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.
Hasselblad XPan III mockup — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony Andersen loves XPan cameras. He is from Finland, and has admired Hasselblad for a long time. Tony has the original Hasselblad XPan film camera, and the idea of a digital version excites him. So much so, in fact, that he made a pretty cool mockup of what it could look like—using a Fujifilm X-Pro1. Let’s talk about what makes XPan special, discuss some considerations for a digital model, plus look at Tony’s mockup. We’ll conclude with some current options for XPan photography.
For those that 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. These cameras were quite niche and only sold moderately well when they were new, but today they are highly desirable among landscape photographers who still shoot film, and interest in XPan has been seemingly growing recently. Hasselblad and Fujifilm made two models; Hasselblad called theirs XPan and XPan II, while Fujifilm named theirs TX-1 and TX-2. Interestingly, Fujifilm’s X-Pro, X-E, and (especially) X100 series cameras all share some design elements with XPan, and, in a way, can trace their lineage to those models.
The original Hasselblad XPan camera — Photo by Tony Andersen
While it is certainly possible to crop any photograph to the 65:24 aspect ratio, the problem is that you are tossing approximately half of the resolution in the trash. The XPan cameras didn’t utilize a narrow section of 35mm film to create a panorama, but instead used nearly two frame’s worth of real estate. This allowed photographers to achieve high-quality, detail-rich images in a wide format, yet in a camera that was still relatively compact. If one wanted just a regular 3:2 frame, the XPan cameras were capable of that, too. To digitally recreate this, one would need to have a wide sensor with a good deal of resolution. Ideally, a digital XPan camera should have around 50-megapixels (or more), and produce a minimum of 24mp when cropped to 3:2.
Tony’s mockup of a digital XPan camera began with a used X-Pro1. He chose the camera because it has a similar look to XPan, and has essential features: solid build-quality, hybrid-viewfinder, manual retro controls. It has the original X-Trans I sensor, which Tony appreciates. Plus, “it has a nice shutter click sound, which makes the analogue experience better.”
“I used an angle grinder to remove the edge of the lens side viewfinder frame,” he told me, “so that I could continue to make a seemingly wider viewfinder out of it. Then I measured the original XPan and used filler and plastics to model a wider version of the X-Pro1. I didn’t even know I could do sculpturing. I wanted a camera that looks and feels like the XPan. I’ve been working on the X-Pro1 for over a year.”
“I was able to replicate the XPan color with three different layers of spray paint,” Tony continued. “I made from wood a new grip for the X-Pro1 and put leather around it. I found that the original grip on the XPan was uncomfortable and too small.”
Modified X-Pro1 with a coat of spray paint — Photo by Tony Andersen
Modified X-Pro1 on the workbench — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony used a Fujinon 16mm f/2.8 lens to replicate a Hasselblad 45mm f/4 XPan lens (both have a full-frame-equivalent 24mm focal length). He used a 3D-printer to create a lens hood that disguises the Fujifilm lens to more closely resemble the Hasselblad. He also has an adapter to use the XPan lenses on the X-Pro1. There were only three lenses made for XPan cameras: 30mm f/5.6, 45mm f/4, and 90mm f/4. An 11mm lens for the X-Pro1 would be necessary to replicate the 30mm, but there is no such lens: you can choose either 10mm or 12mm. For the 90mm, the Fujinon 33mm f/1.4 would be the best bet.
Just recently, Tony added a film advance lever from an old Kiev 6C camera to his X-Pro1. The lever is only for looks, and doesn’t actually do anything; however, Tony envisions that if a digital XPan camera were ever manufactured, a film advance lever could be included, and could serve any number of functions. It could be utilized to cock the shutter like on the Epson R-D1, or it could be a programmable lever that activates various features, such as flash, or built-in ND filter, or something like that.
Hasselblad XPan (left) and faux Hasselblad XPan III (right) — Photo by Tony Andersen
XPan Crop — Fujifilm X-Pro1 — Photo by Tony Andersen
While Tony’s “XPan III” has a 16mp Trans I CMOS sensor, he believes that most ideally such a camera should have a 50mp XPan-shaped CCD sensor. The reason why he would prefer a CCD sensor over CMOS is because CCD sensors inherently behave more like film, and can produce images that appear more similar to analog. Theoretically it is possible to program such a sensor to produce “digital film emulsions” where the aesthetic is partially created at the hardware level, and not just from the camera’s firmware or software on a computer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both CCD and CMOS; however, the camera industry has committed to advancing CMOS technology and has put very little into CCD development. It would be intriguing to explore CCD, but almost certainly any digital XPan camera manufactured today would have a CMOS sensor.
To simulate what CCD XPan photographs might look like, Tony captured some images with his Phase One P65+ (which as a 60mp CCD sensor), cropped them to the 65:24 aspect ratio, and edited the files in Lightroom to resemble Velvia 50 and Kodak Panatomic-X film scans. He believes that it should be possible to achieve similar results straight-out-of-camera from a digital XPan III camera.
XPan crop — “Fujifilm Velvia ISO 50” — Phase One P65+ — Photo by Tony Andersen
XPan crop — “Kodak Panatomic-X ISO 32” — Phase One P65+ — Photo by Tony Andersen
Tony hopes that his X-Pro1 project will bring an increased awareness and interest to XPan cameras, both the film models and especially a potential digital version. “Maybe even catch the eye of Fujifilm or Hasselblad.”
“Fujifilm might be the most logical choice for a digital XPan,” Tony stated, “as it would be better placed in their product line. The GFX 50R could be a nice base to build the new camera on. The GFXPan camera could use the current sensor—the 102mp—modify it to 44x17mm by removing the upper and lower rows to achieve a 65×24 aspect ratio. Then redevelop the firmware to use only this aspect in the viewfinder, maybe redesign the optic for 2.7:1 wide like the XPan.”
It was with Fujifilm’s partnership that the XPan film cameras were made, and it was with a Fujifilm X-Pro1 that Tony made an XPan III mockup. I find the idea of Fujifilm creating a digital XPan camera—called TX-3 or GFXPan—highly intriguing. It could be with a slightly stretched sensor inside an X-Pro body (similar to Tony’s mockup). Much more likely, it would be something in the GFX realm; however, it would need to have the retro controls and styling like the GFX 50R, and not be a PASM model like most GFX cameras. Obviously, either way, it would be a niche product, but it seems like there is enough interest—and a growing interest—that such a camera would sell well enough to be profitable. It would certainly make headlines! People would be talking about Fujifilm, which would be good for Fujifilm.
For some unknown reason, Fujifilm X-series cameras inexplicably don’t have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option (GFX cameras do, though). I would strongly encourage Fujifilm to include the 65:24 aspect ratio on their X-series cameras with the 40mp X-Trans V sensor. It would be simple for them to do, and it seems like an obvious no-brainer. It would be amazingly cool if they ever produced a digital XPan, but at the very least Fujifilm should offer the XPan aspect ratio as an option in the X-series. Yes, you can do it with post-editing software, but I much prefer to do things in-camera whenever possible.
XPan Ratio — iPhone 14 Pro — RitchieCam App — Slide Film Filter — Photo by Ritchie Roesch
XPan Ratio — iPhone 14 Pro — RitchieCam App — Slide Film Filter — Photo by Ritchie Roesch
I don’t know if a digital XPan III will ever come to fruition, but there are currently a few cameras to consider if you are looking for an alternative. Fujifilm GFX models have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, and they also have plenty of resolution and film-like results; however, only the GFX 50R has the retro-styling and controls similar to the film cameras, which means that the GFX 50R is your best bet. Most Fujifilm X-series cameras have the retro design and controls plus film simulations and Film Simulation Recipes; the X-T5 and X-H2 have enough resolution, but you have to crop to XPan post-capture. The Panasonic S1R has sufficient resolution and the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, but it doesn’t deliver the retro experience or film-like straight-out-of-camera results. My RitchieCam iPhone App also has the XPan aspect ratio; when used with the 48mp 1x camera on the iPhone 14/15 Pro/Pro Max, it has enough resolution, and is an in-your-pocket option that produces film-inspired results straight-out-of-camera. None of these are fully ideal. Hopefully someday Fujifilm and/or Hasselblad will release an XPan III camera with a 65:24 sensor shape. As it stands now, these are your best alternatives to a camera that does not yet—and may never—exist, but should.
I want to give Tony Andersen a big “thank you” for sharing his XPan III mockup and photographs. Hopefully Tony’s enthusiasm for the XPan format will some day result in an XPan III type camera from one of the camera manufacturers. It definitely deserves to happen someday, and Fujifilm seems like the perfect camera maker to do it.
There’s a brand-new RitchieCam update that I’m really excited to share! If your phone didn’t automatically update the App, be sure to do so now!
Probably the biggest headline is that RitchieCam can now take full-resolution 48MP images! If you have a Pro or Pro Max version of an iPhone 14 or 15 (with a 48mp 1x camera), it’s now possible to capture a richly-detailed high-res picture. In order to do this (for those with a compatible device), select the Gear icon, then tap 48MP Capture to enable. By default, 48MP is disabled. When enabled, RitchieCam will save a 48MP JPEG or HEIC (depending on which format you have selected), plus a 48MP RAW file if that is also selected.
While this new option is definitely wonderful, there are some important considerations that must be mentioned. First, 48MP full-res slows down the camera significantly, and especially if you are also saving a RAW file. If you need to be quick, 48MP should probably be disabled. Second, the image is not pixel-binned, which means that dynamic range will be impacted, and high-ISO pictures won’t look as good. If the scene is particularly contrasty and you are concerned about highlight and shadow details, or if it is a dimly lit, you probably want to take advantage of pixel-binning, and get a standard 12MP image instead. Third, 48MP takes up a lot of storage space on your device, so you might want to use 48MP sparingly and thoughtfully.
One example where 48MP makes a lot of sense is when you are shooting in the 65:24 XPan aspect ratio, which cuts out half of the resolution. Cropping out half of 12MP is a bit crippling. It’s plenty of resolution for internet viewing, but prints are limited to 6″x12″, or perhaps 9″x18″ if you’ve got a clean, sharp picture that won’t be viewed too closely (but that’s definitely pushing it). Now, with 48MP, you have a ton of fine details, and can print 18″x36″ if you want. I think the XPan aspect ratio is the big winner with regards to the high-resolution option, but anytime that you think you might want to make a large print of the scene, and the lighting situation allows, you may want to consider enabling 48MP Capture.
RitchieCam App – Vibrant Color Filter – 65:24 – iPhone 13 Pro – 48MP Capture enabled
There are some other great parts to this update. Photos captured with RitchieCam can now be viewed, shared, or deleted straight from the App—this is a first step in a bigger plan, so it’s definitely not finished, but finished enough to include in this update. The HEIC format has been fixed, and is once again available. We found the bug that Apple included in iOS 17, and circumvented it. It was a needle-in-a-haystack situation, but thankfully it was found and fixed, and you can use HEIC instead of JPEG if you’d like. There are also some small efficiency improvements and bug fixes that you’re not likely to notice (but maybe you will). A lot of work went into this update.
We’re not finished, though. A lot of other great features and improvements are being worked on right now, most of which will be for all iPhones (regardless of whether it has 48MP or not). I’m not sure when the next update will be ready, but it shouldn’t be all that far in the future, so stay tuned!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
