Tony Andersen loves XPan cameras. He is from Finland, and has admired Hasselblad for a long time. Tony has the original Hasselblad XPan film camera, and the idea of a digital version excites him. So much so, in fact, that he made a pretty cool mockup of what it could look like—using a Fujifilm X-Pro1. Let’s talk about what makes XPan special, discuss some considerations for a digital model, plus look at Tony’s mockup. We’ll conclude with some current options for XPan photography.

For those that don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio. These cameras were quite niche and only sold moderately well when they were new, but today they are highly desirable among landscape photographers who still shoot film, and interest in XPan has been seemingly growing recently. Hasselblad and Fujifilm made two models; Hasselblad called theirs XPan and XPan II, while Fujifilm named theirs TX-1 and TX-2. Interestingly, Fujifilm’s X-Pro, X-E, and (especially) X100 series cameras all share some design elements with XPan, and, in a way, can trace their lineage to those models.

While it is certainly possible to crop any photograph to the 65:24 aspect ratio, the problem is that you are tossing approximately half of the resolution in the trash. The XPan cameras didn’t utilize a narrow section of 35mm film to create a panorama, but instead used nearly two frame’s worth of real estate. This allowed photographers to achieve high-quality, detail-rich images in a wide format, yet in a camera that was still relatively compact. If one wanted just a regular 3:2 frame, the XPan cameras were capable of that, too. To digitally recreate this, one would need to have a wide sensor with a good deal of resolution. Ideally, a digital XPan camera should have around 50-megapixels (or more), and produce a minimum of 24mp when cropped to 3:2.

Tony’s mockup of a digital XPan camera began with a used X-Pro1. He chose the camera because it has a similar look to XPan, and has essential features: solid build-quality, hybrid-viewfinder, manual retro controls. It has the original X-Trans I sensor, which Tony appreciates. Plus, “it has a nice shutter click sound, which makes the analogue experience better.”

“I used an angle grinder to remove the edge of the lens side viewfinder frame,” he told me, “so that I could continue to make a seemingly wider viewfinder out of it. Then I measured the original XPan and used filler and plastics to model a wider version of the X-Pro1. I didn’t even know I could do sculpturing. I wanted a camera that looks and feels like the XPan. I’ve been working on the X-Pro1 for over a year.”

“I was able to replicate the XPan color with three different layers of spray paint,” Tony continued. “I made from wood a new grip for the X-Pro1 and put leather around it. I found that the original grip on the XPan was uncomfortable and too small.”

Tony used a Fujinon 16mm f/2.8 lens to replicate a Hasselblad 45mm f/4 XPan lens (both have a full-frame-equivalent 24mm focal length). He used a 3D-printer to create a lens hood that disguises the Fujifilm lens to more closely resemble the Hasselblad. He also has an adapter to use the XPan lenses on the X-Pro1. There were only three lenses made for XPan cameras: 30mm f/5.6, 45mm f/4, and 90mm f/4. An 11mm lens for the X-Pro1 would be necessary to replicate the 30mm, but there is no such lens: you can choose either 10mm or 12mm. For the 90mm, the Fujinon 33mm f/1.4 would be the best bet.

Just recently, Tony added a film advance lever from an old Kiev 6C camera to his X-Pro1. The lever is only for looks, and doesn’t actually do anything; however, Tony envisions that if a digital XPan camera were ever manufactured, a film advance lever could be included, and could serve any number of functions. It could be utilized to cock the shutter like on the Epson R-D1, or it could be a programmable lever that activates various features, such as flash, or built-in ND filter, or something like that.

While Tony’s “XPan III” has a 16mp Trans I CMOS sensor, he believes that most ideally such a camera should have a 50mp XPan-shaped CCD sensor. The reason why he would prefer a CCD sensor over CMOS is because CCD sensors inherently behave more like film, and can produce images that appear more similar to analog. Theoretically it is possible to program such a sensor to produce “digital film emulsions” where the aesthetic is partially created at the hardware level, and not just from the camera’s firmware or software on a computer. There are advantages and disadvantages to both CCD and CMOS; however, the camera industry has committed to advancing CMOS technology and has put very little into CCD development. It would be intriguing to explore CCD, but almost certainly any digital XPan camera manufactured today would have a CMOS sensor.

