make the Pan camera with that 80mm Mamiya TLR lens (which is a great lens, I have one on my C220).

Jeremy

 

[mgb74]

This is some nice work. I'm already nosing around eBay looking at 50mm Mamiya Press lenses and finders.

https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera...lad-xpan-alternative-introducing-the-presspan

Jeremy

Impressive engineering. But educate me. This camera delivers a 70mm wide image using a 50mm lens. A Fuji GSW690 delivers a 90mm wide image using a 65mm lens. Without bothering to do the math, I'll suggest that the resulting images will be roughly the same from a horizontal perspective. If that's the case, other than savings in film, what do I gain with the presspan?

Since people pay big $s for an xpan, I must be missing something.

 

[mgb74]

That looks really nice Daire. Freeman had mentioned that he can also make the Pan camera with that 80mm Mamiya TLR lens (which is a great lens, I have one on my C220).

Jeremy

I think he discussed using the Mamiya TLR 55mm lens, but that it would require a helical.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A Fuji GSW690 delivers a 90mm wide image using a 65mm lens.

56x83. See https://photojottings.com/fuji-gsw690lll-65mm-f5-6-camera-review/ 6x9 is a misleading metric approximation. The Presspan propaganda says it delivers 24x68.

The Presspan's real competition is, dare I say, the humble Century Graphic, another plastic bodied camera. I shoot, among other lenses, 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon, 38/4.5 Biogon (covers 84 mm with good image quality) and 47/5.6 Super Angulon on mine. Also longer lenses. Focusing on the ground glass gives good control of composition, shooting on 120 film gives good cropping opportunities. As I've been asking for years, who needs an XPan or, for that matter, an Alpa 12?

I've coveted a 50/6.3 Mamiya for years, have never been able to justify getting one 'cos I have a 47 SA.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Impressive engineering. But educate me. This camera delivers a 70mm wide image using a 50mm lens. A Fuji GSW690 delivers a 90mm wide image using a 65mm lens. Without bothering to do the math, I'll suggest that the resulting images will be roughly the same from a horizontal perspective. If that's the case, other than savings in film, what do I gain with the presspan?

Since people pay big $s for an xpan, I must be missing something.

I've answered similar questions to this in threads where people ask me why I shoot 35mm film in my Mamiya RB67 ProSD's 220 back instead of just cropping 120 down to the ratio wanted.

1. I'd rather compose in (approximately) the 1x3 ratio in the viewfinder and not try to envision what a shot *may* look like after I crop and throw away the extra portions of the 120 film. For the RB67 I have a mask that I designed to cover the viewfinder and only show the areas between the sprocket holes for composition. Shooting PressPan, with the mask on the 50mm viewfinder that's supplied, will be a similar experience for me - just without the bulk of the RB67 on those days I don't feel like hauling it around.
2. # of shots per roll - on a roll of 35mm 36-exposure film I get around 17 shots in the RB's 220 back. I imagine that's about the same # the Press Pan generates on a 36-exposure roll.
3. # of images developed in one tank - In my Paterson tank I can develop 1 roll of 120 at a time, or, 2 rolls of 35mm at a time. So that's 10 images versus 34.

Granted, one could argue about final print size capabilities. If I'm doing work that I think will need to be printed huge, I'll use my GX617.

Hope that makes sense,

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

As a minor nitpick, I routinely develop two rolls of 120 on a single Paterson reel -- load one, push it to the core, then load another.

That said, there's another factor: 35mm film costs less than 120 (same emulsion), and you get almost twice as many exposures (17 in a 6x7 camera on a 36 exposure roll, vs. 10). More exposures for less money = win, especially when, as in this case, there's no loss of quality at all. If you use a leader and modify the counter drive roller so it counts 35mm frames, you could get up to 20 frames.

