My understanding is that any shot possible with yaw-free, front and back, base/ center/asymmetrical movements, can also be taken with simply front/yawed/axis mo vements, if the latter have enough range. In other words, the more expensive/ar cane movements are, not to put too fine a point on it, nothing but a convenience . Am I right?
Inching my way towards a purchase...
TIA,
CXC
In theory yes...
However, yaw-free movements (like on a Sinar P) lets you work direct and fast...I cannot count the number of images I have taken through the years - which would have been a nightmare to shoot with "standard" movements...
Per, what sort of shot benefits most from yaw-free? Is it strictly table-top still lifes, or is it also useful outside in the real world sometimes?
I used to do a lot of photography of supersonic aircrafts; and always found myself up against the wall; never enough space. To be in control of the image "design" I relied heavily on the ability to dial the swings and tilts with micrometer precision in order to get exactly the composition I sought...
Product - and architectural photograhy can benefit from having micrometer swings and tilts. Landscape not really (most of the time)...
Actually you are wrong.
Swing and tilt front standard movements only affect depth of field.
Swing and tilt on the rear standard effect depth of field (focus distribution) and perspective rendition. So the answer is no: front movements alone do not do as much as rear movements alone and neither front or rear only movement designs have near the real world problem solving abilitiy of a camera with full movements ((rise or rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing and focus) on the front and rear standards.
I have used many cameras: Sinar (F, P & C models) , Horseman, Toyo, a Linhof or two, a Canham DLC and an Arca-Swiss F-line. I have used these cameras for architectural work, landscape, portraits and still life. Both in and out of the studio enviroment. There is no doubt in my mind that a yaw free camera is quicker to set up and easier to use than a axis tilt design. yaw free designs really come into their own anytime you have to tilt the base or monorail. using axis tilt designs i found myself having to make corrections to correct for problems previous corrections induced and I think it is a bad idea to get into a cycle of "correcting the corrections." My idea of how it should work is that you start by pointing the camera directly at the object or subject correcting the standards back to verticals to the degree you deem they need correcting , shifting and or using rise fall (front or rear0 to frame the image you desire and then using either tilt or w=swing or both to get the image on the ground glass to appear as close to the final image as possible 9and stopping down for the wanted depth of field. I don't like fiddling with equipment unnecessarily.
The camera I have settled on is the Arca-Swiss F-line but the Sinar C is in the dsame class if you don't want the full weight of the Sinar P or P2. I dislike the Sinar F series but many people like them and they do a good job.
Chris, I am sure you know this, but Yaw free only comes into play when you use tilt and swing simultaneously. Try to analyze just how often you think you will need to use these simultaneous movements. Than you can determine how important this feature is. I went with a Yaw free design and regret it. I would have much preferred lens axis tilt and forego the yaw free aspect, for landscape work.
Ellis, I understand that rear movements are better for perspective rendition, but isn't it possible to reposition the entire camera and get the same results with only front movements? The geometer in me says that movements in either the front or back accomplish the same thing, changing the angle and position of the lens with respect to the film. I see no reason why all possible relationships couldn't be accomplished with only front movements, along with repositioning the entire camera by tripod movements. Again assuming sufficient range of front movements.
I can imagine that complex movements could be difficult and extremely tedious to make with front-only, but not that they would be impossible. Perhaps they would even be so exasperating that one wouldn't bother, or the light would change in the meantime.
Wait, there is one clear-cut difference, which is evident when the bellows position is added to the equation. I can picture instances when the severity of movements required because front-only could introduce vignetting due to extreme bellows displacement. But this problem theoretically could be alleviated by using a camera with a large lensboard, or by using a bag bellows.
Just trying to understand as best I can, Christopher
Christopher,
They are not the same.
I pondered this quandry for a long time too. The best answer I came up is that when you move the lens you are moving the lens relative to the subject and to the film plane and not just the film plane. when you leave the lens in the same relationship to the subject but move the back you are moving only the film relative to the lens. I realize the change of the lens position or alignment to the subject might be minor but through the wonder of optics it ends up being quite significant relative to the final image. Many very respected architectural photoraphers try to only use rear movements and resort to front movements of the lens only as a necessity. i won't be so audacious as to suggest that I even think that I am in their league but it is the approach I try to follow as well.
Thanks, Ellis, I finally understand. I hadn't thought of the necessary change in relationship between the lens and the subject, and if I had, I never would have guessed that it makes a difference.
I appreciate your help, Christopher
Not true, for a sound technical reason. If your camera yaws then in a camera inclined situation with rear tilt and front tilt + swing you will not be able to achieve the Scheimpflug principle which require plane of sharpness, film plane and lens board to intersect in a common line, the emphasis being on line. On a yawing camera these planes intersect in a point, therefore the plane and extent of sharpness will differ to those on a yaw free camera. I am aware that Harold Merklinger does state that any complex combination of movements can be duplicated by a simple swing/tilt given a suitable camera vantage point, but I believe that the hinge rule is a necessary condition for this to work and in this particular combination of movements on a yawing camera the hinge rule planes also meet in a point (and hence the 'rule' does not apply). However, if the hinge rule is satisfied then the Scheimpflug principle automatically applies. A good case for a yaw free camera requiring this combination of movements (which occur very often, in my experience, in the studio still life/product scenario).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks