View camera Vs. 35mm Tilt/Shift lens

[briandaly]

Since reading about large format camera movements and seeing some of the images produced, I'm keen to get my hands on something with tilt and shift movements.

The options seem to be:

1. Large format camera.

2. Medium format camera such as Fuji 680GX series which has some movements


3. A Canon TS-E series lens with tilt/swing movement in one plane only and shift/rise/fall in one plane only.

Does anyone here have experience of using both Large Format and 35mm Tilt/Shift equipment?

I would be keen to hear pros and cons of each option.

[Ken Lee]

These days, friends often ask many of us to "recommend a good digital camera". In previous years, they would probably have asked us to "recommend a good camera".

I always reply with the same question: What do you intend to shoot ?

Here, the answer is the same. It's often best to select our tools to match the task at hand, rather than the other way around.

[Jack Flesher]

I own Canon digital cameras and have all three current TSE tilt-shift lenses -- and of course am a fairly prolific shooter with LF.

The inability to use combinations of movements with the TS lenses is a significant restriction of the SLR options. Moreover, the range of movement available with them, at least from a rise or shift point of view is limited relative to a LF camera and comparable focal lens. They do however offer more than adequate rang of tilt (or swing) for extending PoF, given their relatively short focal lengths. Lastly, viewing through the tiny, low magnification finder makes fine adjustments difficult at best compared to composing on a 4x5 GG with a good loupe.

In conclusion, they are useful if you already have an SLR they fit on, but they do not provide the same compositional freedom as even the most basic view camera. The TSE lenses each cost about $1000 -- more new, less used. Even the manual focus 35 T/S Canon lens is relatively expensive when found used, and this assumes you already own a film body it will fit on. Start adding all of that up and a basic 4x5 camera body and a few lenses begin to look like a bargain. Finally, 4x5 film (even using 30 year old LF lenses) offers vastly superior resolution to 35mm film or even the best full-frame 35mm digital, adding further to the view camera's list of benefits.

Cheers,

[Gordon Moat]

Unfortunately the Canon tilt/shift lenses have some mixed reviews about their image results (check PDN Forums for a start). A better bet in smaller format is adapting either an Olympus or Nikon shift lens. There are also a few interesting Super Rotator lenses in various focal lengths, which can be found through Hartblei and a couple other companies. Zeiss also have a few choices in this direction. Obviously simple and more limited than a view camera, though okay when you need quick shots.

The Fuji GX680 is a very nice system. There is a good range of lenses, and briefly there was a digital back available (I think only in Japan currently). The downsides are that this is a heavy system, and lenses are nearly as expensive as similar large format lenses. Compared to a large format camera with a rollfilm back, you would be getting a lesser range of movements on the GX680. The upside is SLR focusing, and the precision of an electronically controlled shutter.

I own a Nikon 35mm f2.8 shift lens, and I have used their 28mm and the newer 85mm (tilt and shift). While these are nice lenses, and work well within a smaller frame, they are far less versatile than a view camera. The biggest advantage is being able to use these lenses for handheld shooting.

I nearly bought a GX680, but decided against this system solely based upon cost. My solution was to add a Linhof Super Rollex rollfilm back to my view camera, which gives me a workable medium format view camera solution when I need it. While I shoot more 4x5, I have found the rollfilm back to be very useful.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Walter Calahan]

It all comes down to how you plan to use these tools. None are perfect, so that's why I own multiple format systems.

[Louie Powell]

Brian -

The ability to adjust the relationship between the subject plane, lens plane and film plane is a characteristic that is unique to SOME (not all) large format cameras. That characteristic is used to achieve optical corrections in the final image. The most common application for this kind of equipment is architectural photography.

However, there are situations when a photographer needs to have the ability to make optical corrections but doesn't want to have to deal with the bulk, weight, cost and processing complexities of large format. Various camera manufacturers (Canon and Nikon in 35mm) have created lenses that have some limited abilities to shift or tilt to address these specialized needs. You should understand, however, that because this equipment was designed to emulate the capabilities of large format equipment, it really can't accomplish all that large format equipment potentially can do.

Today, the 35mm format world has shifted dramatically toward digital capture, while large format is generally still based on film. The fact is that many of the corrections that were done using the shift/tilt 35mm lenses provided by Nikon and Canon can now be done digitally in Photoshop or The Gimp.

