How much movement is usually needed to do landscape work? The reason I ask is if I were trying to select a camera to backpack less movement sometimes means less weight.
How much movement is usually needed to do landscape work? The reason I ask is if I were trying to select a camera to backpack less movement sometimes means less weight.
if you shoot trees and want to avoid keystoning, quite a bit sometimes. Most of my lenses for 4x5 cover 5x7 or more. A lot of guys think just because a lens illuminates the ground glass in all four corners, it "covers" beyond the manufacturers specs. While it may look okay in camera, it may not print that way.
Some people are successful with zero movements because there are an awful lot of situations where movements won't help you. Other people want the full movements that only a monorail will provide. Seems like you'll need to shoot for a while to know what works best for you.
Back tilt and swing are pretty useful if your camera has them, as can be back fall. Front rise, tilt and swing are indespensible-- except when they're not needed
I use lots of front rise/fall, rarely anything else. I think it's been years since I last used swing or tilt, either front or rear. But I agree with Frank - you won't really know what your own working style needs for comfort until you gain some experience and figure out what your working style is. So just buy something reasonable that you can carry and can afford and go make lots of pictures.
I seem to use more movements than most. Either to correct the geometry of things like trees, or to subtly adjust the plane of focus for a particular look. I do this even with long lenses (420 or so), where conventional wisdom says movements are less necessary. I have diligently tried to learn to like a field camera over the last couple of years, but am really happiest with a monorail. The downside is bulk more than weight, so I use a backpacking rucksack rather than a daypack. No big deal, except when trying to look sophisticated in town, or when flying - it's really only doable when photography is the primary purpose of the trip.
That said, I usually only employ rise/fall and forward/backward tilt. Sideways shifts are really only used for fine-tuning composition (and are nice to have, but not necessary), and swing I could very happily live without.
My most used lens is a 240 mm - I made sure I had one with plenty of sharp coverage so that I could do tree portraits without fuzzy bases. Anything that will cover 8x10 will do. For shorter lenses and wide angles you pay a heavy financial and logistical cost for wide coverage, but I don't use them much, so I make do with a regular coverage f8 90mm and plasmat 150 mm.
As for tilt, at a minimum, I like to be able to lay the plane of focus along the ground when the camera is on the tripod at eye height. For my monorail that means 20° or so of forward tilt. My Toyo field camera can't accommodate such long lenses, so the requirements are less.
Think also about the precision of the movements, and how easy/necessary it is to switch to a bag bellows. Wide angles need smaller movements, but they need to be more precise, so gearing becomes more and more useful. Long lenses need less precision, but you are operating at arm's length so, again, geared movements become nicer and nicer. I live with the non-geared movements of a Sinar Norma in the field, but I would love something as elegant and easy to use as the Arca-Swiss.
Required? None - there are plenty of landscape photographers that made do without any or only used shifts. You cannot work around tilt/swing when you combine long lenses and deep perspectives or very high/low vantage points, but that is about it. Just about every camera comes with front movements, so you'll always have some. But (as the other posters insinuated without saying so) be warned that you need ample coverage from your lenses to use shift (whether front or rear) or front swing/tilt - going for a camera with rear movements may allow you to use smaller, more travel-friendly lenses, as rear swing/tilt is image circle neutral.
I currently have two monorails. My Cambo SC has all the movement I think I could ever need. I have a Schneider 180 f/5.6, Fujinon-w 90, Fujinon-w 150 and a fujinon-w 250 for lenses.
I have thought of starting my "backpacking" kit with one of the older metal folders?????or even making my own wooden field camera. I am a violin maker by profession so I have the skill, wood and the tools needed. But at this point I was thinking more about trying something already made. That would help define what I might need if and when I ever try to make my own.
I want something that will work with my lenses of course and I don't think I would ever need the viewfinder????
Suggestions...relatively inexpensive and dependable.
Just shoot for awhile with your monorails and take notice of what movements you use. That would be the easiest way to see what works for you.
Personally, I almost always use some front rise (or fall if I'm shooting from an elevated position). I also use front tilt to get stuff in focus. I rarely, but once in a while, use a bit of shift to fine-tune a composition. I've maybe done that a half a dozen times in the last few years. I never use back tilt, since I like my verticals to be vertical (though they can be handy for indirect rise if you run out of direct rise). And I don't think I've used swing since my studio and LF classes in college...
Of course your needs will differ, so pretend you are backpacking and go out with your monorails to see what movements you actually need to accomplish what you want.
I don't like wooden cameras, but I'd love to see what a violin maker could come up with. I'm sure it would be a thing of beauty! I had an assignment to photograph violin shops in Cremona a few years ago and it was amazing to see the craftsmanship involved in making beautiful instruments.
Last edited by Noah A; 23-Mar-2012 at 07:08. Reason: typo
A bit of rise or fall, some tilt and swing; sometimes quite a bit of swing but that's pretty unusual. My preference is on the front standard, personally.
Mike
Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.
Bookmarks