Is there any advantage to one or the other? I understand my schneider sa 90mm doesn't have the greatest coverage so should I use front rather than rear shift?
I think this is a simple question but I couldn't find any thing on the search.
Is there any advantage to one or the other? I understand my schneider sa 90mm doesn't have the greatest coverage so should I use front rather than rear shift?
I think this is a simple question but I couldn't find any thing on the search.
The only time movements make a difference regarding lens coverage is when using swing or tilt. Rear swing/tilt decreases need for large image circle but front swing/tilt increases need for larger image circle. However, front swing/tilt doesn't distort the image but rear swing/tilt does distort the image. In landscape photography I usually prefer rear swing/tilt but in architectural photography it's usually the opposite or, at least, it's a combination of the two.
It will not make any difference which standard you shift (assuming that no other camera movements are used).
If you have used some front tilt or swing, then perhaps it would be wiser to shift the back.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
As H mentioned, front shift changes perspective/point-of-view and rear does not and simply shifts the image. The concerns are nodal point locations.
Front vs. rear shift or rise/fall are the same but opposite. However, front vs. rear swing and/or tilt are very different... front affects focus but rear affects distortion too.
Big difference. Front shift moves the "camera." That is, you will see things from a different angle. Rear shift does not move the camera, relationships between objects will not change.
But if you were to move the front very far to one side wouldn't you run out of image circle?
Bookmarks