M8 versus XPAN

[thwalker]

Has anyone done any comparisons of M8 images taken with a CV15 or WATE, cropped to panoramic proportions and printed relatively large (16 inches wide) versus scanned and similarly printed panoramic XPAN images shot with the 45mm lens? I'm wondering how comparable they would be, particularly using a flatbed scanner like the Epson 4990 and at relatively low ISOs.....I'm an M8 owner but am thinking of acquiring an XPAN.

[jaapv]

Wouldn't stitching be easier?

[cam2000]

This picture was taken with the M8 on a tripod, there is 10 pictures taken with the Aspheric Elmarit 21mm, stiched with CS3.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Wouldn't stitching be easier?

Absolutely, and the beautiful picture by Jacques speaks for itself..

Remember that when you stitch the resolution (pixels) of all the stitched pictures are added up. Careful stitching with a good program would give you files that no scanned X-Pan file can compete with, except that the perspective can be different.

Have a look pse at my contribution of today at the (now) end of this thread:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...4-elmarit.html

[Essemmlee]

This is an Xpan 45mm wide, with 2 side by side images, taken in Northern Ireland near the Devil's Causeway.

[Essemmlee]

Apologies - forgot the original colour version.

[martinb]

A cropped M8 picture wouldn't compare very well to two 35mm frames. If you want panorama from the M8 you'll have to stitch. I would prefer the X-pan for serious work. A cheaper option might be to get a Mamiya 7 with panorama adapter.

[cam2000]

Here is the CS3 file on this panoramic picture....

[plasticman]

Jacques

That's a very fine picture, no doubt. But I think what Martin might be implying is that sometimes the correct tool for the job is not necessarily always the M8.
When I look at your image, there are details in it that detract somewhat from the intention to produce a strictly 'panoramic' view. For instance:

- because of the stitching of many wide-angle shots, each of the viewers seems to be looking at a unique spot in the distance (not the stage incidentally)
- the trees seem to be leaning at various different and unnatural angles
- the roof of the stage seems to be a little undefined(?) which is probably the result of a straight edge that turned into a mass of conflicting angles with the 21
- the lighting apparatus at the left side seems to have several different verticals stitched together

Anyways, Carsten has also demonstrated that it's more than possible to create excellent panoramas with stitching M8 images, but on the other hand, it may be possible for even hard-core M8 aficionados to agree that other cameras may be able to do somethings better...

[ChrisC]

Jacques - And others. I started the thread [Nodal Point, 24 Elmarit?] which has expanded a little into the territory of stitching software and other aspects of panorama imaging, particularly with use of the M8. I don't want to either hijack this thread, or cause unnecessary duplication, but it's obvious that this thread has attracted people with good panorama knowledge.

Would you please have a look at the alternative thread and see if you care to contribute?

My apologies to the originator of this thread.

..............Chris

[cam2000]

Originally Posted by plasticman

Jacques

That's a very fine picture, no doubt. But I think what Martin might be implying is that sometimes the correct tool for the job is not necessarily always the M8.
When I look at your image, there are details in it that detract somewhat from the intention to produce a strictly 'panoramic' view. For instance:

- because of the stitching of many wide-angle shots, each of the viewers seems to be looking at a unique spot in the distance (not the stage incidentally)
- the trees seem to be leaning at various different and unnatural angles
- the roof of the stage seems to be a little undefined(?) which is probably the result of a straight edge that turned into a mass of conflicting angles with the 21
- the lighting apparatus at the left side seems to have several different verticals stitched together

Anyways, Carsten has also demonstrated that it's more than possible to create excellent panoramas with stitching M8 images, but on the other hand, it may be possible for even hard-core M8 aficionados to agree that other cameras may be able to do somethings better...

I wont disagree with you ...... in my lifetime as a commercial photographer I worked with 4x5 inch bellows, tilts and swing when I needed to correct perspective..... I used Hasseblads when I needed bigger and better images than my 35mm. I agree with you that you should use the proper camera for a specific job..... In my case now I am semi retired photographer and use only the M8 system..... a panoramic on occasion can be done by stitching so I am happy with the result of CS3 (picture above was used for the front page cover of a newspaper)

[plasticman]

Jacques

I was idly curious on this Friday afternoon (when I should be packing-up to leave the office for the weekend), and had a look at the wonderful images you have on your site. They really are beautiful - and my response to your post was not intended to show any disrespect to your obvious photographic skills.

However, the original poster wanted advice on the merits of the M8 versus a dedicated panoramic camera like the XPan, and I felt it was only fair to point out that (contrary to what is commonly held on this forum) the best tool for the job is not always the Leica.

Have a great weekend!

//mani

[keithdunlop]

Why did it take 10 M8 images to make up that stitched panoramic? I've never done it myself, but I would have assumed that the shot could be created from maybe 3 frames.

[cam2000]

Thanks and have yourself a great weekend! Drive safely......

[Photoskeptic]

Jacques, I feel you did a fantastic job. I've stitched an even longer pano with my M8 using only five images. But it was a landscape , not all those people to worry about. An X-pan is a very special camera to do one thing only. Since it is so specific it is not everyone's cup of tea. Plus it was mentioned on another forum that Hasselblad is no longer providing service.

[khun_k]

XPan is a fine camera and can really be use like a M camera except it is bigger and somewhat less refined. But it can take one shot panoramic! I cannot remember the last time I work on the XPan and quite sure I will not use again and I am not regret. Today's digital workflow just offer a lot more flexibility than what was yesterday with film. XPan lens in my point of view, although sharp, but in poor lighting it cannot render the quality the M users got used to. These were the pictures took years ago with XPan with 45mm lens. To me, after re-compare the quality again, I will confidently say M8 can deliver ONE SHOT picture and cropped to panoramic format at least the same quality as XPan, if not better.
Both pictures took in northern Thailand, XPan with 45mm lens, Fuji Velvia 50.

[stunsworth]

Stitching's ok if nothing moves, otherwise there are potential problems.

[khun_k]

Stitching moving objects, peoples on the busy streets, tree blown by strong wind and so on will be more difficult to work with, especially in automatic mode, but with stencils and masks it is still perfectly doable, although more time consuming. There are ways to plan a panoramic picture to display dynamic movements so the post processing will be a lot easier.

[martinb]

Originally Posted by khun_k

To me, after re-compare the quality again, I will confidently say M8 can deliver ONE SHOT picture and cropped to panoramic format at least the same quality as XPan, if not better.

If you really think so, you must be doing something very wrong.

[fourfa]

The Devil's Causeway shot looks very soft to me (could just be the small jpg). If, because of the unusual size of an XPAN film, one was unable to scan it with anything but an ordinary flatbed scanner, the cropped M8 might well do better. If scanning properly with a 4000 dpi multi-format scanner like a Nikon 9000, well just do the math.