The ability to make optical corrections is not an inherent characteristic of all large format cameras, but rather is a feature that some cameras are designed to provide. Monorail cameras are designed to provide the maximum degree of tilt/shift/rise and fall. Unfortunately, they are bulky and not very portable - they work fine in the studio or in situations where transportation is not a major problem. Modern field cameras (Shen Hao, Tachihara, Ebony, etc) generally have some capabilities, but there is a compromise between maximum flexibility and both portability and the ability to fold into a neat package that one would want for nature/landscape work that involves hiking. Press cameras (Graphics and their counterparts) have very limited adjustment capabilities. Very old large format cameras, and some modern cameras (Photoman, for example) have limited or no adjustment capability.

Also, in order to take advantage of the ability to shift, tilt, rise or fall, the lens has to throw an image circle that is significantly larger than the diagonal of the film format. Not all large format lenses meet that requirement.

I sense that the question you were really asking is which you should buy to achieve the ability to do the kind of photography you have seen and liked. That's a different matter altogether, and the answer really depends on what it is that you have seen and liked about images made with tilted or shifted lenses.

[briandaly]

Thanks all for the replies - certainly given me plenty to think about.
I currently shoot with a Canon 30D and so considered the TS lenses as one way to experiment with tilt and shift movements, with the benefit of instant feedback and no film costs.
My main interests are photos of people, both formal portraits and informal shots of people in action, and macro work.
However, as Louie Powell mentioned, many of the effects achieved by movements can be emulated to some degree in Photoshop, particularly if one has the luxury of taking multiple exposures of a static subject.

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

[vann webb]

It all comes down to how you plan to use these tools. None are perfect, so that's why I own multiple format systems.

Precisely. I own the 24 mm T/S that Canon makes, and it has served me quite well. However, as others have pointed out, it is not a substitute for a view camera by any means. I use both, but the 24mm T/S is great as a walk around lens for areas where a view or field camera would not be an option. The nice thing about the 24mm to me is being able to "set it and forget it" at hyperfocal distance at f8 and just bang away. When you see your first 4 x 5 negative though, it's no comparison. I shot my very first LF picture on a Speed Graphic with a very modest lens on 400 speed film, and believe me, it just crushes anything that you could hope to do with 35mm. The detail is just stunning. You could try a Speed Graphic like mine for $250.00 and it will do a lot for you without having to break the bank. If you don't like it, then you can walk away without getting hosed.

[Peter Lewin]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?
You may well receive as many responses to your last question as there are members of this forum. For my part, I will get away from both resolution and movements, since I have seen 16x20 prints from "digital 35mm" cameras with sufficient resolution that it would be hard to tell from the print what the source was. LF photography has a number of "intangibles" including the simple tactile feel of large negatives (I can't help it, I have a "wet" darkroom, and just enjoy the feel of the larger negs!) LF photography also has its own "process" (which some consider more "cerebral") because of the time required to set up the camera and tripod; I enjoy the process, and the taking of large format photos, more than I enjoy using my 35mm or my MF, although each has its place (its very hard to take bicycle racing photos in LF..., etc.)

[David A. Goldfarb]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

That's part of it, and I would include the tonality and micro-contrast you can get from a large piece of film.

It's also the ability to use historic lenses that have their own personalities, particularly when used for their intended formats. In some cases, one might use large format to have high resolution in part of the image and low resolution in another part of the image.

Another reason to shoot large format is to produce large negatives in the camera (as opposed to enlarging negatives from a smaller format) for alternative processes like platinum/palladium, albumen, gum bichromate, carbon, and others that require negatives the same size as the print for contact printing. Of course some people like to contact print using ordinary gelatin silver, just for the crisp tactile quality of a contact print.

[Louie Powell]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

The ability to take advantage of movements is nice. Resolution is nice. But for me, it's the fact that LF photography requires me to slow down and think about what I am photographing, and carefully evaluate what I want in the image and what I want to exclude, and how I want the final image to appear. It's everything other than the rapid, machine-gun approach of 35mm with a motor drive. It's the fact that when the ground glass of a large format camera actually shows you precisely what the film will see (if you want an almost religious experience, try looking through the ground glass of an 11x14 camera). Its the opportunity to make the act of making a picture an event rather than just one more split second in time. :)

[Rob_5419]

what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?


It's not a dichotomy, and neither does the dichotomy embrace all the alternatives. Sure - there is the detail; the tonal beauty of a large format print; the texture of the light in delicate gradations; the enlargement factor; the bending of light through selective movements; the impressive equipment...but all of these are inconsequential.

