There are two "cheap" and wonderful lenses for GFX. About $ 3-400 for each lens, and those are the Zuiko 35mm f:2.8 Shift and the Nikkor 28mm f:3.5 PC Shift, and the last one, the cheapest of them all, the Canon Pancake 40mm f:2.8. You get one of those for $ 100, and they cover the GFX and are stunningly good.
🤣🤣🤣 Life is truly wonderful! I'm thinking to do it the same way as you. I'm slowly getting tired of my XPro2, so I'm looking for any unusual alternative. Great video! Thanks a lot. Love your humor haha
If using Fuji X or Sony you can always frame your image with the viewfinder in 24 square grid mode using the middle two rows of the 6x4 grid and then apply the 65x24 crop in post. It saves buying a GFX. If you are ok with X-Pro or Leica OVFs that have fields of view greater than the photo with frame lines inside the OVF, then this approach is little different. You just have to deal with the fact the EVF is showing you outside of the final crop.
That’s what I do. But regarding showing the image outside of the crop that’s exactly how the real xpan works given that it’s a rangefinder so it’s actually more realistic than a crop in camera that only shows the final crop!
You can buy a used Hasselblad X1D, that has the same x-pan crop, an adapter to Canon EF, and the tiny Canon 40mm f2.8 for less than 2000 €. Awesome camera and then that x-pan crop in the viewfinder. I love it 😀
@@AlienGradeYes that would be an awesome but also expensive lens. The mentioned Canon EF 40mm is very sharp and doesn't vignette on the X1D camera, that why I consider this a very good combo. Also with the Techart TCX-01 adapter AF works to some extent on the 40mm, and you can control aperture from the camera. Though, the adapter has its problems with other of the Canon lenses, lacking AF.
I’ve ended up doing similarly, just with a different camera. I use a Lumix s1r. When set to 3:1 aspect ratio, the framing display, metering and jpeg captures are done as such. The RAW is captured at full 3:2 so retains plenty of option in post. The pano crop gives effectively 25MP so lots for big prints. Much superior to XPan frankly
I was just doing some research on this. Looking at the manual, it says the S1R supports 4:3, 3:2 (native), 16:9, 1:1, 65:24 (XPan!) and 2:1. It seems to me like a more logical choice than the Fujifilm. And I find the Sigma Contemporary lenses enticing too. I am tempted. (And I could call it the "PanPan", haha!) However. . . I already have the old Sony A7R II that can overlay 6×4 square grid lines. By watching those lines, I can compose 1:1 or 3:1 shots, then crop the photos to match in post. Practically, 3:1 is "close enough" to XPan ratio, and then it's one click in software. So, I really have to do some reckoning of how badly I want that actual 65:24 scene in my viewfinder when I'm shooting, and if I can justify buying all that new gear for it.
I also have the 50R and love the 65:24 X-pan crop. Why not pick up the GF 35-70 if finances can stretch. It's back on offer just now at around 450 quid. Pretty much encompasses the two "classic" fields of view of the 45mm and 90mm of the X-Pan. (Maybe not quite the 45mm - just stand back further!) BTW, I wonder if anyone ever developed an anamorphic enlarger lens to "desqueeze" anamorphic negatives while printing? (I understand cinemas showing the classic "Cinerama" films used a "desqueezing" projector. I remember going to see "2001 A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama as a kid. Blew my mind!) ETA: Actually, with the right adapter, I guess you could use something like the Sirui on the enlarger!
I enjoyed your video and your sense of humour, but I don't follow your anamorphic maths. If you multiply the width of a 3:2 image by 1.3, you get a 2:1 image, not a 2.4:1 image. What am I missing?
I am lucky to buy TX-1 for 1700$ long ago. I wish I bought two. GFX is not Xpan really, not even close. Another option is to buy 6x17 camera. I also have it :)
Although the fuji GFX can be an alternative it is substancially larger than an Xpan, not to mention the cost and size of a GF lens on top of everything. I know the Xpan can be expensive but it is a very diffrent experience. I picked my Xpan up 5 months ago and truly enjoy shooting it and the results I get with diffrent film stocks. I had the GFX 50S II for a couple weeks and although it is a wonderful camera it is not the Xpan in many ways.
I had the 50S and swapped it out for the 50R. The form factor does make a difference. I’m going to get the 35-70 currently on sale and I doubt I’ll get any more native glass than that. Far too expensive just for a rip off of an XPan.
XPAN's are simply too much of gamble for me at this point. I only gamble with money I can afford to lose ...because I usually do. With no ability to repair the XPAN or TX-1, I'm not sure who is buying these cameras. But I know they sure as hell have a lot more money than I do. That or the feel a lot more lucky than I do.
You make me laugh 😅 Question as I am still a cheap b@sterd 😂 can I take my anamorphic image and crop it to the 2:7:1 in post would that at least get me close. Realizing I will still need to do some guess work
There are two "cheap" and wonderful lenses for GFX. About $ 3-400 for each lens, and those are the Zuiko 35mm f:2.8 Shift and the Nikkor 28mm f:3.5 PC Shift, and the last one, the cheapest of them all, the Canon Pancake 40mm f:2.8. You get one of those for $ 100, and they cover the GFX and are stunningly good.
Good to know that there’s some faster, cheaper lenses out there for the GFX. Thank you.
@@adamblack9837 You can find all three lenses used with the GFX on youtube.
