Panoramic

10 Frames in New Mexico — Fujifilm GFX100S II XPan Photographs

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Sand & Sky – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

The main reason why I purchased a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera a couple of weeks ago was for XPan photography. For those who don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio.

You can crop images from any model to the XPan ratio without much trouble, but composing it in-camera is different than doing it after-the-fact because you can better visualize the outcome. Also, I prefer straight-out-of-camera photography over sitting at a computer editing, but that’s just me. All GFX models, including the GFX100S II, have the 65:24 aspect ratio built-in; however, X-series cameras do not (in my opinion, Fujifilm should add the XPan ratio to all of their 40mp cameras via a firmware update). If you are serious about XPan photography and you use Fujifilm cameras, GFX is the preferable route.

Sand Wall – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

Since the 65:24 aspect ratio cuts out about half of the resolution, having a high-megapixel sensor is important. With that said, you can’t truly appreciate XPan when viewing on a computer or your phone. XPan from a GFX100S II isn’t going to look any more impressive than (for example) an XPan crop from a Fujifilm X-T10. These pictures need to be printed to be appreciated, and that’s my goal. I plan to print a couple of these to see what they look like, and if I create any in the future that are worthy, I hope to make some really large prints that are two-feet tall by five-feet-five-inches wide. For that, the 100mp sensor of the GFX100S II is essential.

All of these photographs, which were captured yesterday and the day before in New Mexico, were made using a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera with a Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens. These pictures are camera-made JPEGs using a few different Film Simulation Recipes. Over the coming days and weeks I’ll be testing various Recipes to see what works best on GFX, and I’ll be sure to share the results with you, so stay tuned! In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy these 10 XPan images.

Cars – Tularosa, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor 100 Gold
House Fire – Lordsburg, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – 1970’s Summer
Yucca in the Sand – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
Yucca and Grass– White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
Sandscape – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
Dune Brush – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm
Sunset Behind Brush – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film
Sand at Sunset – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm GFX100S II:
Amazon, B&H, Wex
Fujinon GF 80mm f/1.7:
Amazon, B&H, Wex

What could a Fujifilm Digital XPan Camera look like and should they make it?

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

In my Will there be a new Fujifilm X camera announced in September? article I mentioned that Fujifilm should include an XPan 65:24 aspect ratio as an option on the X-Pro4, whenever that camera comes out. GFX models already have this, but Fuji hasn’t given the XPan ratio to any X-series cameras. The X-Pro4 seems like a logical place to start, especially if it is given the 40-megapixel sensor, which has plenty of resolution to support the crop. But, should Fujifilm make a “real” XPan camera, and what would that look like?

XPan was a collaboration between Fujifilm and Hasselblad in the late-1990’s and early-2000’s. XPan cameras were 35mm interchangeable-lens rangefinders that produced panoramic pictures across two film frames—the pictures were twice as wide as normal 35mm images. The cameras were also capable of capturing regular 35mm frames, should the photographer not wish to create panoramic pictures. Two XPan cameras were made; Hasselblad called them XPan and XPan II while Fujifilm named them TX-1 and TX-2. The X100-series models have a striking resemblance to XPan cameras.

XPan crop — Fujifilm X-T5 — CineStill 400D v1 Recipe

I don’t think it would be all that difficult for Fujifilm to make a true XPan camera. It would require two APS-C sensors placed side-by-side, or—probably more preferably—one chip cut to the same size as two. The lens would be the big issue, since X-Series lenses wouldn’t offer enough coverage. Either Fujifilm would make it a fixed-lens camera (like the X100V, but with a different lens that has coverage), or they’d need lenses that would cover the wide frame. If they decided on the interchangeable-lens concept, GF-mount lenses from the GFX series would have enough coverage, so it would make sense to use them. In other words, the XPan camera would technically be GFX, but in an X-series body and with an X-Trans sensor.

Even though the TX-1 and TX-2 looked more similar to the X100V, I think using an X-Pro body would be a good option to build it on. Call it the TX-Pro4 or X-Pan1 or something like that. The hybrid viewfinder would need to be modified to accommodate the wider frame, but otherwise the camera wouldn’t need a whole lot of changes.

XPan crop — Fujifilm X-T5 — Kodak Ektachrome E100VS v1 Recipe

There are three different sensors that Fujifilm is currently using in the X-Trans V generation of cameras: 40-megapixel (X-H2, X-T5), 26-megapixel stacked (X-H2s), and 26-megapixel X-Trans IV (X-S20). Which would they put into the XPan camera?

If they chose the 40-megapixel option, which would actually be 80-megapixel, that would be the most marketable, since megapixels sell. On the 100-megapixel GFX cameras, the XPan aspect ratio reduces the resolution to 50mp, while the 50-megapixel models reduces the resolution to 25mp; 80mp would be much more than either! The disadvantage would be the processing power required and heat dispersion necessary, which would be a huge challenge for Fujifilm, so I don’t think this is a likely option.

XPan crop — Fujifilm X-T5 — Fujicolor Superia 100 Recipe

The other two are both 26-megapixel sensors, which would equal 52mp on an XPan model. This would be the same resolution as using the XPan aspect ratio on the 100mp GFX cameras. The new stacked sensor is great for speed but is much more expensive, while the older X-Trans IV sensor is still good yet affordable. Of the two, the stacked sensor is the most intriguing; however, it would likely raise the price of the camera by around $800-$1,000 over using the X-Trans IV option. As the X-S20 demonstrates, pairing the X-Trans IV sensor with the X-Trans V processor is a viable option, and probably what Fujifilm should choose.

Basically, I’m suggesting that Fujifilm modify the (eventual) upcoming X-Pro4 with two 26mp X-Trans IV sensors (instead of the presumably 40mp X-Trans V sensor that the regular X-Pro4 will have), utilizing X-Processor 5. This would give the camera 52mp of resolution when shooting the XPan aspect ratio, or 26mp when shooting in 3:2. The XPan camera would have over 2.5-times more resolution than shooting a 40mp sensor cropped to the XPan aspect ratio.

XPan crop — Fujifilm X-T5 — Classic Slide Recipe

Who would buy this camera? Wouldn’t it be super niche? It would indeed be niche, but it would also be a “wow” product that a lot of people would talk about. Where I think it would get a lot of unexpected attention is with cinematographers, since some of the ultra-wide aspect ratios (think Ultra Panavision) could be shot in 4K, 6K, and possibly even 8K. Also, it would provide a bridge between the X-series and GFX, since those with GFX models could use their existing lenses on this camera, and those not in the GFX system could eventually jump in after buying a couple lenses for their XPan model.

Will Fujifilm make this camera? Probably not. I’d be pretty shocked. Should they? I think so. I believe it would sell well enough that it would be worthwhile for Fujifilm. I’d definitely buy one! Would you?