Medium Format panorama camera

Sorry, but before I jumped onto digital I was spending over £1000.00 a month on film and development and that was over 15 years ago, and since then work has gone tenfold.

The savings back then were phenomenal. I didn't even bat an eyelid paying £330.00 each! for 1gb CF cards. I brought 4 of them - £1320.00 it was at that time just a months processing.

I think that Brian was saying just this, digital is cheaper but if you prefer film then you have to shoulder the cost...at least thats what I think he's saying, sometimes its difficult to work out what he means;):D (Sorry Brian, just my bit of fun)
 
If you want 120, cheap(ish) and panoramas, I've seen someone, somewhere, who managed to expose successive overlapping frames on a 120 camera by partly winding on and turning the camera. I've wanted to try this myself, and surprise you all... but the opportunity's gone for a while. I think I could do it with my 6x6 Ikonta; it does have a double exposure lock, but it unlocks before the full wind-on (my idea was to wind on until the first dot visible through the red window, which might be 2/3 of a frame). The real problem is working out how much to turn the camera for a given amount of wind. A bit tricky, but a certain amount of dodgy double-exposure overlap was part of the charm of the images I saw.
 
If you want 120, cheap(ish) and panoramas, I've seen someone, somewhere, who managed to expose successive overlapping frames on a 120 camera by partly winding on and turning the camera. I've wanted to try this myself, and surprise you all... but the opportunity's gone for a while. I think I could do it with my 6x6 Ikonta; it does have a double exposure lock, but it unlocks before the full wind-on (my idea was to wind on until the first dot visible through the red window, which might be 2/3 of a frame). The real problem is working out how much to turn the camera for a given amount of wind. A bit tricky, but a certain amount of dodgy double-exposure overlap was part of the charm of the images I saw.
I tried to do that when I put 35mm through my 6x9 folder. Obviously can’t use the frame window so I had to kind of guess, really didn’t work! Got about 3 useable frames. Wouldn’t probably have to waste a roll of film and wind it on with the back open so you can see where the markers are
 
I was spending over £1000.00 a month on film and development and that was over 15 years ago

Wow but if you were making say 20k\month from your shots..............but get your point that you can make more profit using digi.
 
I think that Brian was saying just this, digital is cheaper but if you prefer film then you have to shoulder the cost...at least thats what I think he's saying, sometimes its difficult to work out what he means;):D (Sorry Brian, just my bit of fun)

My words of wisdom in the shortest number of words possible...erm well there is more chance of someone reading them if the post is short :D
 
Wow but if you were making say 20k\month from your shots..............but get your point that you can make more profit using digi.

Its not just profit, it's speed too. And cutting out tasks. I no longer needed to drive to the lab to drop off and pick things up either.
 
Its not just profit, it's speed too. And cutting out tasks. I no longer needed to drive to the lab to drop off and pick things up either.

..and I assume all your shots taking on film in the past are in storage and can be used now and in the future....well you know where I am going with this re digi storage and backup. ;)
I've scanned my negs taking in the early 60s and posted here..........anyway Paul we are going off topic (not unusual here o_O) and it's been mentioned before in digi ver film.
 
The bottom line is, nobody is making a thread in F&C about 120 pano film cameras because they want to shoot digital and crop it 3/1.
The costs, speed, convenience have got nothing to do with anything.

Andy does a sort of pano with his ordinary MF camera by stitching two shots together. (y)
 
Resurrecting this thread to say that this month's Photography Online show has a session with the Fuji GX617 at the 40 minute mark, if that's of interest. There's a decent explanation of depth of field earlier in the show, so probably worth a look for anyone with time of their hands?
 
Last edited:
Resurrecting this thread to say that this month's Photography Online show has a session with the Fuji GX617 at the 40 minute mark, if that's of interest. There's a decent explaanation of depth of field earlier in the show, so probably worth a look for anyone with time of their hands?
I've been watching this series since its inception 4 (?) issues ago, and really enjoy it. Not all topics are of interest to me, but it's well put together. And free.
 
If you want 120, cheap(ish) and panoramas, I've seen someone, somewhere, who managed to expose successive overlapping frames on a 120 camera by partly winding on and turning the camera. I've wanted to try this myself, and surprise you all... but the opportunity's gone for a while. I think I could do it with my 6x6 Ikonta; it does have a double exposure lock, but it unlocks before the full wind-on (my idea was to wind on until the first dot visible through the red window, which might be 2/3 of a frame). The real problem is working out how much to turn the camera for a given amount of wind. A bit tricky, but a certain amount of dodgy double-exposure overlap was part of the charm of the images I saw.

Could anyone please take a photo of the back of some 120 backing paper, showing the frame numbers and the preceding dots, preferably with a ruler or something alongside? FP4 or HP5 would be good, although no doubt they're all similar. If I get a chance I'm going to try this, but I'll need to think carefully about how much to turn the camera for various amounts of wind-on...
 
Could anyone please take a photo of the back of some 120 backing paper, showing the frame numbers and the preceding dots, preferably with a ruler or something alongside? FP4 or HP5 would be good, although no doubt they're all similar. If I get a chance I'm going to try this, but I'll need to think carefully about how much to turn the camera for various amounts of wind-on...
There's a photo of HP5+ and Acros at the link Chris. https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...w-film-related-toy-thread.239121/post-8682078
 
Thanks Peter, I'd forgotten that. Assuming the 6x6 numbers are the middle rows, it looks like the first dot (whether large for Acros or small for HP5) is pretty much half way to the next frame. Once I've worked out the angle of view of the lens (I think a 75mm Novar Anastigmat), I should be able to work out how much to turn the camera. I think there's a panoramic head marked in degrees on the tripod! Whether I actually get this done, that's another matter!
 
Thanks Peter, I'd forgotten that. Assuming the 6x6 numbers are the middle rows, it looks like the first dot (whether large for Acros or small for HP5) is pretty much half way to the next frame. Once I've worked out the angle of view of the lens (I think a 75mm Novar Anastigmat), I should be able to work out how much to turn the camera. I think there's a panoramic head marked in degrees on the tripod! Whether I actually get this done, that's another matter!
I'm sure @Andysnap will worry that I'm over-thinking this again... but I've worked out a few things, recorded here in case I lose the various bits of paper...

a) since the Ikonta winds towards the right, I'd also have to pan the camera towards the right to get overlapping frames in the proper sequence (this took a lot of head scratching because the image is inverted, but I think it's right).

b) the 75mm lens on 6*6 film (actual frame size 56.5mm) gives an angle of view for the frame of 41°. So if I was taking normal shots and wanted one frame to match the previous, that's the amount I'd have to rotate the camera on the pano head (also checking the vf of course, though at this stage I don't know the coverage of the vf).

c) the inter-frame gap is rather large on the FP4+ I've shot on this camera before (7mm), though it's presumably determined by the numbers on the backing paper. The length from the LHS of successive frames from earlier negative strips is 63.5mm.

c) the image of the back of some HP5+ that @Peter B linked me to shows that if I wind on to the last (4th and largest) circle on HP5+, the film would have moved 53.5mm, ie there would be a 4mm overlap. I'd need to set up the composition to make sure these "joins" were in relatively uniform parts of the image, rather than (say) where a tower starts. Taking account of the 7mm inter-frame gap, I think :thinking: this corresponds to a camera turn of 39°! I'm currently assuming that the marks on FP4+ would be the same as those on HP5+ (worth noting that the marks on Acros are placed differently).

This is all highly dodgy, as my first goes at these calculations resulted in angles of view and rotation almost double these figures. o_O:( So now I just need a chance to test it out. Among other things, this means attaching a QR plate to the bottom of the Ikonta, which means the case won't fit any more. From a recce yesterday, I've found a place where I should be able to get a 3-shot pano of Kenilworth Castle, corresponding roughly to a 6x17 negative! :)
 
I'm sure @Andysnap will worry that I'm over-thinking this

Yep, but it doesn't mean your wrong Chris, in fact it's underthinking stuff that gets me into so many scrapes. :eek::ROFLMAO:
 
I am hoping Steve will make a 6x17 rear standard and roll film holder for the chroma 4x5.

Also based around large format lenses, but be careful to select a lens with more than 181mm image circle, a 90mm f8 would be a good place to start, would be one from this range. Quite an affordable way into MF Pano cameras. They have their quirks but are cheap enough
https://www.maleficwares.com/

Another cheap option is the Vermeer 6x17 pinhole camera. Fun and simple to use
https://www.ebay.de/itm/193492292367

This was taken on the Vermeer, forgive the scan stitch line
PSX_20200607_183904.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am hoping Steve will make a 6x17 rear standard and roll film holder for the chroma 4x5...

In the early days, @stevelmx5 told us that he could make a 6x12 back for the Chroma, but 17cm is bigger than 5" so a 6x17 back would have to be spaced back from the camera... I think! I rather suspect that the 6x17 for Chroma has been dropped in favour of the Carbon Adventurer which, IIRC, has an adjustable rear standard to accommodate just this option!
 
Yep, but it doesn't mean your wrong Chris, in fact it's underthinking stuff that gets me into so many scrapes. :eek::ROFLMAO:
Like, oh I dunno, not reading the signs when driving over to a certain island????? ;)
 
Like, oh I dunno, not reading the signs when driving over to a certain island????? ;)

That sort of thing yes...o_O however not restricted to that example :LOL:
 
In the early days, @stevelmx5 told us that he could make a 6x12 back for the Chroma, but 17cm is bigger than 5" so a 6x17 back would have to be spaced back from the camera... I think! I rather suspect that the 6x17 for Chroma has been dropped in favour of the Carbon Adventurer which, IIRC, has an adjustable rear standard to accommodate just this option!
I believe it involves a complete rear standard swap, making the Carbon modular?
 
In the early days, @stevelmx5 told us that he could make a 6x12 back for the Chroma, but 17cm is bigger than 5" so a 6x17 back would have to be spaced back from the camera... I think! I rather suspect that the 6x17 for Chroma has been dropped in favour of the Carbon Adventurer which, IIRC, has an adjustable rear standard to accommodate just this option!

As you say Chris, to mount a 617 back on any 4x5 camera, the film plane has to be moved back by around 50mm, to increase the size of the image circle whilst physically projecting it through the smaller 4x5 cutout in the rear standard. This is done with exiting holders by also mounting the auxiliary ground glass back by that amount.

The 612 back I’ve drawn up is a flexible design, so it could be printed at any size between 6x6 and 6x17. However, I’m not a massive fan of hanging the film holder off the back of the camera, which is why I’ve gone down the router of a complete replacement rear standard for the Adventurer in 617, and 5x7, instead. I’m still aiming to produce a stand-alone 612 rollfilm back for standard 4x5’s though, including your Advanced45.
 
I believe it involves a complete rear standard swap, making the Carbon modular?

Yes, the Adventurer has a completely removable rear standard which gives greater flexibility for future replacement bodies. As a result, the 617 back, with a dedicated 617 holder, will mean that the film plane will be in the same position as a the standard 4x5 rear body, so you won’t need to give up 50mm if focal length.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if we can make it a year shall we :bat:
 
I'm sure @Andysnap will worry that I'm over-thinking this again... but I've worked out a few things, recorded here in case I lose the various bits of paper...

a) since the Ikonta winds towards the right, I'd also have to pan the camera towards the right to get overlapping frames in the proper sequence (this took a lot of head scratching because the image is inverted, but I think it's right).

b) the 75mm lens on 6*6 film (actual frame size 56.5mm) gives an angle of view for the frame of 41°. So if I was taking normal shots and wanted one frame to match the previous, that's the amount I'd have to rotate the camera on the pano head (also checking the vf of course, though at this stage I don't know the coverage of the vf).

c) the inter-frame gap is rather large on the FP4+ I've shot on this camera before (7mm), though it's presumably determined by the numbers on the backing paper. The length from the LHS of successive frames from earlier negative strips is 63.5mm.

c) the image of the back of some HP5+ that @Peter B linked me to shows that if I wind on to the last (4th and largest) circle on HP5+, the film would have moved 53.5mm, ie there would be a 4mm overlap. I'd need to set up the composition to make sure these "joins" were in relatively uniform parts of the image, rather than (say) where a tower starts. Taking account of the 7mm inter-frame gap, I think:thinking: this corresponds to a camera turn of 39°! I'm currently assuming that the marks on FP4+ would be the same as those on HP5+ (worth noting that the marks on Acros are placed differently).

