The future of the elusive 65:24 format

To those of you who have been readers of the blog during the past 10 years, it comes as no secret that back in 2018’ish I completely lost my photographic heart to the 65:24 format of photography. A collaboration by Fujifilm and Hasselblad back in the nineties ultimately led to the creation of the XPan / TX-1 line of cameras. I have written numerous blogposts about these cameras and the format itself, but in case you havn’t read them yet I’m linking them here

The TX-1 / XPan exposed two 35mm frames at once making the image area captured on film a whooping 65mm x 24mm. The standard lens on that system was a 45mm f/4 lens, but they also made a 90mm f/4 and a 30mm f/5.6. Albeit a very small range of lenses, they do cover almost all the practical instances that I could possibly think of shooting within the “image language” of shooting the wide screen panoramas.
But I always did wonder why they didn’t manufacture a focal length to sit in between the 45mm and the 90mm. I have always been thinking that a 60mm would’ve been perfect.

To support my reasoning behind this wish we need to talk a bit about how the focal lengths actually behave on the 65:24 cameras.

The lenses have to cover a 65mm image circle. (Pretty crazy, given their small size, since it’s basically the same image circle size as the 6×6 format used in, among others, the Hasselblad V series cameras!)
If you were to pick up a 35mm filmcamera or full frame digital sensor camera, you would need a lens significantly wider than the 45mm f/4 to achieve the same equivalent field of view, since the TX-1 / XPan format actually has a crop factor of 0.55 on its wide end. That means that to achieve a similar look on the 35mm sensor you would need a 45mm x 0.55 = 24,75mm lens.

When the 0,55 x crop factor is applied to all the focal lengths within the TX-1 ecosystem the 35mm equivalents would be as follow

  • 30mm x 0,55 = 16,5 -> 16mm
  • 45mm x 0,55 = 24,7 -> 24mm
  • 90mm x 0,55 = 49,5 -> 50mm

As is suddenly really apparent, what I really want for the system is something right in between a 24mm and a 50mm lens.

Did someone say 35mm??

My all time favourite focal length in both APSC (23mm) and full frame! Lets do the reverse crop factor math to see what focal length would yield a similar field of view on the TX-1 / XPan as a 35mm lens on a 35mm film camera / Full frame sensor.

  • 35mm x 1/0,55 = 63 -> 60mm

And there it is, no wonder that I’ve always thought that a 60mm lens for the XPan system would yield the perfect field of view for me.

Now, since the TX-1 / XPan system is longer longer being produced, obviously there will never be a 60mm option for it. Bummer! …… But wait! I actually just recently found a solution to this, albeit it’s not an analogue solution. It’s a digital solution.

Since its inception 2017 the Fujifilm GFX system has actually had the 65:24 panoramic mode available as a digital version. Fujifilm uses a panoramic crop mode on its 33x44mm sensor to yield a reduced megapixel output 65:24 format output. It works wonderfully. The jpegs are complete final crops, where as the corresponding raw files is “pre-cropped” but when imported into lightroom still retain all the info outside the cropped area. So as long as you shoot jpeg+RAW you’ll have the best of both worlds.

The now discontinued Fujifilm GFX50R (read here for my review) is built in a rangefinder brick shape as the only camera within the Fujifilm GFX ecosystem, so it’s the closest thing available on the market to the original rangefinder XPan / TX-1.
Besides trying to use Fujifilms rather large autofocus GF lenses, it seems like a no brainer to find an adapter to adapt the original TX-1 / XPan lenses.

I have had said adapter for many years, but it wasn’t until last week that I really started using it. Truth be told I had sold my GFX50R back in 2020 and replaced it with the GFX100S for all my product photography needs, but I have since regretted that move deeply. I have since sold off my GFX100S last year, and up until last week I had been “GFX-less”
But after sending a rather needy and sobbing mail to my good friends at Fujifilm Japan, they actually managed to get me a new in box GFX50R. I’m beyond grateful that they did that for me.

The minute I got the GFX50R in the house I mounted the Kipon GFX-XPAN adapter and my original Hasselblad / Fujinon 45mm f/4 lens. I have shot it almost constantly the past 10 days, and I have been loving every minute of it. But it wasn’t until yesterday that I really started wondering why I was so fond of this combo.

…And then it hit me. Obviously the 45mm f/4 is cropped on the GFX50R sensor, but how much was it actually cropped? And why did the frames that it produced fit my photographic eye so well?

The answer is obvious! The 45mm f/4 on the 33x44mm GFX sensor actually acts exactly like a 35mm on a full frame sensor, since the corresponding cropfactor is 0,79x – I did the math, and it completely checks out!

