PDA

View Full Version : Movements and camera stability



koh303
7-May-2016, 17:39
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.
Since cameras remain box shaped for 99.9% of photos, i dont get it.

Disclaimer: if your comment to this is "but i use movements all the time", please keep your anecdotal irrelevancies to yourself.

Jac@stafford.net
7-May-2016, 18:09
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.

Despair not! Perhaps there is a market for a micro-movement tripod platform that balances the camera to accommodate the swings, tilts, and so forth! Call it the Jobo Sowho, as in 'so who' cares.
.

karl french
7-May-2016, 18:16
Isn't your thread anecdotal?

koh303
7-May-2016, 18:28
factual.

Jim Andrada
7-May-2016, 18:50
OK I'll bite - exactly how do movements influence stability? For example...

Is it the movements themselves, or is it because a design that permits movements might result in some part of the camera being less solid/stable?

djdister
7-May-2016, 19:18
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.
Since cameras remain box shaped for 99.9% of photos, i dont get it.


I'll agree to the first point, but would like to know your source for your second point, which cannot be correct for shots taken with view cameras. Are you referring to your own use of camera equipment?

Two23
7-May-2016, 19:27
Why would I shoot LF if I didn't have movements? :confused:


Kent in SD

B.S.Kumar
7-May-2016, 19:34
Major manufacturers of view cameras - Sinar, Linhof, Toyo, etc. have taken adequate measures to reduce the effects of instability caused by movements. I have used view cameras from these manufacturers for over 30 years, and have not experienced any "instability" problems with the cameras themselves. Tripods and heads, yes. Wear and tear on mechanical components probably would cause problems.

Kumar

koh303
7-May-2016, 19:42
Why would I shoot LF if I didn't have movements? :confused:


Kent in SD

robert polidori might answer that for you.

koh303
7-May-2016, 19:44
I have used...and have not experienced

Without being rude, lots of people in the world have not experienced being struck by lightning...

koh303
7-May-2016, 19:45
I'll agree to the first point, but would like to know your source for your second point, which cannot be correct for shots taken with view cameras. Are you referring to your own use of camera equipment?

FB/LFPF/APUG/FLICKR photostreams.

karl french
7-May-2016, 19:57
Yet, you present no facts.

B.S.Kumar
7-May-2016, 20:07
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.
Since cameras remain box shaped for 99.9% of photos, i dont get it.

Disclaimer: if your comment to this is "but i use movements all the time", please keep your anecdotal irrelevancies to yourself.


Without being rude, lots of people in the world have not experienced being struck by lightning...

You are actually being rude, but we'll let that pass.

And since you want "facts",

It is not only "clear" to you, but to any one with a minimal understanding of physics that it is a fact that adding movements does induce instability.
It is also a fact that all the reputable manufacturers have designed their cameras to reduce the effect of this instability to a level that can be safely ignored for all practical purposes for which these cameras were designed. If you want literally rock-solid cameras, like the ones used in optical labs, I've seen those too, and they're not used for taking pictures of rocks and trees and people, like all of us do here.

And yes, the percentage of people using view cameras with movements is probably 0.1% of the total number of people taking photos with cameras, so yes, 99.9% of the photos get taken by box shaped cameras. If you include smart phones, tablets and phablets (also box shaped, though slimmer), that percentage is closer to 99.9999%.

koh303
7-May-2016, 20:09
And yes, the percentage of people using view cameras with movements is probably 0.1% of the total number of people taking photos with cameras, so yes, 99.9% of the photos get taken by box shaped cameras. If you include smart phones, tablets and phablets (also box shaped, though slimmer), that percentage is closer to 99.9999%.
Actually, i was only talking about LF photography in those streams.

B.S.Kumar
7-May-2016, 20:18
Actually, i was only talking about LF photography in those streams.

Wait a minute. You're saying 99.9% of the photos shown in those photostreams, using LF cameras, are made without using movements, thus retaining the original box shape? We'll ignore the bellows - which may be pleated, tapered or floppy bag types. Got facts/statistics?

Oren Grad
7-May-2016, 21:02
koh303: at this point, please spell out clearly what your proposition is, so people can respond to the substance of it. There may sometimes be entertainment value in tossing out an epigram and watching people puzzle it out, but here and now it's just generating pointless heat.

LabRat
7-May-2016, 22:13
It depends on the camera design, angle, weight of lens/back(s), balance point of tripod mtg, location of FS/RS in relation to balance/mounting point, extension, etc...

I have found (for myself) that many better axis tilt designs tend to be more stable than base tilt cameras, as the weight of the standards (+ lens) is balanced and for example, if shooting down, the weight of the FS + lens is not swinging downward giving the locks greater strain (and a free trip down if not holding the standard)... And the axis cameras tend to lock better (with less force) and it is easier to apply a tiny little bit of that "floating" movement to try out visually (esp on tilts), without all of that refocusing needed...