This is all highly dodgy, as my first goes at these calculations resulted in angles of view and rotation almost double these figures. o_O:( So now I just need a chance to test it out. Among other things, this means attaching a QR plate to the bottom of the Ikonta, which means the case won't fit any more. From a recce yesterday, I've found a place where I should be able to get a 3-shot pano of Kenilworth Castle, corresponding roughly to a 6x17 negative! :)

Turns out the Ikonta winds from right to left, so obviously start shooting from the right and traverse to the left...

Some may have read elsewhere on here that I have this mad idea of taking a panorama on a 6x6 folder camera by controlling the wind-on and angle of turn (link here and here). So yesterday I thought I would try it out. I've wanted to for a while, but the light has been dismal and murky when it's not actually been wet.

First I had to get the Ikonta onto the pano head on my tripod. It's actually a Manfrotto fairly cheap head, but I've done a conversion from the Manfrotto QR clamp to an Arca-Swiss one, and this came with a pano facility. It's a bit of a pain in general use, actually, because the knob that tightens up to stop the clamp rotating doesn't work too well (you'll see a bit of a theme developing here). Anyway, I had to get an Arca plate onto the Ikonta. This also turned out to be a pain; the "tripod socket" on the Ikonta is normally used to hold the half case on, and it's raised above the base of the camera on a slightly dome-shaped bit of metal. This meant that it was very difficult to screw the plate on tightly. In practice in the field, the darn thing kept coming loose! :(

Anyway, I thought I'd take a sequence of 3 shots first, to remind myself how the camera works. Set up the camera on the "near side" of Kenilworth Castle:

View attachment 283013

(There's a dire amount of chromatic aberration there!) So that seemed to go well enough. I then went round to the far side, and set up at a point where the whole castle would fit in the viewfinder vertically, but with the option of taking 3 overlapping shots to make an approximate 6x17 panorama.

View attachment 283014

I figured I had to take the first shot, then wind on to the last circle on the backing paper (ie before the next frame number), then rotate the camera about 39 degrees, and take the next shot. The wind on should be enough to overcome the multi-exposure prevention.

So I took the first shot, and wound on. I could hear the noise as the anti-ME thing was disabled, which was good. Then I had to wind on. Because the sun was over my left shoulder, I had to turn the camera before exposing the red window. Darn it, I'd left the little red torch thingo behind. :( Assuming that FP4 backing paper was the same as HP5, I had to wind on to the 4th circle. Wind, wind, wind... darn it, the next frame number! :( OK, maybe FP4 only has 3 circles on the backing paper (or the first circle is too hard to see). Anyway, that's the first attempt gone. Back to the original position, re-take the first shot, spin so the red window is in the shade, wind on to the 3rd circle... darn it, the clamp has come loose and the body is turning freely relative to the clamp! :( Take it off, tighten up, wind on to the frame number, back first position.

Next time I was too gentle on the shutter release, managed to set the anti-ME thingy but not fire the shutter. Now the normal button wouldn't fire, I had to go round to the front and work out how to defeat the anti-ME thingy, which I did, except I was standing in front of the lens! :(

Next time, the first shot worked perfectly, and so did the wind-on. I'd already spotted that the pano head thingy was not marked in degrees, but actually in 2.5 degree steps. But still, I figured 40 degrees would be close enough to 39 degrees. By this time, I was beginning to lose the will, but I had to give it a try. I managed to get 3 (hopefully overlapping) shots... and then went back and did it again!