What makes me persist with large format photography?

I ask - can the spirit of photography be found elsewhere?

The historical camera had no movements; nor did it have particularly high resolution by modern standards.

Any other format is convenience.

[Ole Tjugen]

... The historical camera had no movements; nor did it have particularly high resolution by modern standards. ...

If you have a chance to look very very closely at an old daguerreotype, you will realise that they were capable of higher resolution than any modern medium. The favorite lenses of the time, the Petzvals, were also extremely sharp in the center - in fact they could be sharper than anything modern!

I'm with Louie: It's the slowness, the contemplativeness, and the fact that you see the finished picture, full size, on the ground glass. If what I see on the GG isn't a good picture, I don't waste film on it. Ideally speaking. I'm still wasting lots of film, but I usually realise it's wasted even before I release the shutter...

[Leonard Evens]

If you want to use a DSLR, you might consider the possibility of using Pano Tools with one of its GUI interfaces to adjust perspective and stitch for wider angle shots. Of course stitching isn't feasible if there is any significant subject movement, as there might be on a windy day for a landscape. But for acrhitectural phtography it might work and give you results approaching what you can do with a view camera.

[paulr]

I used a Nikon 35mm shift lens (usurped from my dad) for a lot of work I did in college. This was a time when I wished I had a LF camera, but couldn't afford one.

For the kind of work I was doing in the city ... a lot of cityscape/street pictures in chicago, often quite geometrical and with the camera on a tripod, the setup worked pretty well. But it only gave a fraction of the versatility of a field camera, and a tiny fraction of the print quality.

The lens by itself struggled to do the job ... with a lot of shift, the upper corners were visibly soft in the prints. Maybe other shift lenses are better. I never tried a tilting lens for 35.

[Rob_5419]

If you have a chance to look very very closely at an old daguerreotype, you will realise that they were capable of higher resolution than any modern medium. The favorite lenses of the time, the Petzvals, were also extremely sharp in the center - in fact they could be sharper than anything modern!



That's true Ole.... it was the earliest bitumen efforts I was referring to ... the excitement of a visceral discovery...that there is a transformative image there. Just when we least expect :cool:

[Bill_1856]

I've used Nikon P.C. lenses as my standard 35mm focal length lens for 30 years, first on Nikon cameras, now on Canon EOS with adapter. They are probably my sharpest 35mm lenses (including Leica Summicrons), and I've never found any need for tilt (DOF is from here to yon!). They are excellent for architectural photography, and shifting for mild panorams. I've found them to be just as useful as the movements on my Technika.

[Michael T. Murphy]

I have the Canon 45mm and 90mm TS-E. Both are wonderful lenses.

They are much easier to use on a full frame than on the 30D. I had a 1DsII and loved using them. The 90mm is a favorite of many product photographers.

Shift and tilt are both adequate for what they are. The Canon lenses are beautiful to use in the street, and hand held. Nice tool set.

LF of course is a different tool. I would not give up my TS-E lenses to go LF only. My hand held/street 4x5 does not have tilt.

[Brian Ellis]

"My main interests are photos of people, both formal portraits and informal shots of people in action, and macro work."

I don't see that tilt/shift lenses on your 30D would be very useful for most types of people photography, certainly not for most action photographs and formal portraits. Maybe a little more useful for macro work since depth of field is usually a problem there and being able to control the plane of focus would sometimes help minimize that problem. Still, the types of photography you mention aren't the kinds that usually benefit much if at all from camera movements. Landscape, architecture, commercial product photography, those types of things are the general areas where movements tend to be most useful.

[Rafael Garcia]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

I shoot 35mm, both film and digital, and have been doing the film part since the 1970's. I also shoot medium format, and in fact, learned the basics with a TLR in the 1960's. I am a late comer to LF, but I still do all three. As many said before, the tool you use must match the intent. I shoot landscapes and architecture with LF, portraits and candid photography with MF, and documentation and travel with 35mm. I find that the deliberateness and thoughtful attitude one must use when taking a LF camera and all associated equipment out in the field is a pleasurable experience in itself. While manipulating the image of MF and 35mm formats in the lab or digitally is possible and good, the challenge of composing and creating the final image in one place and time using a large negative as a canvas is therapeutic. While the other formats allow me to perform the functions of photography, LF allows me to enjoy the process more while doing it, as long as (and here I come full circle) the subject and my time are the appropriate ones for the LF tools.

