Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

  1. #11

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    I think that the original questions mixes up two different issues.

    First, is the issue of what minimum combination of movements is necessary. It's worth knowing that if a camera has the correct minimum combination of movements, it can duplicate, by "indirect" movements, all the movements on a more full-featured camera. Examples of combinations that allow full "indirect" movements are (1) front and rear tilts and swings (2) rear tilt and swing and front rise, fall and shift (like the Eastman Commercial 8x10) (3) rear tilt and swing and front rise, fall, tilt and swing (like the Deardorff). Modern field cameras that allow every possible movement on both standards are a convenience but not a necessity. You do need some movements on both the rear and the front to accomplish this, however.

    The presence or absence of yaw is a different issue which has to do with whether movements can be made independently or whether making them in combination affects one another. It is mostly important in work that requires a high degree of precision, such as table top photography. Landscape photographers generally don't worry about it, and all traditional field cameras have yaw.

  2. #12

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    This thread seems to talk mostly about yaw-free or not. I personally think the a symmetrical movements vs. symmetrical movements as a more important feature. I was almost ready to buy a Horsemen when I finally did a side-by-side trial shot with a Horsemen (center tilt) and a Sinar p (off center or asymmetrical). The 2- point focus system in use on all Sinar cameras is the quickest time saver featur e and overwheliming reason I bought this brand. Yaw free was merely a added bonus.

  3. #13

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    Yaw-free is only truly yaw-free if the centre of tilt and/or swing coincides with the rear nodal point of the lens. Most so-called yaw-free designs assume that the optical centre of the lens lies in the same plane as the lens board, and this isn't always, or even commonly the case.I have a 210 mm Sironar that has its optical centre well behind the lensboard, as are the optical centres of nearly all WA designs like the Super Angulons and Grandagons. OTOH, telephoto lenses will all have their optical centres well in front of the lens.What this means in practise is that no yaw-free design works properly with most real lenses. They will all require some refocusing and re-centring after a swing or tilt is applied. And if you're going to have to readjust by even a millimetre, then the 'yaw-free' tag becomes an empty promise.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    Pete,

    True enough, but at least with the Sinar andnow Arca-Cameras I have worked with regularly it is close enough to not matter greatly. My understanding is that for the reasons you cite , ArcaCame out with the optional Orbix mechanism for the lens standard.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    Pete,

    True enough, but at least with the Sinar p and C and now Arca-Swiss cameras I have worked with regularly, it is close enough to not matter greatly. My understanding is that for the reasons you cite , Arca-Swiss addresses this issue with the optional Orbix mechanism for the lens standard.

  6. #16

    Are back, base, and yaw-free movements more than a convenience?

    Thanks Ellis.Yes. I see that some cameras allow a 'nodal slide' type adjustment above the goniometer table, but these must be carefully set up for each lens to make the best use of them.

    What I'm getting at, in an attempt to give Christopher a better comparative overview, is that cameras with fancy goniometer adjustments really only offer extra convenience and ease-of-use, not greater functionality.In fact, a camera with a conventional 'U' shaped standard, that has both centre tilt and base tilt, can emulate any goniometer movement exactly; even being able to centre the node of the lens on the axis of swing.For example: Tilting the standard forward brings the axis of swing to the rear of the lens, where the optical node is more likely to be, and then that tilt can be augmented or reduced by using the centre tilt mechanism. Now the front standard can be swung, and the image will stay still on the ground glass.

    All the same relative positioning of lens and film plane as the yaw-free design is possible, it just takes a bit more thought and fiddling to set up.The question really is whether the extra convenience of 'yaw-free' is worth the higher price of the camera to you.

Similar Threads

  1. Back Movements on 7x17
    By Kerry L. Thalmann in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 9-Nov-2005, 17:24
  2. POLL: do you use back movements on your Technika?
    By Bill_1856 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 27-Jun-2005, 13:06
  3. Convenience… Compendium or Collapsible Lens Hood
    By Scott Rosenberg in forum Gear
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 4-Apr-2005, 04:32
  4. Convenience in the Field
    By Kerry L. Thalmann in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 9-Oct-2004, 15:30
  5. Yaw Free base tilts: how important are these?
    By Peter Chong in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-Feb-1999, 12:53

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •