But where would they do that? I have a local shop, but they are few and far between. Most people don't.
That is alright because when I like a panoramic photograph I will pay for custom matting and framing. I especially like your last photograph. Is that the Sepulveda tunnel under the LAX runways?
Nearly everyone has postal services, right? Last time I needed a roll processed that I couldn't do myself, I sent it out by mail. a few days to the lab, a couple days to process and scan, and I had the scans to look at to order prints if I wanted them. Kind of expensive, but most folks new to film aren't that worried about cost.
The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.Occasionally I think about an X Pan, but it's a special use camera. I could simply shoot my Pentax 6x7, crop the neg and have the same thing. I can buy a lot of 120 film for the current price of an X Pan + lenses.
The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.
Now.. in a way to rationalize the purchase... a Leica M7 is about $4K for a nice one w/o the flaring RF i.e. one in the 3xxxx serial # range. The higher the serial #, the more expensive it is. This is the Xpan's closest equivalent as it is an AE camera, not manual like an M6 etc. And also the closest in price.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!
And that is how we rationalize things in the land of GAS.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!
Or an RB67 with 50 mm lens, .45x filter (gives 23 mm), 90 mm lens, 6x7 on 220 back, and prism finder is well under $1000 even after the last couple years of used camera inflation. Throw in a left hand grip and set of strap connectors and you're still under a grand. That's cheaper than a lens for an Xpan.
Or an RB67 with 50 mm lens, .45x filter (gives 23 mm), 90 mm lens, 6x7 on 220 back, and prism finder is well under $1000 even after the last couple years of used camera inflation. Throw in a left hand grip and set of strap connectors and you're still under a grand. That's cheaper than a lens for an Xpan.
What you have done there is rationalize the reason for you to buy an RB67.
What I thought I was doing was explaining how to get Xpan images for less than 20% of the money (maybe MUCH less, given the lens price posted immediately after my post above).
Driving to a location in a beat up Chevy is not the same as going in a Rolls Royce and the handling of the Rolls will be much better.
Ehhhh, don't know about that. Depends on which heyday one is talking about.Medium format didn't sell in enough volume in the heyday of film to make it cost-effective for consumers
Ehhhh, don't know about that. Depends on which heyday one is talking about.
Before the mid 1960's 120, 620 & 127 used to be the consumer films of choice - all those Kodak Brownies, Zeiss Box Tengors, Agfa Clacks, Rolleicords, Zeiss Nettars... A selling point of 6x9cm cameras was that you could get viable contact prints, getting enlargements 'back in the day' was expensive. 122 film used in older Kodak folders produced 3.25x5.5 inch contact prints. The era of contact prints from roll film faded when you could get 3x3 inch "Jumbo Prints" from 6x6cm negatives.
Consumers bought 35mm cameras to take color slides. Unfortunately nobody told consumers to edit their slides before showing them to their victims. Consumer habits re editing haven't changed much with copious quantities of cell phone images.
I don't think consumers ever took to 35mm B&W - it was the realm of press photographers and amatures with darkrooms. Heck, it took a long time for press photographers to shift from 4x5 to 120 - it was war photography that brought 35mm to press photography.
The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.
Now.. in a way to rationalize the purchase... a Leica M7 is about $4K for a nice one w/o the flaring RF i.e. one in the 3xxxx serial # range. The higher the serial #, the more expensive it is. This is the Xpan's closest equivalent as it is an AE camera, not manual like an M6 etc. And also the closest in price.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!
And that is how we rationalize things in the land of GAS.
Weeeeeeeeeeell kind of...I'd say the XPan is more like a Leica CL that is somehow crippled to work with just a 45/4....
What I thought I was doing was explaining how to get Xpan images for less than 20% of the money (maybe MUCH less, given the lens price posted immediately after my post above).
The most film sold was in 1998. I am referring to that as the heyday. I understand entirely the evolution of formats. 35mm began to dominate in the 1960's and medium and large became formats only pros would typically use. The 35mm SLR was almost as ubiquitous as the cell phone in the 1970's followed the point and shoot in the 80's. Once photography was automated everyone took pictures. No one walked around shooting medium format. Even in the 80's people would ask me what my Rollei was and why I was shooting with an antique camera. One hour photo labs only processed 35mm; pro labs had to handle larger formats. I was working in the industry in the 80's and 90's. Interestingly, folks are complaining a lot about the cost of film today. Frankly, it was always expensive. I remember not shooting Velvia and other specialty color films because a roll would set you back in the $10-16 range for a roll of 36. That's not adjusted! I think it is wonderful there is such a new interest in film but find it highly unlikely anyone could justify tooling up a new medium format film camera. Wasn't there a Hassleblad that could take a film back a or a digital? I think that's a great concept to keep alive, but I suspect they stopped doing it for the exact reason I am suggesting; no one bought the film back. As an enthusiast I could totally justify a medium format system that did both digital and film.
The most film sold was in 1998. I am referring to that as the heyday.
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?