[Gordon Moat]

While I do have and use smaller medium format and 35mm gear (and sometimes D-SLRs or digital backs), I find working with 4x5 a very different experience. With all my other cameras, I am behind the camera when I interact with my subject. When using a 4x5 to photograph people, they wait a little while I set-up and confirm focus, then we move on to taking the shots. In that set-up time, the subject relaxes a little. When I get to taking the shots, moving from one Quickload to another, I am standing beside the camera and interacting with my subject.

If I were to draw an image of a person, I would get a similar interaction. The subject reacts differently, and there is more of a one-on-one back and forth interplay between myself and the subject. So to me, using a 4x5 the way I do, is more like drawing.

The movements and high resolution are nice side benefits, though honestly those aspects are often much more than might be needed to capture a scene. Those aspects can be an advantage for some types of work, or for more static subjects. When it is photographs of people on 4x5, then the approach is the reason for me to continue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jim Jones]

My Nikkor PC lens is a poor substitute for a variety of lenses on a lowly press camera, let alone a view or field camera. For formal or informal portraits and for macro work, a tilt/shift lens may rarely be needed. Where a tilt/shift lens is needed, LF has many advantages. Perspective corrections can be done in an image editor with a reduction in image quality.

[cowanw]

As I scanned through this thread I did not see a mention of the Hartblei tilt shift lens for both 35mm and medium format. I have one for a Contax 645 and enjoyed it. That was a stepping stone to 4X5 for me.
Regards
Bill

[David A. Goldfarb]

As I scanned through this thread I did not see a mention of the Hartblei tilt shift lens for both 35mm and medium format. I have one for a Contax 645 and enjoyed it. That was a stepping stone to 4X5 for me.
Regards
Bill

At the Zeiss booth at PMA in Las Vegas this year I saw three Hassy lenses in Hartblei tilt/shift mounts for use on 35mm cameras and DSLRs, so there's more to come on this front.

[Steve Barber]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

Both

[Jack Flesher]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

Both of those are certainly significant benefits to using 4x5 over 35mm. However, I think the bigger issue for me is the process of compsoing on the GG versus a corrected SLR viewfinder. I've said it many times before, and not all will agree, but there is something about seeing the image upside and backwards (even though you hardly notice it is such) that just screams to you when the composition isn't correct. And I remain amazed at how much just a little bit of shift can fix the composition.

My .02 only,

[Sandeha]

Both fun to build, both fun to use ...


4x5
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/th_open.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/large_format/open.jpg) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/brecon_beacons/th_Llyn_y_fan_fawr_02.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/brecon_beacons/Llyn_y_fan_fawr_02.jpg)

35mm for the set-up shot here, though normally with a DSLR
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/modifications/th_IMGP3378_copy.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/modifications/IMGP3378_copy.jpg) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/sax/th_IMGP3308_copy.jpg (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/sax/IMGP3308_copy.jpg)

Obviously, the viewscreens bear no comparison.

[Bob Salomon]

One of the major benefits of using a view camera is the ability to control the shape of an object. That is what lets studio photographers do 3 point perspective. That is what an image that shows the top, the front and one side of a box, for example, is.

To be able to control the shape of the object you need back tilt and swing. To control the plane of focus of a scene you can use either back or front movements.

There is no system for 35mm, except for the Novoflex Tilt/swing bellows, that will let you control the shape of an object. The 35mm T/S lens only allows you to shift the position of the subject and to do limited plane of focus adjustments. For full control you need a view camera.

[paulr]

So drifting a little off the original topic, what makes you all persist with large format photography? Is it the high resolution images or the range of movements available on many large format cameras?

The image quality is what got me into LF. When I started doing urban work, the movements became especially important.

The meditative nature of working with the gear, and the magic of the ground glass became more important the more I worked with it.

I moved down to medium format when I got into color, and couldn't afford the big film and the processing! This break from LF has helped me appreciate the spontaneity and freedom of a smaller camera. The emphasis is just different ... each format will push you to grow in a different way.

[briandaly]

Thanks again everyone for the postings.
I've got "Using the View Camera" by Steve Simmons on order.
Even if I never get to own one, it should make an interesting read.

