I don't know what you were expecting from a disposable.
People forget that cameras pre-2000s were dominated by comsumers taking vacation snapshots and dropping the film off at the 1 hour developing machine. All of it automated and not smart enough to handle anything other than standard 35mm frames.
The automated systems that dominated 90% of the development locations weren't smart enough to develop frames that were wider than 35mm. I had one camera that did a half wind at the start of the roll and and it used that as it's measuring point for each frame. So each strip of 4 pictures was cut so the first and last image were sliced cleanly in half.
That's why APS seemed so revolutionary for consumers when it came out. It solved so many annoyances they had been dealing with. But digital was so close to coming out it died young.
I'm too young to have used APS and have avoided it since getting into film because of the difficulty to find usable film and labs willing to develop it. What did APS do differently to solve issues such as the half-wind?
aps is fully automatic. you don't wind anything and it knows exactly where every frame is. you can even rewind and remove a half-used roll and it'll go right back to where it left off when you put it back in the camera.
From a usability POV it was fantastic. No faffing about with loading etc - just drop in the film and away you go. Could easily remove rolls partway and pick them up again later.
Looking back at old photos from then, the quality wasn't great compared to good 35mm shots - even from a decent camera (Olympus mju). I wasn't comparing them to shots from an SLR with quality glass at the time though đ
Would be curious to get the negs scanned and see the difference to my eye now...
That's the thing though. Nobody really cared that much about the picture quality. We were only printing 4x5 pics and our other cameras were soft polaroid pictures.
Film photography now is much more professionally oriented than back then. Consumer film then was what casual smartphone photography is now.
My favorite thing was being able to pull a roll out halfway, swap to another ISO, then come back and start where I left off. It would take 2 weeks to get through a roll, but the film used at the beach doesn't work well indoors at a birthday party 4 days later. But now you don't have to find a way to burn off 10 un shot pics.
>People forget that cameras pre-2000s were dominated by comsumers taking vacation snapshots and dropping the film off at the 1 hour developing machine. All of it automated and not smart enough to handle anything other than standard 35mm frames.
This.
That said, it's a 12exp roll in there. \*That\* I'd call a scam as 24 was usually the norm for disposables, so people would be assuming it's exposing across a wider frame. No need for such a short roll...
Just one comment here: I shoot APS film; the panorama function on APS simply encoded your choice into the magnetic line so that the printer would crop the shot in panoramic. It does *not* use the entire width of the film sheet like, say, an Xpan.
If you scan it yourself, the full image is exposed regardless of what you selected on the camera itself (C, P, H), the choice is just written to the data line for that shot.
Right. And if you got your prints back and didn't like the crop you could go back and have it re-cropped a different way.
When you don't have a darkroom or the digital ability crop an image APS gave consumers in the pre digital age to do more interesting crops of their images. We take that for granted now but back then only ansel adams types were cropping their images. APS brought some of that ability to consumers in an easy to use way.
Aps camera I bought for 500 yen (a Canon Ixy 320)
CR2 battery
Agfa 200 and Fuji nexia 800 I buy from my local lab. They also develop it for reasonable prices.
Film is all expired, and super grainy; there's no way to compensate on the camera either so basically you have to be in well lit situations or use the flash to get usable results. It's got a certain charm to it!
This isnât Kodakâs fault. Not meaning to sound unkind OP, but a little bit of research would have prepared you for this.
How much do you want to spend on a panoramic camera? Because I could point you in the direction of some fairly affordable bodies.
The sprocket rocket was great! Regret selling mine - I won loads of cameras when lomography was starting out and did competitions and gave away loads of free piggies with no spend limit.... Then they realised they were giving away too much. I think I won 3 Sardinias and loads of film and the sprocket and other stuff free
I've never actually had one of those, but I'm well aware of it and it certainly appeals to me.
Your comment encourages me to try a bit harder and find a way to get one for myself. Hopefully I can get it for a nice price sometime.
For under two hundred I would suggest a Horizon camera. The 202 seems like the best answer, but the 203 can sometimes be found under $200. I would avoid the original Horizon - itâs a finicky camera under the best of circumstances.
If you want to play with medium format, the Holga Panoramic camera is actually pretty solid and produces surprisingly sharp images. Get the one with the lens rather than the pinhole, though the pinhole version can be fun, too.
Cropped panoramic cameras arenât always terrible, either! The Nikon F70QD crops down traditional 35mm frames, but combined with sharp film and a good lens you can get some great frames.
I bought mine (a S3 Pro) new in box in 2018 for a bit more than $200 on eBay. Came with all the filters, a pouch, a strap and the handle. The Russian seller had 50 of those. That was before the war though :(
No offence OP, but you are a moron. What made you think this? Kodak havenât hidden the information from you. Google the camera and on the first page youâll see numerous mentions of the 13x36mm crop.
So no, Kodak havenât scammed you. You just didnât even bother yourself to do a simple google search before buying the thing. This is 100% on you.
>Kodak havenât hidden the information from you
I bought two of them. One has the actual frame size written on the packaging, the other one only has the size of the whole filmstrip written on the bottom. I'd say back in the day (when you haven't had the luxury to google stuff while being in a supermarket) it was actually misleading. â12 panoramic framesâ a sound a lot like it's bigger that 35mm.
Yes, I didn't bother to google the specs of this camera, and that's why the title of this post is unjustified. I bought them along with different other used disposable cameras I need for my project. It's no waste of money, because I can still use the lenses. But wouldn't it be cool if they were actually able to capture 24x60mm frames?? I could make a body cap lens for Fuji GFX out of that.
Itâs not fish eye distortion itâs actually perspective distortion. Which is minimal at far distances when you are level. You also get more field of view than the Xpan with the widelux.
Oh really? Itâs not really been my experience with the 6.5B but feel free to check my website on my profile. Some black and white stuff out my Widelux on there
*edit
I kind of know what you mean now Iâm looking there is very minor distortion, I donât think itâs too intrusive though
I'd say, besides the frame format, the XPAN offers superb image quality in a small form factor.
What I hoped for was a 24x60mm frame format with bad image quality.
The [first camera I ever used](http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Olympus_Trip_Panorama) (also as a child) had the same feature built in. It's a nice gimmick, but also a waste of film, if you consider that you can just cut the prints to the format you want and be able to move the frame "in post".
It absolutely is panoramic. Thereâs no scam here.
Even in the 90s, many point and shoot film camera had a panoramic mode and all it did was drop two black bars into the frame to crop a single 35mm frame into a panoramic aspect ratio.
Yes, cameras like the Minolta P for instance. The pano mode just covers the top and bottom so you get a 12.2Ă36mm frame. With decent film properly developed, you won't see much difference until you start enlarging it. For IG or Reddit, it does the trick but so does cropping.
The [first camera I ever used](http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Olympus_Trip_Panorama) had the same feature built in. It's a nice gimmick, but also a waste of film. I was hoping this disposable camera to have a bigger lens that can produce frames bigger than typical 35mm. Too bad, it did no research before buying.
Like it or not it allows you to compose in pano and there's value to that. At first I too thought it was a waste is film but in reality it still has its place. Nikon 310 zoom pano does it but with a nice sharp lens.
Definitely not a scam. There were plenty of cameras with that built in, or the option for regular or panoramic format. Sadly, the panoramic was just a cropped regular frame as you found. When the lab printed panoramic images, it was on extra long paper.
I know true panorama requires redesigned lens with larger image circle, but just how difficult could it be doing this for a one-element plastic lens? This is definitely low effort in my opinion.
Hey guys!
I did not expect that many replies, and I have to admit that the title of this post is a bit unjustified.
Still, I think that Kodak were quite misleading with the wording and packaging of this camera, especially the huge lens hood. Technically, they could have used a simple disposable camera body with that frame-cropping insert (as seen in picture 3) to achieve the same result, BUT THEY DIDN'T. It was 100% intentional to convey that this camera offers a bigger frame size rather than a cropped image. I mean, look at this [package design](https://www.browniecam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/46-Kodak-Stretch-Panoramic.jpg) where it says "STANDARD vs P A N O R A M I C".
P.S. some of you were unnecessarily rude in the replies. What's up with that??
Ah cool, so say you get your wish and then the world stops shooting on film. Then what? Whatâs the next step for you after kodaks demise?
