Hasselblad XPan vs Digital stitching
I have recently been looking for a XPan to purchase but it seems they are as rare (and expensive) as the proverbial. I guess my question is would my money be better spent elsewhere and continue stitching with my D200. Would the results be better or worse than scanning the 35mm film ?
somehow when an answer is given it bumps a question up,so i'll give my 2 cents.
I checked out the xpan many years ago because of the amazing images I saw.but after checking prices,no way,it would cost more than my ride was worth.
another question came up as to my use of the camera itself.cost,availibilty of another lens.how often would I use the feature and what about nd or grad filters,plus cost,and my knowledge of exposure to get good prints.
you have it seems the same problem, from what i've read,digital stitching.
exposure and your expertise in some photo program.your gallery has no examples of panoramic photos so only you know your ability.
well,that's all I got,sam
|Michael H. Cothran||
The major disadvantage to using the D200 is that you must take a succession of shots to stitch. This does not work well with any moving images - including water and clouds. Furthermore, you may not always be successful in your stitching effort. Sometimes your panned shots just don't line up the way you thought they would.
Using the Xpan eliminates all this, and once the shutter is released, you pretty know you have an image to work with once you get home.
I believe the Xpan gives you an image about 24mmx60mm (or 1:2.5 ratio). It would take 3-4 panned shots from the D200 to equal this. I think you could expect equal quality shots from either system.
BTW - I have owned & used Hasselblad 6x6cm cameras and Carl Zeiss lenses since 1972, and I have owned & used Nikon 35mm equipment since 1971. I have no quarrels with either.
Michael H. Cothran
|Log in to respond or ask your own question.|