Panoramic | FUJI X WEEKLY

How Fujifilm Could Easily Make an XPan Camera

*Canal at Sunset* – Copenhagen, Denmark – Fujifilm GFX100RF – Copenhagen Negative – XPan

Over the weekend, PetaPixel published an article encouraging Fujifilm to make a digital XPan camera. Their idea was to make an X100VI-like camera with two 40mp sensors side-by-side, for 80mp 65:24 (XPan) aspect ratio pictures. If Fujifilm ever did that, I would buy it no questions asked. Within the first minute of the preorder opening, I’d purchase it. That would be a dream camera. But this isn’t Fujifilm’s only—or maybe even best—option, should they desire to pursue a digital XPan camera.

For those who don’t know, XPan was a collaborative project by Hasselblad and Fujifilm beginning back in the late 1990’s. The cameras used two frames of 35mm film to make a panoramic picture. While only moderately successful at the time, the cameras are now much beloved with a cult-like following. A digital version would certainly be niche, but it would also become iconic very quickly.

*Clearing Clouds* – Buckeye, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – CineStill 400D v1 – XPan crop

First, Fujifilm doesn’t necessarily need to make a dedicated XPan camera. The GFX cameras already have the XPan aspect ratio, and you could use the GFX100RF as an XPan-like camera, producing 50mp panoramic pictures. This is probably the closest you can get right now with Fujifilm, and it really is close-enough. Someone let me use their GFX100RF, and I loved using it for XPan pictures. Fujifilm could (and should!) add the XPan ratio to all of their 40mp cameras, which would produce 22mp panoramic pictures. There’s no good reason why I can’t make in-camera XPan pictures with my X100VI, X-T5, or X-E5, and I would if I could (unfortunately, it has to be cropped after-the-fact using software).

The Hasselblad and Fujifilm XPan cameras were interchangeable-lens models, so for a truly accurate XPan experience you need an interchangeable-lens camera. I would be surprised if Fujifilm ever made an interchangeable-lens XPan camera, but if they did, one option would be to use GF lenses. Perhaps make a version of the next X-Pro with a wide sensor and GF mount. More likely, in order to do a wide sensor (or two sensors side-by-side), Fujifilm would use a fixed-lens body, which was PetaPixel’s idea. If the WCL and TCL lenses also work with an X100-like XPan camera, I could see this as being a good compromise (I would be mildly surprised if the conversion lenses actually work for it, though).

*Yucca in the Sand* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film – XPan

There is another option. It’s not perfect, but it would certainly simplify everything. This could be pretty easy for Fujifilm to do. It’s not as exciting, but it would work. Fujifilm could simply do anamorphic de-squeeze in-camera. For example, Fujifilm could make an XPan (1.8x) anamorphic lens that screws onto the future X100VII (like the WCL or TCL does), and the camera would then de-squeeze it, and show the wide image in the LCD or EVF. This would produce a 40mp XPan image. If Fujifilm wanted to do this for the interchangeable-lens models, they would need to make 1.8x anamorphic lenses (no such lens exists for X-mount). This, of course, comes with some negative side effects, namely a reduction in sharpness and “stretched” bokeh.

There isn’t a perfect solution. For those wanting a digital XPan camera right now, the GFX100RF is your best bet. If Fujifilm were to ever make a digital XPan camera, it would likely be a fixed-lens model; however, they could use GF lenses on an interchangeable-lens camera. An anamorphic lens with built-in de-squeeze is another option that would be easier to implement, but has downsides. What Fujifilm could and should do more than anything else is simply add the XPan aspect ratio to the 40mp models via a firmware update, and also include it on all sixth-generation cameras. With that said, if Fujifilm ever did make a dedicated digital XPan camera, I would be right at the front of the line to buy it.

10 Frames in New Mexico — Fujifilm GFX100S II XPan Photographs

Posted on December 30, 2024 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 August 18, 2023 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?