Don't spend your money on an XPan unless you have plenty to go around. I would find a old 220 back for a trial. The 220 backs sell for CHEAP. XPAN is a neat camera. Very expensive with no spare parts.This may be a little out there but please humor me. I’ve seen 3D printed components that can take a roll of 35mm and allow it to be shot through a medium format camera. Has anyone experimented with using such a hack to create panoramic images on 35mm? I’ve looked a bunch online but haven’t found anyone talking about this. I’d love to try this out but I’d save some headache, heartache, and film if anyone knew exactly where to mask off the viewfinder. Would the ratio be anywhere near that of the XPan? Besides that I wonder if the backing plate would be an issue since there’s only the thickness of the film and not the paper. I guess I should mention that I’m not ready to part with the money it would take to dive into the XPan market (I know there cheaper alternatives). I’d just love to experiment with the wide format aspect ratio to see if I even have what it takes to meaningfully compose in such a way.
Thanks,
Omid
This may be a little out there but please humor me. I’ve seen 3D printed components that can take a roll of 35mm and allow it to be shot through a medium format camera. Has anyone experimented with using such a hack to create panoramic images on 35mm? I’ve looked a bunch online but haven’t found anyone talking about this. I’d love to try this out but I’d save some headache, heartache, and film if anyone knew exactly where to mask off the viewfinder. Would the ratio be anywhere near that of the XPan? Besides that I wonder if the backing plate would be an issue since there’s only the thickness of the film and not the paper. I guess I should mention that I’m not ready to part with the money it would take to dive into the XPan market (I know there cheaper alternatives). I’d just love to experiment with the wide format aspect ratio to see if I even have what it takes to meaningfully compose in such a way.
Thanks,
Omid
The thread title and the home-made adapters illustrated at the beginning of the post suggest to me that it was an RZ67, although the adapters look similar to the ones I've tried out in my RB67.What camera did you use for those shots, Hendrik? They look very cool!
RZ67 with 50mm and the color with SL66se 50mm.What camera did you use for those shots, Hendrik? They look very cool!
after 10 days OMiD didn't come back to us so maybe his problem is solved or disappeared
View attachment 225317 View attachment 225318 View attachment 225319
rz67 pro IIwhat back did you use? i have a rz67 and wondered if you had any issues with keeping the film flat?
sorry i meant what film back did you use. 6x45,6x6,120 or 220.rz67 pro II
i rememeber speaking to you a while ago now regarding the 26x56 back. if you ever want to give it a new home i am more that happy to adopt6x7 proii, I have also a 26x56 back but then the sprockets aren't visible
Still shooting; so you'll have to be patienti rememeber speaking to you a while ago now regarding the 26x56 back. if you ever want to give it a new home i am more that happy to adopt
hope you are well
i rememeber speaking to you a while ago now regarding the 26x56 back. if you ever want to give it a new home i am more that happy to adopt
hope you are well
Reading helps if you want to know more.So that back accepts 35mm or is it more like 120 that is being cropped in camera? There's one on ebay right now without the mask for the holder but I'd definitely would like to know more information about that back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?