Finally I was left with one frame to take, so moved back to the top of the field where I could get the whole castle in the viewfinder:

View attachment 283016

So, we'll see. At this stage I must say it appears those who were sceptical of this idea were right. On the other hand, a 6x17 camera must be a couple of grand, so it's worth a try.

My father's Zeiss Ikonta 524/16 (with the cheaper 75mm lens), and FP4+ film. Mostly 1/125 and f/11.

I just wanted to get the link to this trial into this thread. Still tossing up whether to dev the film myself using the 120 bit of the Lab-box (which probably means an argument with the OH), or send the film together with the 135 film I've just finished off to AG... tending to the latter!
 
Look up Malefic 6x17

Or if you want to try Pinhole you could try Vermeer 6x17

So this post by Karl went rather un-noticed at the time. I've just re-discovered the Malefic on account of a G**gle search for 6x17 cameras. If you've got a LF lens (say for example, the Fujinon NW 135/5.6 that I've got), you can buy a brand new Malefic Triplet for €229 that will do 6x9, 6x12 or 6x17! You need a viewfinder, not sure how much. Focusing seems to be scale focusing, presumably through a screw thread on the nosecone. He's got a bunch of other cameras as well.

Interesting!
 
So this post by Karl went rather un-noticed at the time. I've just re-discovered the Malefic on account of a G**gle search for 6x17 cameras. If you've got a LF lens (say for example, the Fujinon NW 135/5.6 that I've got), you can buy a brand new Malefic Triplet for €229 that will do 6x9, 6x12 or 6x17! You need a viewfinder, not sure how much. Focusing seems to be scale focusing, presumably through a screw thread on the nosecone. He's got a bunch of other cameras as well.

Interesting!
They are scale focus but in general you just use the aperture to make sure you get the range in focus that you need. They can be fitted with any large format lens with an image circle of a minimum of 181mm mounted in Copal 00 or 0 shutter. The maker will ask for exact flange focus distance for any lens that he can't find the figures for as the cones are made to order. Lens options at the wider end would be the pricey 72mm and most 90mm, with 90mm f8 lenses probably offering best value where you don't have to focus on ground glass, once you get above that image circle isn't usually a problem

That Vermeer shouldn't be discounted for pinhole, it is a great little camera too
 
They are scale focus but in general you just use the aperture to make sure you get the range in focus that you need. They can be fitted with any large format lens with an image circle of a minimum of 181mm mounted in Copal 00 or 0 shutter. The maker will ask for exact flange focus distance for any lens that he can't find the figures for as the cones are made to order. Lens options at the wider end would be the pricey 72mm and most 90mm, with 90mm f8 lenses probably offering best value where you don't have to focus on ground glass, once you get above that image circle isn't usually a problem

That Vermeer shouldn't be discounted for pinhole, it is a great little camera too
Do you have either of these, Karl?
 
Do you have either of these, Karl?
Not yet, my 4x5 set is 65, 150, 240, the 65 will not cover a 6x17, the chart of 4x5 lenses lists the 72 as the widest lens with a good image circle, others like the Nikkor 75mm will as well. By time you get up to 90mm most will. I hope to get one of Steve's 6x17 backs for the carbon adventurer when they come available, because I already have wide end of 4x5 covered I am considering getting a 90mm to fill the gap and to be my wide angle lens on the 6x17
 
I meant the Malefic or the Vermeer! ;)
 
I have the Vermeer, a friend has the Malefic
Fantastic... any idea how well the Malefic focuses?

The Chroma Snapshot from @stevelmx5 also has scale focusing, but I think you have to calibrate it yourself... ISTR by putting some tracing paper in place of the film, but I might be making that up. The Malefic appears to load the 120 film by dropping it into a slot, sort of Leica style (the video on the site shows him having some difficulty loading it). So calibrating in the way described above wouldn't work (you wouldn't be able to see the back of the paper). So I'm thinking that either he calibrates it himself (and not sure how he could without the buyer's lens), or each user has to calibrate it, I suppose by setting it at "infinity" and "minimum" and shooting a few shots. But at 4 shots per roll that would be very expensive.
 
Back
Top