  • 45mm x 0,79 = 35,5mm -> 35mm

So now I have my “Digital XPan / TX-1” – Complete with the “missing” 60mm focal length that I always wanted for the original system. I even sorta get the same shooting experience of the original TX-1 since I am using an original manual focus XPan lens. It really is the best of both worlds. For now I will continue to explore the options with this system, and luckily it won’t be as expensive in film costs as my real TX-1 😀

I know there are some of you out there thinking “why not just crop in post?” Well it goes without saying that actually composing your shot in the shooting situation will never be the same when you’re looking through a normal crop viewfinder, and then having to guesstimate what is within the 65:24 frame lines afterwards. You might get lucky from time to time, but you’ll never be able to explore the format and get consistently well-composed frames. This format requires a lot of practice if you want to produce good stringent compositions.

Now, I’m going to stress this yet again. Fujifilm NEEDS to put this format into their new high resolution 40mp generation of X-Series cameras. If the resolution of the GFX50R can handle it, so can the 40mp X-series. Could you imagine how cool it would be to be able to shoot this format with the massive range of Fujinon X-series lenses? I for one could.

All images in the post have been shot on the GFX50R with the Hasselblad / Fujinon 45mm f/4 lens and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 filter. The product shots have been shot on various Fujifilm cameras.


  1. I love the format for its cinematic feel as well.

    Considering getting a high resolution FF and somehow do a 65:24 mask in front of the lens.

    Just like they faked keyholes and binoculars in the old filmmaking days.

    1. The Lumix S1R might fit the bill for you. It has a 65×24 crop mode built in and you can shoot RAW only and it will export in this format -without the need to shoot jpeg + RAW like Fuji requires. You can always revert back to 3×2 in post as all the cropped info is retained. I just checked and resolution at 65×24 (L) will get you 26 mp files.

    1. The sensor of the 100s is too clinical for me. Too perfect.
      The 50mp sensor from the 50R has something that I can’t explain. It just looks good to my eyes in a different way. – That, and the fact that I just like the brick shape layout of the 50R much better.

      1. gfx 100s already has the xpan format, couldn’t you just use that? You would have also lost mpx, and part of what you define as clinicality.

        1. The megapixel count isn’t what makes the GFX100s more clinical. There’s something about the difference in tonal rendering. I can’t really put my finger on what it is.

          1. But is the tonal rendering “baked” in in the GFX100s RAW fiele or could we change it in Post to match the GFX50R rendering?

            1. thinks. I have always attributed the added value of the 100s to the 16bit and how it renders the tones.

              1. Thank you for the answer but do you mean by “thinks” it is possible to match 100s Color to 50r files color or not?

                Sry, my english is not the best. 🙂

                1. I think that, with the right profile, you can match everything you want. But, in my point of view, 16 bit are better than 14. More bit, more pixels = more and better tones.

  2. I love panos too but find they look best when printed large. Unfortunately, there is only so much wall space.

  3. Jonas: super post and definitely has me thinking…Do you set the LV screen to one of the Pano Formats in the camera? And how does it look through the viewfinder? I guess what I am asking is how you have the camera set up for shooting. Thanks so much and great to see you posting again. I for one have taken a huge break due to overload and loss of interest and inspiration. But this, well this is nifty!
    Cheers mate, Bob

    1. Hey buddy. Yeah I set the pano-mode and then the image in both the EVF and on the back LCD is cropped with black masks top and bottom.

      So glad that you’ve stuck around man. I plan to do much more blogging again. Inspiration to do so is definitely back. 💪🏼🔥

      1. Thanks, Jonas. So, I am wondering if using the GF45mm would yield me similar results with the same settings? Finding a decent X Pan 45 is tough.

          1. Yep, that is so true. Though pairing it with the pancake 50mm might me another option. Just slightly out of the “35mm” framing, but oh so close. Definitely food for thought here.

  4. As both my wife and I are big movie fans, the movie Grand Prix directed by John Frankenheimer sent me down this path years ago as the movie was shot in cinerama (2.65 to 1), almost identical to the 65:24 (2.6666666…). For me, the eye just seems to naturally float in that frame. I became pretty dogmatic about doing almost EVERYTHING in that aspect ratio… not perfect with the X-T3 and it’s 24 megapixel size but I did get pretty good at taking two pics side by side and using LR to stitch it together. Of course your notion of a GFX camera and the 45mm is a WHOLE other level… hhmmmmm…. I am assuming the 50R versus the 50s ii is, as you state, a hand form factor preference and not a function of sensor quality? Glad you are back writing your blog have always enjoyed your thoughts and perspectives (pun intended).

    1. That’s pretty cool Arnold! I need to watch that! – the difference between the S and R is as you say only the hand form factor. 👌🏼

      1. what a timing … i’ve been browsing the internet for 2 weeks to find a good deal on a 50R just to achieve that and cure my digital xpan disease …

        Did you send a rather needy and sobbing mail to your good friends at Fujifilm Japan to ask for that 😀 ?

        i’ve sent a millions mails to leica to ask for that for the leica Q3 … no answer

      2. I love cropping to the 65:24 pano format and would really love Fujifilm to add that aspect ratio to their other X series cameras, like the X100V.