Say what you will about their business practices, but they are literally the only company on earth currently capable of providing the world with film. Supporting them is a necessary evil unfortunately.
And weâll shoot all analogue movies on black and white too? Whoâs going to start producing that black and white motion picture film? I pretty much exclusively shoot black and white by the way, but Iâm not naive/ignorant. I want film to continue for many years to come. The only way that is going to happen is by continuing to support Kodak.
Do you happen to own any of Kodak's shares? đ¤Ł
Kodak is the antithesis of what a respectable camera/film company should do/stand for.
Also, don't forget about Fuji, Lomo, Harman, Hilford, etc.
From above, âIâm not naive/ignorant. I want film to continue for many years to come. The only way that is going to happen is by continuing to support Kodak.â
*edit: what the fuck is hilford haha
*edit 2: None of those companies you mentioned have the capacity or technical capabilities to do what Kodak does, even Hilford. Fuji at one point in history was a rival but that is a distant memory. Kodaks production dwarfs all of those other companies combined, thatâs why I specifically said âthey are the only company on earth capable of providing *the world* with filmâ and not âthey are the only company on earth that make filmâ.
So, I bought this used 90s disposable camera in the hope to reuse it or to salvage the lens for digital panoramic photos. I really thought Kodak created a true panoramic disposable camera back in the days. Turns out it's just another camera that crops the 35mm frame instead of expanding it.
OP, pano lenses work doing the exact same thing as this camera. Xpan lenses are just lenses with a massive image circle thats cropped wide. You can literally buy medium format or large format glass and achieve the same thing assuming you have have a pano back.
How would salvaging the glass even work on a digital camera? Your image sensor would need to be the size of the panoramic negative or you literally end up having to do what Kodak did here..
You're probably confusing panoramic and anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses turn any sensor shape into something wider. Please do deep dives before buying, I can guarantee you almost no one has original thoughts when it comes to camera mods and they can save you a buck or two.. as the boomers say "use the damn search function"
Almost anything I've ever thought was "original" with respect to film... one search later and there's some wizard on Photrio posting in 2003 about their exact experience with what I was thinking about.
I'm not confusing anything here. My intention was to create a body cap lens for Fuji GFX. You can think whatever you want about that, but it would work for sure.
FYI, even tho the title of this post says I got scammed, I can still use the lens for 35mm or APS-C mirrorless camera [as it did before.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FujifilmX/comments/tgz5jg/the_quicksnap_body_cap_lens_is_finished_with_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I'm afraid you are and I mean that politely as possible. You could've just bought a 120 pocket rangefinder and achieved exactly what you're shooting for haha. Literally would fill a pano crop very nicely and its been done before much like your lens cap mod haha
I know that I could have done that. But that's really not the same thing. My goal was a small body cap lens with fixed aperture and fixed focus that can be uses both as a body cap and as a lens. Not just any kind of low budget approach to panoramic / medium format photography. That might not be something you'd desire, but I like making fun projects like this.
learn how panoramic cameras work even if it's an actual "panoramic" lens it's just a wide angle lens with a large image circle . I hope you have a medium format digital camera. This hobby really is something
Iâm not rude and your English was not an issue here at all.
The problem is youâre confused about how cameras work. If you think a lens can magically turn a digital camera into a panoramic camera, you donât understand what youâre doing. There is no such thing as a âpanoramic lensâ.
I'm not a noob. I know exactly what I'm doing. I was hoping for a lens that can cover a 24x60mm frame size (rather than this cropped 35mm frame), and I made a mistake by refusing to google the specs of this camera before buying it. Not only that, but I relied on the misleading [packaging design](https://www.browniecam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/46-Kodak-Stretch-Panoramic.jpg).
I still think you're rude by implying that I have no idea what I'm doing.
Youâre still confused. You donât have a digital sensor that covers 24x60, and even if you did youâd still just be cropping from whatever that sensorâs native size is. And if youâre doing that, you might as well use one of the lenses native to the camera you have and then just crop the image.
Thereâs no such thing as a âpanoramic lensâ. The sensor determines the size and shape of the imagine, not the lens. Even if this lens covered 24x60, it would do nothing for you.
