Site Sponsors

View Poll Results: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 25.81%
  • No

    19 61.29%
  • Tweener

    3 9.68%
  • Not Sure

    1 3.23%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

  1. #1
    Senior Member PSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    145

    Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    Hasselblad XPAN = Medium Format (MF)?



  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,343
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    The X-Pan is what the Germans call a "kleinbildkamera", 35mm. The same way, the Fuji GX617 is medium format, even if the negatives are longer than a 4 x 5 negative.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    No it is not. I have one and while I love it, the IQ is not there.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member Swissblad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    Regardless of which way one views it as... I would have preferred a digital Xpan to the Looney solar mess.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    It is 35mm. Just like a Widelux. And there is a huge jump in quality from a 35mm panoramic camera to a medium-format one.

  6. #6
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    If we're talking film, my definition of medium format is anything that uses 120 or 220 film (of course there are other formats of equal size that have vanished long ago). If it's about digital photography, I'd say anything larger than 35mm digital counts as MF or MFD.

  7. #7
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    Agree it was (is) a wide 35. But then so was my 6x7 MF cam when I trimmed the images to 3:1 pano format!

    IMHO, the format remains whatever format it is when you look at a 4:3 max crop from the image.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northumbria
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    Yup, 35mm ... just ...wider.
    I met a very nice gent at Silloth, Cumbria the other year.
    He had a nice (dark green?) x-pan with a 35mm lens on it.
    I'd never seen one before and we got chatting about digital.
    I advised him to wait a bit (I think it was M8 era) until it all matured and 'worked properly'
    Somehow I doubt he got himself an M240 yet.

  9. #9
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    I'd say it's a tweener. The glass is definitely designed as MF but the film format is 35mm vertically although wider. By contrast, my 6x17 really is MF and is noticeable as such as soon as I view a slide or scan an image.

    As regards quality, I'd say that it's the same since film is film is film. The difference obviously is when you scan and print larger. As Jack mentioned, it really depends upon the printed/viewed size of the image.
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 8th November 2013 at 14:18.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    I have owned an XPanII since 2007 and a SWC since 2011, and used a Mamiya 7II. Now I use 4x5 (and the M9 since 2010).

    In any case, as good as it is, the XPan's image quality cannot compare with the MF. I have made 20x52" canvas prints from XPan, but the MF would still be better. Bigger negative is better, image quality wise.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    Obviously if all you do is shoot panoramic and crop a 6x7 to 24x65 mm then you get the same film area.

    Lenses are certainly on par with MF, the 45 and 90 are very good. I haven't used the 30. Then again Xpan gets away with a slightly smaller image circle than 6x7 which should allow for higher resolving power.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  12. #12
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hasselblad XPAN = MF?

    I voted "No", as it uses 35mm film and the frame height is the same 24mm as "small format".

    However, let's turn this around. By that reckoning, to be consistent, we must conclude that the 24x36mm DBs of yesteryear are not Medium Format.

    Ray

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •