I'd add possible tripod problems. In case of using tilt, if tripod allowed camera to move a bit after inserting holder, the plane of focus goes away...Originally Posted by karl french
I'd add possible tripod problems. In case of using tilt, if tripod allowed camera to move a bit after inserting holder, the plane of focus goes away...
You've probably made a small mistake somewhere, that's usually (and hopefully) more likely than a problem with the lens.
When I first got my view camera I was convinced the GG was misaligned, but it turned out it was my own lack of technique that was to blame.
What I did was stick set up a test (in my case a shot of some text set at an angle) and make a check list of all of steps to go through before tripping the shutter. It's easy to miss something out when you first start, particularly tightening everything down properly.
It's appears that I didn't mount the lens flush to the board... as the ring wasn't seated properly. I took another shot and everything looks good. Will test more. Occam's Razor..
On a side note my Schneider APO 210 is a monster of a lens. I recently started shooting Tmax from 50-100 and am beginning to see the large format 3D carved look which I wasn't able to obtain with HP5+. Hopefully this Rodenstock will live up its rival!
Sinaron SE = Sironar-N
No.
Sinaron S = (Apo-)Sironar-N.
Sinaron SE = Apo-Sironar-S.
There is no ambiguity, as the Sinarons and the Apo-branded Rodenstocks are clearly labeled with their angle of view.
Ohhh, that's right. I stand corrected.
No, the angle of view of a lens changes with the image format. The lenses are labeled with the angle of coverage of the lens. In this case either 72 or 75°.
Bob - there's no agreement on this. In the manufacturer brochures that happen to be within easy reach of my desk at the moment, Rodenstock uses the term "image field" for this parameter while Schneider uses the term "angle of view".
Probably because English is not there mother language and the translations are also done by non English first language services. Although sometimes the companies that we represented would send us the German originals, the translation services English versions and have us put into American English.
Kaiser even went so far as to have us rewrite their brochures into US English for those products that we sold the most of and to the U.K. Distributor to put it into U.K. English for those products that the U.K. Did the best at.
So their main catalog would have one product described in American English and another product written up in UK English.
Bob, interesting to know that this confusion could be related to not native English translators. Non native language translators are always a complication, but in special for technical texts, that can crash planes.
Long ago, AA in The Camera speaks about that confusion. The "angle of view" is the angle of the field seen by a photograph, this depends on the focal length, on the bellows extension (if unit focus), the format and the distorsion (case of fish eyes, not LF common).
So I understand that the angle of view is a property of the photograph, when specified for a (unit focus) lens it would be for photographs made with that lens, with a format, and with focus at infinite. I discovered that in my (unit focus) RB67 times, lenses apeared longer for portraits, compared with P67 and Hassy... Different for portraits, the same for landscape.
I've seen old debates that finally concluded clearly wrong concepts, there was a mess between View, Field and Coverage.
Another source of confusion I found is the term "wide angle". It can be both, "wide angle of coverage" or "wide angle of view", depending on context the abreviated "wide angle" is a very different concept.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks