Paul I agree with you except in one scenario - movement in the frame. I have a sequence of frames from an sea scape that the software will not auto stitch. The movement of the sea prevents it from aligning the frames. I do take digital pano's the last one I think was 5 or 6 frames on a k1. My laptop still struggles to open the end result. I am happy with the result - as you say the software is very good. I personally would probably never hack hardware to achieve something unless there was no other option. I did come across somebody who created a frame to hold 5 entry level Nikon DSLR'S at the right angle and remote releases wired together to get around the movement problem. Again more effort than I will spend. Patrick
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: OT Two panoramas Contemporary software makes it easy to create panoramas from multiple high resolution frames. Why fuss with hardware? Paul > On May 12, 2026, at 9:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hello All > I have always liked the idea of a panoramic camera. Unfortunately the > funds have never been there. I have and still do use occasionally the > panoramic half frame on the mz series cameras. The success varies a > lot. I came across this the other day A half frame 645 conversion on a > Pentax 645n https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPeFS_eghps > Could work well > Patrick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralf R Radermacher <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 12:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT Two panoramas > >> Am 12.05.26 um 11:33 schrieb David Mann: >> Nice. I always wanted to try a 6x17 camera, or at least an Xpan as a 6x17 >> presents bigger challenges with scanning. > > Scanning Xpan frames is more difficult, as there are no 35 mm scanners that > scan longer frames. 6x17 can be scanned on a Epson flatbed like the V700. I'm > now using a Epson F-3200, a 'real' film scanner that goes up to 6 x 20 cm and > 4x5 inch. > > The greater challenges arise whie taking the picture. 6x17 has all the > drawbacks of large format. You'll have to stop down to f45 in order to get > even exposure into the corners of the frame. That leads to rather long > exposure times, even in bright daylight. I've had motion blur with river > barges... > > Night photography at f45 is a constant fight with reciprocal failure > in the corners and the darker parts of the scene and requires at least > ISO > 400 film. > >> I bet the slides look amazing. > > I've only used negative stock because it is less critical to expose. > >> There's no substitute for size. > > Sure is. More size. > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : > http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com > Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf > Fotos : https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012 > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the > link directly above and follow the directions. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