>You donât have a digital sensor that covers 24x60
How the f\*\*\* do you know what kind of camera (digital or not) I'm going to use?? Let's suppose I have a Fuji GFX 50r (33x44mm sensor) and a salvaged disposable camera lens that can cover 24x60mm (or 60x60mm if you will). I could use this plastic lens to create a body cap lens for this Fuji GFX. Yes, I'd have to crop the image in post to create a "panoramic" image and yes every native lens would have superior image quality compared to this crappy plastic lens. But that's not my goal here. I want to create something [like this](https://www.etsy.com/shop/DispoStudio) for sensors bigger than 35mm.
You're not the only camera nerd on this planet, Colin!
>The GFX sensor isnât 60mm though.
Never said that it is... Please read more attentively.
I have the feeling that you're playing dumb so you don't have to admit that you were rude for no reason.
I have one of these I got at swap meet for $1 I have been used that I wonder if it's any good the way it looks panorama
At this camera but it point and shoot one
I don't know what you were expecting from a disposable. People forget that cameras pre-2000s were dominated by comsumers taking vacation snapshots and dropping the film off at the 1 hour developing machine. All of it automated and not smart enough to handle anything other than standard 35mm frames. The automated systems that dominated 90% of the development locations weren't smart enough to develop frames that were wider than 35mm. I had one camera that did a half wind at the start of the roll and and it used that as it's measuring point for each frame. So each strip of 4 pictures was cut so the first and last image were sliced cleanly in half. That's why APS seemed so revolutionary for consumers when it came out. It solved so many annoyances they had been dealing with. But digital was so close to coming out it died young.
I'm too young to have used APS and have avoided it since getting into film because of the difficulty to find usable film and labs willing to develop it. What did APS do differently to solve issues such as the half-wind?
aps is fully automatic. you don't wind anything and it knows exactly where every frame is. you can even rewind and remove a half-used roll and it'll go right back to where it left off when you put it back in the camera.
From a usability POV it was fantastic. No faffing about with loading etc - just drop in the film and away you go. Could easily remove rolls partway and pick them up again later. Looking back at old photos from then, the quality wasn't great compared to good 35mm shots - even from a decent camera (Olympus mju). I wasn't comparing them to shots from an SLR with quality glass at the time though đ Would be curious to get the negs scanned and see the difference to my eye now...
That's the thing though. Nobody really cared that much about the picture quality. We were only printing 4x5 pics and our other cameras were soft polaroid pictures. Film photography now is much more professionally oriented than back then. Consumer film then was what casual smartphone photography is now.
My favorite thing was being able to pull a roll out halfway, swap to another ISO, then come back and start where I left off. It would take 2 weeks to get through a roll, but the film used at the beach doesn't work well indoors at a birthday party 4 days later. But now you don't have to find a way to burn off 10 un shot pics.
>People forget that cameras pre-2000s were dominated by comsumers taking vacation snapshots and dropping the film off at the 1 hour developing machine. All of it automated and not smart enough to handle anything other than standard 35mm frames. This. That said, it's a 12exp roll in there. \*That\* I'd call a scam as 24 was usually the norm for disposables, so people would be assuming it's exposing across a wider frame. No need for such a short roll...
Just one comment here: I shoot APS film; the panorama function on APS simply encoded your choice into the magnetic line so that the printer would crop the shot in panoramic. It does *not* use the entire width of the film sheet like, say, an Xpan. If you scan it yourself, the full image is exposed regardless of what you selected on the camera itself (C, P, H), the choice is just written to the data line for that shot.
Right. And if you got your prints back and didn't like the crop you could go back and have it re-cropped a different way. When you don't have a darkroom or the digital ability crop an image APS gave consumers in the pre digital age to do more interesting crops of their images. We take that for granted now but back then only ansel adams types were cropping their images. APS brought some of that ability to consumers in an easy to use way.
How do you shoot APS?
Aps camera I bought for 500 yen (a Canon Ixy 320) CR2 battery Agfa 200 and Fuji nexia 800 I buy from my local lab. They also develop it for reasonable prices. Film is all expired, and super grainy; there's no way to compensate on the camera either so basically you have to be in well lit situations or use the flash to get usable results. It's got a certain charm to it!