I can do a very complex set of combination movements in the studio with an axis tilt camera in a minute or two, where a base tilt camera would take MUCH more time, with much more trial and error... (Focus, focus, refocus... Focus again... Pray... Correct/distort linear lines/shapes, create a "wedge" of focus, tilt wedge, balance focus from tabletop deck to tops of objects (with f-stop), create OOF areas, etc... MUCH harder with the base tilt!!!!)

Steve K

Jim Andrada
8-May-2016, 00:03
I don't know - the thing I liked about my Kardan Bi was that I could use base tilt like I had done with a friend's Sinar. Just thought it was easier and faster most of the time. YMMV which is part of what makes this all so much fun - lots of ways to skin the cat. But the camera was never the least bit unstable regardless of which way I tilted it.

barnacle
8-May-2016, 01:01
With my engineer's hat on: any time you introduce a part which has to bend, hinge, rotate, flex, or whatever, you introduce a part which has the opportunity to wear, and which by definition cannot be part of a solid object - but the fundamental requirement for an optical system is that the bits stay where you leave them.

The solutions to adding rigidity are many and various, but all of them have both advantages and disadvantages: usually, that they're heavy and/or bulky. If you want cameras that fold, the problems are multiplied because you have extra hinge points. Further, if you have things which are attached at only one end, they will always tend to move around at the other - particularly in the case of a front standard support which is being acted upon by asymmetric forces such as the weight of the lens and the tension (either pulling or pushing) from the bellows. Add to this the fact that you would like all the movements to be independent of each other, and yet you need to apply bulk forces such as sliding the film holder in and out... it's a miracle anything stays lined up at all.

In my own folding Sapele camera, there are issues with the baseboard not aligning at an exact right angle to the back (sloppy hinges and a diagonal brace which passes too close to them) and with unintended front swing due to clearances (under half a millimetre/20 thou) on the slides and slides lock that don't always lock... my next homebrew will be different! My 1940s MPP press camera is much more rigid, mostly down to more precise hinges, but also weighs twice what the Sapele camera does...

Neil

asf
8-May-2016, 02:05
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.
Since cameras remain box shaped for 99.9% of photos, i dont get it.

Disclaimer: if your comment to this is "but i use movements all the time", please keep your anecdotal irrelevancies to yourself.

Are you saying nearly all LF photos taken are without movements?

Doremus Scudder
8-May-2016, 03:30
It is now clear to me that adding movements to a camera makes the camera less stable.
Since cameras remain box shaped for 99.9% of photos, i don't get it.

Disclaimer: if your comment to this is "but i use movements all the time", please keep your anecdotal irrelevancies to yourself.

I'll bite too:

Yes, my cameras with movements are inherently less stable than a box camera. However, I only need it to hold still for the exposure time. Instability isn't an issue if I'm careful and don't shake my camera around during exposure.

On to your second premise, which, for me at least, is patently false. Every photograph of a building that I make in a city setting (and I mean 100%) requires some degree of front rise if I want to render verticals parallel. This is not anecdotal; I use front rise for every single one of those shots. Using swings and tilts enables me to manipulate the plane of sharp focus and choose a better aperture for DoF than I could without them. I use this technique often as well.

Every time I go out with the MF camera, I end up cursing at it because it has no movements and I can't get the shot I want. How can I keep those verticals parallel without front rise? How can I position the optical center of the photograph to one side or the other of the frame without shift? (Yes, I want to, for creative reasons.) How can I keep all that stuff sharp but still be able to use f/22 or 32 and thus avoid diffraction degradation without swings and tilts? How can I shoot this reflective shop window and keep my reflection from showing up without movements? I can't imagine not having them; they have become such a part of my artistic vision that I don't even think in terms of "zero position" anymore, but rather in terms of what my camera back to subject position should be and what my lens to film position should be to get the image I want.

The vast majority of my photographs could not have been made without camera movements. Go to my website and do a bit of analyzing if you wish; you'll see that this is the case. This is also not anecdotal, nor is it in the least irrelevant; being able to use camera movements is the reason I shoot LF. If I didn't need movements for my artistic goals, I'd be happy with a Hasselblad. If you find you don't ever desire movements for your work, you would be much better off with a more stable box camera. There are many to choose from, even in LF.

Claim: If you want people to answer your questions, maybe you shouldn't be telling them to keep their opinions to themselves. Anecdotal evidence does need corroboration to be credible, I agree, but setting yourself up as the judge of what is relevant or not is simply hubris and not particularly courteous.

Doremus