[Nathan Potter]

In deference to comments about LF being higher in resolution than 35 mm shift lenses let me clarify the issue a bit. Inherent resolution of a camera, film and lens system (digital is different) is determined by the lens only in situations where fine grained films are used. You can easily look at your films, both color and black and white, under a microscope and see that the grain size of say Tmax, Kodachromes and Velvia, for example, show grain sizes of from about 0.2 um up to say about 3 um. This for normal processing.

The best lenses designed for 35 mm use will deliver in center field 100 lp/mm falling generally to 60 lp/mm at the corner. The best large format lenses may deliver about 75 lp/mm at center and maybe 40 lp/mm at corner. So the best 35 mm lenses can deliver higher resolution than the best large format lenses. This assuming ideal camera stability and best focus at the film plane.

You can check this as I do using a focusing telescope at the film plane for both 35mm and LF. I use a ground glass to prefocus the image then substitue clear glass to capture an aerial image in the same plane. The focusing telescope is really a hand made microscope using a 10X objective and a 10X eyepiece (Edmund Scientific) fitted to a roughly 4 inch long tube. The objective is recessed to the exact depth of its focal length such that when placed against the clear glass in the plane of the aerial image one can see a resolution target, (USAF target works fine). A bit of additional focusing will render the sharpest image.

The point here is that one of the advantages of LF is the large format of the film compared to 35 mm. Talking in the form of pixels illustrates the point better. If both the 35mm lens and the LF lens, for example, delivered 100 lp/mm over the full field then the size of the Airy disc at best focus would be 5 um given that a line and a space would be equivalent to two Airy discs. I'm now calling an Airy disc one pixel 5 um in diameter. I'm not commenting on the contrast between a clear disc and an opaque disc and so not invoking a modulation transfer function or simple contrast ratio. A few calculations of format area indicates that if we assume 100 lp/mm over the entire field a 35mm image will contain about 32 Mpixels while the 4X5 image will contain 480 Mpixels. Of course lower lp/mm result in fewer pixels but it is clear that the advantage of large format is not in lens resolution but in greatly increased numbers of Airy discs (pixels). This simply results in the LF delivering great textural nuance to the film as many have said before me.

[Ken Lee]

"What makes you all persist with large format photography?"

"I love shooting everything in site with a digital camera, but I get a much higher percentage of keepers with my 4x5" view camera. This is because the 4x5" forces me to pay attention. If I can't create a powerful composition on the ground glass, I don't waste film on it, or even set up the camera. With film I do a lot of my editing before I press the button." - Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/synthesis.htm)

It's our attention to... Attention.

[Ole Tjugen]

Even some not-so-famously-sharp lenses can perform really well, and even with hasty focussing (quick, before the light changes)!

Here's a 165mm f:6.8 Angulon on expired 5x7" Ektachrome: http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

Try zooming in to about the size of a 35mm slide...

[paulr]

The best lenses designed for 35 mm use will deliver in center field 100 lp/mm falling generally to 60 lp/mm at the corner. The best large format lenses may deliver about 75 lp/mm at center and maybe 40 lp/mm at corner. So the best 35 mm lenses can deliver higher resolution than the best large format lenses. This assuming ideal camera stability and best focus at the film plane.

This is misleading in a couple of ways. First, subjective optical quality is not that closely related to "resolution" as it's been traditionally measured, and optical systems do not work like chains with a weak link. Every link in an optical system degrades the image quality; the question is how much. Modulation Transfer Function is the metric that best corresponds to how humans see images, and using this, we multiply the MTF of every link in the chain to estimate the quality of the whole system. That 100 lp/mm, while measureable, might be irrelevent if contrast at that frequency is less than 20%. Details in that range will look mushy.

But the real issue is that we care about the quality of the final print, not the film. So taking your simplified example, of the 35mm lens making a 100 lp/mm image vs an LF lens making 75 lp/mm, in an 8x10 print the 35mm image would be about 15 lp/mm while the LF print would be well over twice that.

[65Galaxie]

The latest Pop Photography mag has an article on TS lenses and how to make photos look like large format documentary and sports photos. The big downfall I see on this is the Canon lenses are over $1k apiece!

[Michael T. Murphy]

The latest Pop Photography mag has an article on TS lenses and how to make photos look like large format documentary and sports photos. The big downfall I see on this is the Canon lenses are over $1k apiece!

If you buy used you will recover all or almost all of your investment when you sell. They consistently sell for $950+ used on FM and other sites.

Think of it as a "loan" or "deposit" while you use the lens :)

Best,
Michael