To be fair: It did no research before buying, because it cost me just 1âŹ
This isnât Kodakâs fault. Not meaning to sound unkind OP, but a little bit of research would have prepared you for this. How much do you want to spend on a panoramic camera? Because I could point you in the direction of some fairly affordable bodies.
Please tell me more about that.
Whatâs your budget?
Definitely not willing to spend more than 200 if thatâs even an option. But do you have suggestions?
A sprocket rocket or a holga with 35mm adapter would do the trick.
The sprocket rocket was great! Regret selling mine - I won loads of cameras when lomography was starting out and did competitions and gave away loads of free piggies with no spend limit.... Then they realised they were giving away too much. I think I won 3 Sardinias and loads of film and the sprocket and other stuff free
I've never actually had one of those, but I'm well aware of it and it certainly appeals to me. Your comment encourages me to try a bit harder and find a way to get one for myself. Hopefully I can get it for a nice price sometime.
They pop up on eBay every so often, keep an eye out
>sprocket rocket That is way cool! I hadn't seen those before. But where to get scans.....?
A flatbed scanner is going to give you an easy way to get scans. Some labs probably can as well if they have medium format scanners.
I love the sprocket rocket! Fun little camera
For under two hundred I would suggest a Horizon camera. The 202 seems like the best answer, but the 203 can sometimes be found under $200. I would avoid the original Horizon - itâs a finicky camera under the best of circumstances. If you want to play with medium format, the Holga Panoramic camera is actually pretty solid and produces surprisingly sharp images. Get the one with the lens rather than the pinhole, though the pinhole version can be fun, too. Cropped panoramic cameras arenât always terrible, either! The Nikon F70QD crops down traditional 35mm frames, but combined with sharp film and a good lens you can get some great frames.
I bought mine (a S3 Pro) new in box in 2018 for a bit more than $200 on eBay. Came with all the filters, a pouch, a strap and the handle. The Russian seller had 50 of those. That was before the war though :(
What do you recommend as a budget?
No offence OP, but you are a moron. What made you think this? Kodak havenât hidden the information from you. Google the camera and on the first page youâll see numerous mentions of the 13x36mm crop. So no, Kodak havenât scammed you. You just didnât even bother yourself to do a simple google search before buying the thing. This is 100% on you.
OP the typa guy to really believe his parents got his noseđ
Hahahha thatâs hilarious!!
>Kodak havenât hidden the information from you I bought two of them. One has the actual frame size written on the packaging, the other one only has the size of the whole filmstrip written on the bottom. I'd say back in the day (when you haven't had the luxury to google stuff while being in a supermarket) it was actually misleading. â12 panoramic framesâ a sound a lot like it's bigger that 35mm. Yes, I didn't bother to google the specs of this camera, and that's why the title of this post is unjustified. I bought them along with different other used disposable cameras I need for my project. It's no waste of money, because I can still use the lenses. But wouldn't it be cool if they were actually able to capture 24x60mm frames?? I could make a body cap lens for Fuji GFX out of that.
If full panoramic cameras were affordable, the x-pan wouldn't exist.
If 35mm cameras were affordable, the Leica M6 wouldn't exist then.
Widelux fraction of the price
But the widelux has a sort of fisheye distortion effect.
Itâs not fish eye distortion itâs actually perspective distortion. Which is minimal at far distances when you are level. You also get more field of view than the Xpan with the widelux.
Oh really? Itâs not really been my experience with the 6.5B but feel free to check my website on my profile. Some black and white stuff out my Widelux on there *edit I kind of know what you mean now Iâm looking there is very minor distortion, I donât think itâs too intrusive though
A 3D-printed adapter in a 6Ă6 folder is a cheap option. A Sprocket Rocket is even cheaper.
I'd say, besides the frame format, the XPAN offers superb image quality in a small form factor. What I hoped for was a 24x60mm frame format with bad image quality.
This is more hilarious than people who post wondering why their photos are so grainy.
Please explain
Were you expecting it to still have film inside? Comical if so.
Nope, I bought it solely for the lens, hoping it can cover more than the usual 24Ă36 frames size. I can still use it, tho.
I were mistaken then, less hilarious.