🤣🤣🤣 Life is truly wonderful! I'm thinking to do it the same way as you. I'm slowly getting tired of my XPro2, so I'm looking for any unusual alternative. Great video! Thanks a lot. Love your humor haha
Love your sense of humor
If using Fuji X or Sony you can always frame your image with the viewfinder in 24 square grid mode using the middle two rows of the 6x4 grid and then apply the 65x24 crop in post. It saves buying a GFX. If you are ok with X-Pro or Leica OVFs that have fields of view greater than the photo with frame lines inside the OVF, then this approach is little different. You just have to deal with the fact the EVF is showing you outside of the final crop.
That’s what I do. But regarding showing the image outside of the crop that’s exactly how the real xpan works given that it’s a rangefinder so it’s actually more realistic than a crop in camera that only shows the final crop!
You can buy a used Hasselblad X1D, that has the same x-pan crop, an adapter to Canon EF, and the tiny Canon 40mm f2.8 for less than 2000 €. Awesome camera and then that x-pan crop in the viewfinder. I love it 😀
what about Hasselblad XPan 90mm f/4 Lens, with the X1D?
@@AlienGradeYes that would be an awesome but also expensive lens. The mentioned Canon EF 40mm is very sharp and doesn't vignette on the X1D camera, that why I consider this a very good combo. Also with the Techart TCX-01 adapter AF works to some extent on the 40mm, and you can control aperture from the camera. Though, the adapter has its problems with other of the Canon lenses, lacking AF.
I’ve ended up doing similarly, just with a different camera. I use a Lumix s1r. When set to 3:1 aspect ratio, the framing display, metering and jpeg captures are done as such. The RAW is captured at full 3:2 so retains plenty of option in post. The pano crop gives effectively 25MP so lots for big prints.
Much superior to XPan frankly
I was just doing some research on this. Looking at the manual, it says the S1R supports 4:3, 3:2 (native), 16:9, 1:1, 65:24 (XPan!) and 2:1. It seems to me like a more logical choice than the Fujifilm. And I find the Sigma Contemporary lenses enticing too. I am tempted. (And I could call it the "PanPan", haha!)
However. . . I already have the old Sony A7R II that can overlay 6×4 square grid lines. By watching those lines, I can compose 1:1 or 3:1 shots, then crop the photos to match in post. Practically, 3:1 is "close enough" to XPan ratio, and then it's one click in software. So, I really have to do some reckoning of how badly I want that actual 65:24 scene in my viewfinder when I'm shooting, and if I can justify buying all that new gear for it.
The S5 does 65:24 as well.
It was informative as much as it was funny xD 10/10
I also have the 50R and love the 65:24 X-pan crop. Why not pick up the GF 35-70 if finances can stretch. It's back on offer just now at around 450 quid. Pretty much encompasses the two "classic" fields of view of the 45mm and 90mm of the X-Pan. (Maybe not quite the 45mm - just stand back further!)
BTW, I wonder if anyone ever developed an anamorphic enlarger lens to "desqueeze" anamorphic negatives while printing? (I understand cinemas showing the classic "Cinerama" films used a "desqueezing" projector. I remember going to see "2001 A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama as a kid. Blew my mind!)
ETA: Actually, with the right adapter, I guess you could use something like the Sirui on the enlarger!
You should be able to use old anamorphic projection lenses.
What lens are you using with it?
What would happen if you put an anamorphic lens on a XPan camera? An even wider image?
Damn good question.
In theory it would make a squashed Xpan image and after post processing it would be even narrower and even wider.
@@adamblack9837 I'd love to see someone try.
The vazen 28mm anamorphic is a good one for the size problem that you're having
I enjoyed your video and your sense of humour, but I don't follow your anamorphic maths. If you multiply the width of a 3:2 image by 1.3, you get a 2:1 image, not a 2.4:1 image. What am I missing?
Mr. Black - You are behind on videos. Chop chop! We need to see more with your new 50r!
It won’t be in the next video releasing within the week, but the 50R will be making many appearances after that!
Interesting about those old lenses working on GFX. Anyway, had to give it 👍 to totally ruin your day, given the style of delivery😀
I am lucky to buy TX-1 for 1700$ long ago. I wish I bought two. GFX is not Xpan really, not even close.
Another option is to buy 6x17 camera. I also have it :)
Although the fuji GFX can be an alternative it is substancially larger than an Xpan, not to mention the cost and size of a GF lens on top of everything. I know the Xpan can be expensive but it is a very diffrent experience. I picked my Xpan up 5 months ago and truly enjoy shooting it and the results I get with diffrent film stocks. I had the GFX 50S II for a couple weeks and although it is a wonderful camera it is not the Xpan in many ways.
I had the 50S and swapped it out for the 50R. The form factor does make a difference. I’m going to get the 35-70 currently on sale and I doubt I’ll get any more native glass than that. Far too expensive just for a rip off of an XPan.
Red ribbon army would approve!
Can’t believe we got taken out by a small boy.
class video
How much do you charge for five minutes? Fiver? 🤔
I’ll do anything for 50p mate.
Hasselblad Xpan has nothing on Adam Black’s Deadpan. 😂🤝
XPAN's are simply too much of gamble for me at this point. I only gamble with money I can afford to lose ...because I usually do. With no ability to repair the XPAN or TX-1, I'm not sure who is buying these cameras. But I know they sure as hell have a lot more money than I do. That or the feel a lot more lucky than I do.
I call it "panoramanomorphic"
You make me laugh 😅
Question as I am still a cheap b@sterd 😂 can I take my anamorphic image and crop it to the 2:7:1 in post would that at least get me close. Realizing I will still need to do some guess work
LUMIX S1 does the same
haha it is “Si Rui” which means “think wisely”
you aren't serious enough; work on the deadpan.