 

[reddesert]

Impressive engineering. But educate me. This camera delivers a 70mm wide image using a 50mm lens. A Fuji GSW690 delivers a 90mm wide image using a 65mm lens. Without bothering to do the math, I'll suggest that the resulting images will be roughly the same from a horizontal perspective. If that's the case, other than savings in film, what do I gain with the presspan?

Since people pay big $s for an xpan, I must be missing something.

I've never held an Xpan, but from the specs it's only a bit wider than the Presspan, which is built on a 35mm slr chassis. The Fuji G690, GSW690, etc is much larger. It's hard to appreciate how much larger without seeing one in real life. I like it, but it's another level of commitment to room in the bag. I imagine some people also like the Xpan for a greater level of electronic control and integration, if you like that.

The Presspan idea is cool, as is Daire's conversion, and I am impressed that there is enough space inside a 35mm slr to mill out the film gate so you can expose a 68mm wide negative. I would not have guessed that. It must also require removing a lot of hardware like the mirror box in addition to the shutter mech. I would love to try such a thing with a semi- or non-functional SLR or leaf-shutter RF body, but suspect that it would bog down without real machining work.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Press Pan actually has a couple mm wider frame than the Xpan -- though if you crop off the rounded corners they're the same.

Based on the same article you've read, I agree -- they're basically leaving only the film advance (modified to 16 perf frame pitch or free-winding, with two 8-perf strokes and no stop), rewind, and the dark seals. Mirror box, pentaprism housing, all shutter parts and controls, battery box and wiring, all gone. And I suspect this couldn't be done with just any SLR body -- some just can't accommodate a 68mm frame without milling into the film chambers.

 

[reddesert]

The Presspan builder's webpage for them is at http://trastic.com/?page_id=787 He says he can use Nikon FE and certain Konica Autoreflex SLRs, after some time reviewing various options. I would guess this has to do with mechanical feasibility: how long the film gate and pressure plate are, how possible it is to remove the shutter and mirror box and leave the wind mech intact, how the exposed film on the takeup spool is light-sealed from the film gate once the mirror box is removed, how much work you have to do to mount the new lens focus helical, etc.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I actually was in the process of putting a blog post together about my yoke above, it's been in draft for a bit, but here it is https://www.dairequinlan.com/2020/11/the-franken-pan/
@reddesert yeah it depends on the camera, the TL Electro I had for example had cloth roll shutters, and the shutter rollers took up space either side of the film gate. Additionally the mechanism was reasonably simple. Though I did somehow, @Donald Qualls manage to screw up the partial advance, but two full advances of the lever will advance the film one (panoramic) frame.
In answer to @mgb74 yes it's mostly as @Jeremy Mudd has it, size, neatness, but also that innate desire to take a dremel to something. I've put 35mm through my GW690 and while it does produce a 24mm x 86mm negative, it is ... large ... to say the least. Having something that produces a full 24x60mm neg in the size of a relatively small 35mm body is nice.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Having something that produces a full 24x60mm neg in the size of a relatively small 35mm body is nice.

And that, I think, is the main point of all of this. If I just want a 24x67 negative (or transparency, if I get brave) I can load 35mm in my RB67, or my Wirgin Auta will give me 24x86(ish). But the RB67 is like packing a car battery around; if I could get the same results with a camera the same size and weight as one of my M42 bodies plus a modest lens, I'd probably shoot a lot more panoramic (the Wirgin Auta is in that size range when folded and probably lighter than a PressPan, but a 105mm lens isn't wide even when you're shooting narrow film).

I wonder how hard it would be to put a sprocket and 16- or 20-perf advance stop into a folder? Doesn't really need to count frames, just stop against a release after the correct number of perfs have passed. Those bodies would be easy to mount a wide lens on, like these Pan cameras, and they aren't any bigger (or heavier) than a 35mm SLR body. And crappy old folders aren't even expensive...

 

[mgb74]

I've answered similar questions to this in threads where people ask me why I shoot 35mm film in my Mamiya RB67 ProSD's 220 back instead of just cropping 120 down to the ratio wanted.

