simonpg
Active Member
I think Jurgen has suggested an excellent structure - I just hope that those responsible act upon it even if they "tweek" the suggested structure a little.
Carl - yes the XPan is an MF camera in my humble opinion. I know that strictly speaking medium format is defined as 120 roll film. But that definition was in an era before Hasselblad had the vision to develop the XPan. It has the characteristics of an MF tool - 65mm wide frame equal to a 6x7 horizontal frame dimension; it uses large image circle lenses with similar issues unique to MF and LF (speed and vignetting) and it is a product from a manufacturer exclusively devoted to MF.
In a review of the XPan I wrote that to see the XPan as a 35mm camera capable of panoramas is to miss the point; it is really an MF camera that utilises 135 format film. This then puts the XPan's capabilities and limitations into a more meaningful perspective, in my humble opinion.
Carl - yes the XPan is an MF camera in my humble opinion. I know that strictly speaking medium format is defined as 120 roll film. But that definition was in an era before Hasselblad had the vision to develop the XPan. It has the characteristics of an MF tool - 65mm wide frame equal to a 6x7 horizontal frame dimension; it uses large image circle lenses with similar issues unique to MF and LF (speed and vignetting) and it is a product from a manufacturer exclusively devoted to MF.
In a review of the XPan I wrote that to see the XPan as a 35mm camera capable of panoramas is to miss the point; it is really an MF camera that utilises 135 format film. This then puts the XPan's capabilities and limitations into a more meaningful perspective, in my humble opinion.
