Minimum field camera movements?

[Doremus Scudder]

Great responses so far. Just some thoughts on front and rear tilts/swings from me.

Since the back position determines the perspective rendering, positioning the back relative to the subject is important (e.g., parallel to buildings or trees to eliminate convergence). However, you coould do that with your pan/tilt tripod head, and eliminate the need for these movements on the back. Tilts and swings on the front will be lighter and won't need to be as robust (unless your using monster lenses!), so you could save some weight by eliminating back movements and having them only on the front.

That said, it is really convenient to have swings and tilts on both front and back. Add to that front rise and a bit of fall and shift on one of the two standards and you have the package that I consider to be "basic." Many cameras have no shift feature, but I find shift indispensable, so I would include it.

There are some drawbacks to not having swings and tilts on both standards. One would be in the case when you have your camera set up and then wish to tilt/swing the back. You would have to then reposition the back with the tripod head and then re-frame, etc. using the front movements.

Having tilts and swings on both standards also allows you to use the "point-and-tilt/swing" technique to get more rise/shift if you need it. When using a field camera for architecture (which I do often), this ability comes in very, very handy. With tilts/swings on just one standard, you will not be able to take advantage of this trick.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark Sawyer]

Regarding design, study the B&J 8x10 Commercial View. It has rise, fall, and shift, plus generous swing and tilt, at the front and the rear, in a simple, elegant design.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, the minimum field camera is probably the Crown Graphic. Practically speaking, all it offers in the way of movements is front rise.

[Fr. Mark]

Does the non-folding approach really offer anything v. a minimalist monorail? particularly if you can easily add segments to the rail so it doesn't have a rail sticking out when compressed for transport?

At what size film does a monorail lose compared to a flatbed approach? For hiking/bulk? these things don't always scale linearly.

Anyone seen people adapt Sinar parts to odd sizes of film holders? As far as I know they only did 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I saw on the auction site that Glenview has Sinar Compatible conversion to 8x10. Pricey and "interesting" collection of parts.

Currently, I'm leaning toward the idea of flat beds with all movements front, base tilt back and maybe a little swing in back. I think I can see how to build it that the swing when locked it'd be rigid: bolts at each end with a little travel in curved or wide slots as opposed to a central pivot which is hard to keep from rotating.

What do you see as advantages for front or back movement for focus?

As cameras get bigger its not hard to get to where no human could operate the front controls while looking at the ground glass unless there were some sort of "remote control." I could imagine wanting 3, maybe 4 (more?), feet of bellows on 14x17...

I guess this is why the Chamonix/?Ritter? type design has a central gear for focus of the front along with the fact it is easier to move the front than the back and keep the camera rigid while you put in the film holder?

At a certain point though, even without artillery-piece-sized lenses, does a fixed front and all movements back make more sense? I know back movements change perspective.

Thanks. This is been helpful so far.

[LabRat]

Yes, instead of a front rise, one could use a back fall, but the practical problem is size/space on the rear of the camera... The larger standard is the rear, and they are placed near the bed/rail area to save space (to keep camera more compact) and provide just enough ample clearance for the lower RS + bottom bellows there, so not much room for fall... So they let the front rise upward... (Sorta the same, but very slightly different...)

You could engineer the front rise/fall/shift like one of the older cameras that have sliding lensboard mounts/holders to save some mechanical work...

Front/back focus is VERY useful when doing close-up work, where you don't want to change the lens to subject distance by moving the FS... (I usually focus using the rear standard, on a camera so equipped...)

Steve K

[Vaughn]

Um, the minimum field camera is probably the Crown Graphic. Practically speaking, all it offers in the way of movements is front rise.

That strange back-tilt of the front standard can become front tilt when you drop the bed. I have heard that it does not work as well with short lenses, though.

Going the minimum, I could survive with just back tilt (and it could be base tilt to save weight) and full movements on front. I would occasionally miss not having more back movements, but only occasionally. I am working with a 5x7 camera now w/o back movements...a PITA sometimes.