1. I'd rather compose in (approximately) the 1x3 ratio in the viewfinder and not try to envision what a shot *may* look like after I crop and throw away the extra portions of the 120 film. For the RB67 I have a mask that I designed to cover the viewfinder and only show the areas between the sprocket holes for composition. Shooting PressPan, with the mask on the 50mm viewfinder that's supplied, will be a similar experience for me - just without the bulk of the RB67 on those days I don't feel like hauling it around.
2. # of shots per roll - on a roll of 35mm 36-exposure film I get around 17 shots in the RB's 220 back. I imagine that's about the same # the Press Pan generates on a 36-exposure roll.
3. # of images developed in one tank - In my Paterson tank I can develop 1 roll of 120 at a time, or, 2 rolls of 35mm at a time. So that's 10 images versus 34.

Granted, one could argue about final print size capabilities. If I'm doing work that I think will need to be printed huge, I'll use my GX617.

Hope that makes sense,

Jeremy

I see the economy. I suppose at $6 a roll for 120 HP5, plus the chemicals to process, it adds up.

 

[mshchem]

I got a good deal on a Original Fujica G617. Even easier for most. get a Fuji GSW 690, if you want 35mm dimensions, crop. I love these clunky mechanical marvels. Still all these things look like great fun!! The Mamiya press camera models have always been a great experience, I've had a couple.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Just as an update - I finally received my PressPan earlier this month after nearly a 6 month wait. Freeman is extremely busy with orders after the interest generated by the Emulsive article and Jess's video. I plan on doing a full write up in a few weeks on my site but some initial thoughts after 7 or 8 rolls:

1. It's a good lightweight alternative to carrying around my GX617 or my RB67 with 35mm adapters to shoot pano's.
2. Build quality is very nice - I got the black version of the donor body so its all nice and uniform.
3. Since I've ordered it, Freeman has put up a pricelist on his website with all of the options possible. At the time I ordered I didn't know that the seals on the donor body weren't replaced as part of the build - it costs extra - so that's one small thing I needed to do after I took possession. I've replaced seals in dozens of cameras so this wasn't a big deal but may catch some non-DIY person off-guard.
4. The 50mm Mamiya Press lens, while sharp, is extremely slow. This is no fault of the PressPan of course. But carrying it on a hike in the woods, even with Fuji Pro 400H, meant that even "wide open" the exposure times were slower than I'd like to chance hand-held.

All of that said, the glaring problem I am dealing with is parallax issues. With the 50mm Press viewfinder, there is a 9cm difference between the center of the viewer and the center of the lens. Even at infinity what you see and what you get are two different things - the film image will have less of the scene envisioned on the top and more on the bottom. I've done a janky work-around when shooting on a tripod - I marked a line 9cm down on the center column. Compose the shot. Move the camera up to the point where the 9cm line is, tighten the clamp, take the shot. Not unlike using the paramender I have for my C220. I'm OK with this when shooting on a tripod but handheld is difficult to judge the movement needed to accommodate.

If anyone has any thought's I'm open, thanks!

Jeremy

 

[reddesert]

Doesn't the Mamiya Press 50mm viewfinder have a parallax correction adjustment? The 65mm viewfinder has a manual adjustment. If you find the view is off at infinity, the finder or shoe may need to be shimmed.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Doesn't the Mamiya Press 50mm viewfinder have a parallax correction adjustment? The 65mm viewfinder has a manual adjustment. If you find the view is off at infinity, the finder or shoe may need to be shimmed.

Yes - the 50mm viewfinder also has that adjustment. When at infinity I have it dialed to infinity. It's still way off. I don't think it can be shimmed because its too tall, unless there are negative shims to bring it closer.

Lacking any other solution, I've thought about setting up an experiment where I take several images of something around 50 feet away, adjusting the parallax adjustment down some for each image, and then seeing what I get. Unfortunately this counts only for that distance and may be different at others. I don't have a piece of ground glass small enough to tape to the film gate but maybe I can make one and try that as well to compare.