  5. So much yes! I’ve been cropping to similar widw format lately and absolutely love it. And I’ve been dreaming Fujifilm would allow this crop in camera. Just a simple firmware update and done. But maybe that’s how they protect the GFX line, by keeping this option GFX only.

    Also/of course – fantastic images! Thank you for sharing!

  6. Truly inspiring work as always Jonas! Back in the day my XPan II started me on the path to being a professional photographer and I’ve been craving one of those lenses to use on my 50R too. I’m more into cinematic portraits myself these days (I love messing about with anamorphic lenses) but I used to love the amazing light stars from the 45 and 30 lenses stopped down when shooting cityscapes…something that sadly the current wide Fuji GFX lenses can’t achieve. You may not have tested the Xpan 45 in that way but I’m wondering if that sharpness and rendering is still as good on the GFX sensor?

  7. Hi Jonas,

    I really like what you are showing here. Would you maybe consider posting a comparison to a Minolta 45/2, as the x-pan 45/4 is rather hard to get.

  8. gfx 100s already has the xpan format, couldn’t you just use that? You would have also lost mpx, and part of what you define as clinicality.

  9. Hi, great post! Thank you. I sold my X-Pan a few years ago and have since been trying to find a digital solution. Currently I am contemplating to buy the GFX 100 II. Your post and also the one about the Techart EF to GFX adapter makes me want to make that move even more. And what great news, that I could use my Canon EF lenses on the GFX, especially since the GFX 100ii is a huge chunk of money, it means some financial savings … thank you and keep up your great work!

  10. Very good article, thanks for the explanations of all the crop factors. XPAN is an exciting topic, unfortunately I never had the opportunity to take photos with it. I myself have a GFX100s and have never owned a GFX50R, but I have often read discussions on the topic “GFX100S is too clinical”. But most people can’t explain it, but there has to be someone who has looked at the topic professionally and explained what exactly is wrong with the GFX100s. There are people who have matched images from both cameras and almost no one has passed the blind test and could tell which image is from which GFX camera. But the GFX100s is still often referred to as “clinical” hhhmm…

    1. I can’t explain it either. If I could have I would have. I just react to what my experience has told me over the years. It might be the right tool for everyone in the world. But if it doesn’t work for me then I’ll choose something else. Luckily there are different options for everyone out there.

  11. Hi Jonas! I have took many pictures in one of my last trips in Bardenas Reales wit the GFX in the magical 65:24 format and they have something special… I can’t tell you but it’s something that reminds me of some 1960s movies

    1. Today I received the Minolta 45 f2… This will be a pano-weekend with the GFX! Thank you for your article, Jonas!

  12. Hi Jonas, the gfx (50sii) has 65:24!!??? Damn, yep, it sure has. How about that. I’m back in happy land. I’ve loved that format since your earlier articles and it’s good to see you’re back. Looking forward to more. I’ll contact you shortly about using a couple of your images in a lecture, and book I’m writhing up at the moment. Acknowledged of course. Now if I hadn’t gotten rid of all those Blads, Leicas, Rollies, 645, 69 etc etc from the old days……… oh dear.

  13. Luckily I never sold my Tx 1 or 45 Fuji silver body and 90 Hasselblad black body lenses. Never bought the 30mm, but found a great substitute. Nikkor PC 28mm. It works a treat. I have the GFX 50S and use these lenses in pano pretty much all the time. Plus 1:1 to ‘experience’ the 500CM. I once owned Bronica ECTL so that aspect ratio is familiar. Really enjoyed your post and others comments. My favorite use case is pano on gfx using Acros simulation. That combination just strikes the right chords for me.

  14. I’m hoping that you’ve asked Fuji directly for that crop to be added to the X series bodies. I’d LOVE to play with that on my X-T5. Use that relationship Jonas, we need you! lol

  15. Quite funny after selling my first gfx50R for a leica SL2, i bought last week a mint 50r copy for 1600EUR (sold mine back in the day 4000) it’s truly a marvel in xpan mode with 50 lux asph close focus. As you were the one that inspired me me the first time with the article about rokkor lenses 🙂 seems we had the same process on this one..

  16. Hi Jonas, as a long term Xpan owner/fan, and a new GF owner, this is a lovely article to read. Have you any experience shooting with the Xpan lenses without the crop? I’d be curious to know how they behave on the GF sensor, given they have such a large image circle in such a small physical package. They were obviously designed for an extreme horizontal crop, but safe to assume they’re sharp in the vertical space they’d never have been used for on the Xpan originally?

  17. Hi Jonas,

    Thank you for such a wonderful article. I wonder what is your take on using Fuji Gf 55mm on 50R. Meaning 44mm (35mm format) equivalent field of view, just as in xPAN. Understand that the lens is significantly larger than Hassleblad 45mm f/4.

Leave a Reply