I love shooting with my Fuji 617 cameras but when shooting with these cameras it can be very frustrating when you just cant shoot the field of view you want. I was out shooting tonight at the skillion and I had my Fuji GX617 90mm view finder out checking out some compositions and the field of view was pathetic compared to what I wanted to get in with the high cloud. So I ended up shooting it on digital and the above photo is what I got. What I have done is put a border around what I would have gotten with the GX617.
This is one of the times where shooting digital panoramics really has it over the fixed lens film cameras.
Click the image for a larger view.
Good post Matt, nice to see the comparison. This is definitely one area where wide angle digital stitching rules over the 617, much more flexible composition. Love those clouds!
I would love a 617 viewfinder though, just to be able to compose in one frame, gotta find me a used one.
Thanks Flemming… both formats have their positives and negatives. Good luck finding a 617 viewfinder, you might have better luck finding rocking horse poo.
I agree with Flemming, it’s great to see what can be done with digital stitching. The 617 would work, but the extra area form the stitch is better on the eye. Great composition.
Hey Matt
I am a huge fan of the wide panos you can get from the digital but i also love the colour of film i think the 72mm is my option should i upgrade to the Linhof…
Great shot as well nice work with the water
Cheers
Darren
Woa! Look at those clouds,they are having fun there.Can you make them brighter ?Then they will look happier.I do love this composition.Thank you for sharing to us.
Hello Mat,
i found this post very interesting, thanks…!
Sine i’m going to buy a GX 617, and i need to choose which lens to use, can you please suggest me which lens is usually more appropriated for landscapes?
105mm is 53mm, 35mm equivalent, and 90mm is 43mm equivalent… i would say that it’s not so wide and too close to “normal”, do you agree or i need to consider other factors that i am ignoring?
i would definetly stop shooting double images to merge which CS5 🙂
Thank you and congraturations for your great site and photos!
Francesco
Hello Mat,
i found this post very interesting, thanks…!
Sine i’m going to buy a GX 617, and i need to choose which lens to use, can you please suggest me which lens is usually more appropriated for landscapes?
105mm is 53mm, 35mm equivalent, and 90mm is 43mm equivalent… i would say that it’s not so wide and too close to “normal”, do you agree or i need to consider other factors that i am ignoring?
i would definetly stop shooting double images to merge which CS5
Thank you and congraturations for your great site and photos!
Francesco
A little off topic, but what ND filter do you all suggest using with the Fuji GX617. I hear everyone talking about how the cage is in the way. Anyone every research this issue. Any help would be helpful.
keith
Hi Keith,
My website http://www.rubbingpixels.com addresses this issue. Under “Film Lovers”
Great picture. So, what digital camera and what focal length lens did you use instead of the GX617?
Matt, I’m surprised a fellow shooter of the GX617 would bag on it’s field of view. I have a GX617 with 105mm lens and I have to say it’s the best camera I’ve owned and that’s after owning Hasselblad, Nikon and Canon! If you don’t like the field of view… back up! My GX617 can resolve an image 13 times larger than a single shot from a full-frame 35mm digital image. The dynamic range and color depth of Velvia film is far superior to even Phase One’s digital backs. The image you took appears to be stitched, which was my assessment before reading the article. To an untrained eye, stitching digital files makes perfect sense but to someone that’s had that argument with fellow photographers and been there done that in the field, a single-shot, panoramic image on Velvia is far superior to a stitched digital file. You may win the battle with field of view using your digital camera and nodle-slide-shift-adapter, but you loose the battle with color depth, depth of field, image quality, contrast, tonality… and just plain punch!
Joe, was just showing the limitations of a fixed lens panoramic over stitching when it comes to doing compositions sometimes. I cant see how I was bagging the camera at all. If you haven’t been frustrated at times with what you just cant get into your film panoramic shot then I would have to say you don’t shoot enough.
There is a place for shooting both in my work and there are times when digital does a superior job to film, like day shots and waterfall shots.
I can understand and yes, I don’t shoot as much as you, sadly, wish I did. I’m picking up the new Pentax K-5 IIs this week and going to add a gimbal pano head to my kit. I’ve used a pano head before with a Canon 5DII but wasn’t happy with the results, as the 5D images were soft compared to what I shoot on film, plus moving waves, moving clouds… doesn’t work digitally (last week I shot a rainbow seconds after a storm on my GX617. Digitally that would have taken 6-7 shots to accomplish, by which time the rainbow was gone!) I’ve also previously owned the Fuji GSW690III and that’s a great camera as well. Often I hear people try to tell me they get better dynamic range with their DSLR than you can get on film. I’m not sure I’d agree. Digital has made great strides in the last ten years but the images I’ve taken on the 690 and the 617 have amazing detail and color that would leave my Hasselblad H2 with 31MP Phase One back in the weeds! I’m just now converting my Howtek 4000 drum scanner over to a PC system (ditching the old G4) and going with the DPL photo scanning software. Once that is complete I have no doubt the detail and resolution I will be able to pull from my film at 4000 DPI will be superior to anything I’ve shot digitally.
Yes I get it and Yes, I too have my digital cameras, however I prefer the results I get on film.
And yes, your work is awesome!