Alternatively I can look for another viewfinder that has a much shorter profile. (?)

Jeremy

 

[MattKing]

As the difference is 9cm (about 1/2 a human face) no matter what your camera to subject distance is, I'm surprised that you are having problems with this at any camera to subject distance greater than 1 - 2 meters.
Could you have an alignment issue?

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

As the difference is 9cm (about 1/2 a human face) no matter what your camera to subject distance is, I'm surprised that you are having problems with this at any camera to subject distance greater than 1 - 2 meters.
Could you have an alignment issue?

Maybe - that could be something to consider. The 3D printed housing that the PressPan lens goes into could not be in parallel with the top of the body where the hotshoe mount is where the viewfinder goes. If it is angled down by comparison, that could explain it.

Jeremy

 

[Cholentpot]

I've been doing this with a Century Graphic. I like the 6x7 results over the 6x9. 6x9 comes across as too wide.

 

[reddesert]

Yes - the 50mm viewfinder also has that adjustment. When at infinity I have it dialed to infinity. It's still way off. I don't think it can be shimmed because its too tall, unless there are negative shims to bring it closer.

Lacking any other solution, I've thought about setting up an experiment where I take several images of something around 50 feet away, adjusting the parallax adjustment down some for each image, and then seeing what I get. Unfortunately this counts only for that distance and may be different at others. I don't have a piece of ground glass small enough to tape to the film gate but maybe I can make one and try that as well to compare.

Alternatively I can look for another viewfinder that has a much shorter profile. (?)

Jeremy

What I meant was shimming the front or back of the viewfinder or shoe mount to tilt it forward or back as needed. I don't know if you have ever used a Mamiya Press / Super 23, but you can look at pictures of one. It's a wonderful camera but it isn't small, it's a tall body and the whole package is like handling a steering wheel (if you use the grip and roll back). Meaning that the 50/65mm viewfinders are already intended to sit far above the lens axis. Some parallax is inevitable at close distances, but if the viewfinder is off at infinity, it's likely that either the viewfinder optics are ajar (which (I'd think would be fairly obvious), or the finder is loose in the shoe, or the accessory shoe is not parallel to the lens axis.

You don't need a nice ground glass to put on the film gate just to test the field of view - a piece of clear plastic with some scotch tape will do. You can even use a piece of wax paper in a pinch.

 

[sfphoto]

I think what appeals to me about cropping 120 to a 1:2.5 format is the option to simulate rise/fall.

120 cameras not mentioned are the Fujica 645 series like the 645s w/ 60mm which could yield 16 24x67 cropped images.

I always liked the swing lens images too, especially once the user get the knack of composing with the 'cigar' effect to their advantage.
My compact/light travel set was Fujica 645 and a Horizont (ne: Widelux).

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

What I meant was shimming the front or back of the viewfinder or shoe mount to tilt it forward or back as needed. I don't know if you have ever used a Mamiya Press / Super 23, but you can look at pictures of one. It's a wonderful camera but it isn't small, it's a tall body and the whole package is like handling a steering wheel (if you use the grip and roll back). Meaning that the 50/65mm viewfinders are already intended to sit far above the lens axis. Some parallax is inevitable at close distances, but if the viewfinder is off at infinity, it's likely that either the viewfinder optics are ajar (which (I'd think would be fairly obvious), or the finder is loose in the shoe, or the accessory shoe is not parallel to the lens axis.

You don't need a nice ground glass to put on the film gate just to test the field of view - a piece of clear plastic with some scotch tape will do. You can even use a piece of wax paper in a pinch.

OK, thanks. I'm going to mess around with it more this weekend. Its definitely not loose in the shoe - its actually a very tight fit, but the shoe is mounted on the 3D printed top which could be out of plane I guess. If that's the case due to the tight fit in the shoe I'm not certain how I could shim it. But it would be good to figure out what the issue is. In the end it may mean I just need to adjust to it.