To simulate what CCD XPan photographs might look like, Tony captured some images with his Phase One P65+ (which as a 60mp CCD sensor), cropped them to the 65:24 aspect ratio, and edited the files in Lightroom to resemble Velvia 50 and Kodak Panatomic-X film scans. He believes that it should be possible to achieve similar results straight-out-of-camera from a digital XPan III camera.

Tony hopes that his X-Pro1 project will bring an increased awareness and interest to XPan cameras, both the film models and especially a potential digital version. “Maybe even catch the eye of Fujifilm or Hasselblad.”

“Fujifilm might be the most logical choice for a digital XPan,” Tony stated, “as it would be better placed in their product line. The GFX 50R could be a nice base to build the new camera on. The GFXPan camera could use the current sensor—the 102mp—modify it to 44x17mm by removing the upper and lower rows to achieve a 65×24 aspect ratio. Then redevelop the firmware to use only this aspect in the viewfinder, maybe redesign the optic for 2.7:1 wide like the XPan.”

It was with Fujifilm’s partnership that the XPan film cameras were made, and it was with a Fujifilm X-Pro1 that Tony made an XPan III mockup. I find the idea of Fujifilm creating a digital XPan camera—called TX-3 or GFXPan—highly intriguing. It could be with a slightly stretched sensor inside an X-Pro body (similar to Tony’s mockup). Much more likely, it would be something in the GFX realm; however, it would need to have the retro controls and styling like the GFX 50R, and not be a PASM model like most GFX cameras. Obviously, either way, it would be a niche product, but it seems like there is enough interest—and a growing interest—that such a camera would sell well enough to be profitable. It would certainly make headlines! People would be talking about Fujifilm, which would be good for Fujifilm.

For some unknown reason, Fujifilm X-series cameras inexplicably don’t have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option (GFX cameras do, though). I would strongly encourage Fujifilm to include the 65:24 aspect ratio on their X-series cameras with the 40mp X-Trans V sensor. It would be simple for them to do, and it seems like an obvious no-brainer. It would be amazingly cool if they ever produced a digital XPan, but at the very least Fujifilm should offer the XPan aspect ratio as an option in the X-series. Yes, you can do it with post-editing software, but I much prefer to do things in-camera whenever possible.

I don’t know if a digital XPan III will ever come to fruition, but there are currently a few cameras to consider if you are looking for an alternative. Fujifilm GFX models have the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, and they also have plenty of resolution and film-like results; however, only the GFX 50R has the retro-styling and controls similar to the film cameras, which means that the GFX 50R is your best bet. Most Fujifilm X-series cameras have the retro design and controls plus film simulations and Film Simulation Recipes; the X-T5 and X-H2 have enough resolution, but you have to crop to XPan post-capture. The Panasonic S1R has sufficient resolution and the XPan aspect ratio as an in-camera option, but it doesn’t deliver the retro experience or film-like straight-out-of-camera results. My RitchieCam iPhone App also has the XPan aspect ratio; when used with the 48mp 1x camera on the iPhone 14/15 Pro/Pro Max, it has enough resolution, and is an in-your-pocket option that produces film-inspired results straight-out-of-camera. None of these are fully ideal. Hopefully someday Fujifilm and/or Hasselblad will release an XPan III camera with a 65:24 sensor shape. As it stands now, these are your best alternatives to a camera that does not yet—and may never—exist, but should.

I want to give Tony Andersen a big “thank you” for sharing his XPan III mockup and photographs. Hopefully Tony’s enthusiasm for the XPan format will some day result in an XPan III type camera from one of the camera manufacturers. It definitely deserves to happen someday, and Fujifilm seems like the perfect camera maker to do it.