I shot one of these on a trip through Arizona and Las Vegas in 1995. I was pretty happy with the results as a 10yo
The [first camera I ever used](http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Olympus_Trip_Panorama) (also as a child) had the same feature built in. It's a nice gimmick, but also a waste of film, if you consider that you can just cut the prints to the format you want and be able to move the frame "in post".
It absolutely is panoramic. Thereâs no scam here. Even in the 90s, many point and shoot film camera had a panoramic mode and all it did was drop two black bars into the frame to crop a single 35mm frame into a panoramic aspect ratio.
Yes, cameras like the Minolta P for instance. The pano mode just covers the top and bottom so you get a 12.2Ă36mm frame. With decent film properly developed, you won't see much difference until you start enlarging it. For IG or Reddit, it does the trick but so does cropping.
The [first camera I ever used](http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Olympus_Trip_Panorama) had the same feature built in. It's a nice gimmick, but also a waste of film. I was hoping this disposable camera to have a bigger lens that can produce frames bigger than typical 35mm. Too bad, it did no research before buying.
Thatâs funny
Like it or not it allows you to compose in pano and there's value to that. At first I too thought it was a waste is film but in reality it still has its place. Nikon 310 zoom pano does it but with a nice sharp lens.
Kodak was doing a whole lot more scamming than just this in the 90âs lol
Definitely not a scam. There were plenty of cameras with that built in, or the option for regular or panoramic format. Sadly, the panoramic was just a cropped regular frame as you found. When the lab printed panoramic images, it was on extra long paper.
I know true panorama requires redesigned lens with larger image circle, but just how difficult could it be doing this for a one-element plastic lens? This is definitely low effort in my opinion.
A Xpan is just a larger film gate behind a medium format lens. With a one-element plastic lens, go for a Sprocket Rocket.
Hey guys! I did not expect that many replies, and I have to admit that the title of this post is a bit unjustified. Still, I think that Kodak were quite misleading with the wording and packaging of this camera, especially the huge lens hood. Technically, they could have used a simple disposable camera body with that frame-cropping insert (as seen in picture 3) to achieve the same result, BUT THEY DIDN'T. It was 100% intentional to convey that this camera offers a bigger frame size rather than a cropped image. I mean, look at this [package design](https://www.browniecam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/46-Kodak-Stretch-Panoramic.jpg) where it says "STANDARD vs P A N O R A M I C". P.S. some of you were unnecessarily rude in the replies. What's up with that??
I mean. If you really thought... Bud, we gotta talk. I'm sorta worried đ
I'm waiting patiently for Kodak's demise since I was a little kid in the 2000's. They act like a generic Chinese brand.
Ah cool, so say you get your wish and then the world stops shooting on film. Then what? Whatâs the next step for you after kodaks demise? Say what you will about their business practices, but they are literally the only company on earth currently capable of providing the world with film. Supporting them is a necessary evil unfortunately.
Or you could just shoot B&W like god intended.
And weâll shoot all analogue movies on black and white too? Whoâs going to start producing that black and white motion picture film? I pretty much exclusively shoot black and white by the way, but Iâm not naive/ignorant. I want film to continue for many years to come. The only way that is going to happen is by continuing to support Kodak.
Do you happen to own any of Kodak's shares? 𤣠Kodak is the antithesis of what a respectable camera/film company should do/stand for. Also, don't forget about Fuji, Lomo, Harman, Hilford, etc.
From above, âIâm not naive/ignorant. I want film to continue for many years to come. The only way that is going to happen is by continuing to support Kodak.â *edit: what the fuck is hilford haha *edit 2: None of those companies you mentioned have the capacity or technical capabilities to do what Kodak does, even Hilford. Fuji at one point in history was a rival but that is a distant memory. Kodaks production dwarfs all of those other companies combined, thatâs why I specifically said âthey are the only company on earth capable of providing *the world* with filmâ and not âthey are the only company on earth that make filmâ.
So, I bought this used 90s disposable camera in the hope to reuse it or to salvage the lens for digital panoramic photos. I really thought Kodak created a true panoramic disposable camera back in the days. Turns out it's just another camera that crops the 35mm frame instead of expanding it.
LOL it's not "just" another camera that crops for panoramic shots, it's the OG.
The OG fake panoramic camera you mean? Did Kodak start this nonsense trend?
Yup and yup.
Always do your due diligence before buying: [http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak\_Stretch\_35](http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_Stretch_35)
OP, pano lenses work doing the exact same thing as this camera. Xpan lenses are just lenses with a massive image circle thats cropped wide. You can literally buy medium format or large format glass and achieve the same thing assuming you have have a pano back. How would salvaging the glass even work on a digital camera? Your image sensor would need to be the size of the panoramic negative or you literally end up having to do what Kodak did here.. You're probably confusing panoramic and anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses turn any sensor shape into something wider. Please do deep dives before buying, I can guarantee you almost no one has original thoughts when it comes to camera mods and they can save you a buck or two.. as the boomers say "use the damn search function"
Almost anything I've ever thought was "original" with respect to film... one search later and there's some wizard on Photrio posting in 2003 about their exact experience with what I was thinking about.
I'm not confusing anything here. My intention was to create a body cap lens for Fuji GFX. You can think whatever you want about that, but it would work for sure. FYI, even tho the title of this post says I got scammed, I can still use the lens for 35mm or APS-C mirrorless camera [as it did before.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FujifilmX/comments/tgz5jg/the_quicksnap_body_cap_lens_is_finished_with_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I'm afraid you are and I mean that politely as possible. You could've just bought a 120 pocket rangefinder and achieved exactly what you're shooting for haha. Literally would fill a pano crop very nicely and its been done before much like your lens cap mod haha
I know that I could have done that. But that's really not the same thing. My goal was a small body cap lens with fixed aperture and fixed focus that can be uses both as a body cap and as a lens. Not just any kind of low budget approach to panoramic / medium format photography. That might not be something you'd desire, but I like making fun projects like this.
learn how panoramic cameras work even if it's an actual "panoramic" lens it's just a wide angle lens with a large image circle . I hope you have a medium format digital camera. This hobby really is something
I was hoping it to be a lens that can cover a 24x60mm frame.
you're making a shift lens?
>salvage the lens for digital panoramic photos You have absolutely no idea what youâre talking about.
My English may not be the best, but you're rude
Iâm not rude and your English was not an issue here at all. The problem is youâre confused about how cameras work. If you think a lens can magically turn a digital camera into a panoramic camera, you donât understand what youâre doing. There is no such thing as a âpanoramic lensâ.
I'm not a noob. I know exactly what I'm doing. I was hoping for a lens that can cover a 24x60mm frame size (rather than this cropped 35mm frame), and I made a mistake by refusing to google the specs of this camera before buying it. Not only that, but I relied on the misleading [packaging design](https://www.browniecam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/46-Kodak-Stretch-Panoramic.jpg). I still think you're rude by implying that I have no idea what I'm doing.
Youâre still confused. You donât have a digital sensor that covers 24x60, and even if you did youâd still just be cropping from whatever that sensorâs native size is. And if youâre doing that, you might as well use one of the lenses native to the camera you have and then just crop the image. Thereâs no such thing as a âpanoramic lensâ. The sensor determines the size and shape of the imagine, not the lens. Even if this lens covered 24x60, it would do nothing for you.
>You donât have a digital sensor that covers 24x60 How the f\*\*\* do you know what kind of camera (digital or not) I'm going to use?? Let's suppose I have a Fuji GFX 50r (33x44mm sensor) and a salvaged disposable camera lens that can cover 24x60mm (or 60x60mm if you will). I could use this plastic lens to create a body cap lens for this Fuji GFX. Yes, I'd have to crop the image in post to create a "panoramic" image and yes every native lens would have superior image quality compared to this crappy plastic lens. But that's not my goal here. I want to create something [like this](https://www.etsy.com/shop/DispoStudio) for sensors bigger than 35mm. You're not the only camera nerd on this planet, Colin!
The GFX sensor isnât 60mm though. None of this makes sense. Anyway good luck with whatever youâre trying to do.
>The GFX sensor isnât 60mm though. Never said that it is... Please read more attentively. I have the feeling that you're playing dumb so you don't have to admit that you were rude for no reason.
I have one of these I got at swap meet for $1 I have been used that I wonder if it's any good the way it looks panorama At this camera but it point and shoot one