Need 4x5 camera recommendations (for use with Linhof lens boards)

[Andrew]

The Master Technika has rear tilt and swing, but no rise / fall / lateral shift. There's no way that rear component with the bellows and four struts could be used for rise / fall / lateral shift. I just pulled mine out and tried, just to confirm.

yes, but...
if you point the whole camera up then use the tilts to straighten up the front and rear standards you have effectively generated front rise without using the front rise function [same effect for front fall and lateral shift if you swing both front and rear standards to make them parallel after you point the camera at the subject]
you do the same trick with many wooden field camera so they don't really need dedicated movements for rise/fall/shift on both standards because you just use the tilt and swing to get the same effect
it's a bit clunky with the Technika, and esp with wide angles because the back has to come out away from the film to get the movements happening, so it depends on how much you think you need

[Bob Salomon]

yes, but...
if you point the whole camera up then use the tilts to straighten up the front and rear standards you have effectively generated front rise without using the front rise function [same effect for front fall and lateral shift if you swing both front and rear standards to make them parallel]
you do the same trick with many wooden field camera so they don't really need dedicated movements for rise/fall/tilt on both standards
it's a bit clunky with the Technika, and esp with wide angles because the back has to come out away from the film to get the movements happening, so it depends on how much you think you need

That type of movement is called indirect displacements. If you set the camera up so the standards are parallel to each other and lower the lens and raise the back you have the same effect and that is called direct displacements. The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it. The benefit to direct displacements is that they are far easier and much quicker then indirect displacements.

[Andrew]

That type of movement is called indirect displacements. If you set the camera up so the standards are parallel to each other and lower the lens and raise the back you have the same effect and that is called direct displacements. The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it. The benefit to direct displacements is that they are far easier and much quicker then indirect displacements.

Bob
thanks for giving me some fresh terminology, I hadn't heard those terms before :-)
I'd definitely agree that "direct displacement" is conceptually easier and probably quicker if your camera has the facility to do it [but the first thing I learnt about large format is that virtually everything seems to involve some sort of compromise.... ]

but ultimately what counts is the relative position of front and rear standards [ie lens to film] and it doesn't matter how you get there because the end result is identical
so, surely the coverage of the lens will impact identically and it's irrelevant how you generate the relative positions of the hardware ! ???

[Bob Salomon]

Bob
thanks for giving me some fresh terminology, I hadn't heard those terms before :-)
I'd definitely agree that "direct displacement" is conceptually easier and probably quicker if your camera has the facility to do it [but the first thing I learnt about large format is that virtually everything seems to involve some sort of compromise.... ]

but ultimately what counts is the relative position of front and rear standards [ie lens to film] and it doesn't matter how you get there because the end result is identical
so, surely the coverage of the lens will impact identically and it's irrelevant how you generate the relative positions of the hardware ! ???

Not necessarily, maybe with the level camera you only have to raise or drop the front. Or only shift the back only. Then you are moving off the center of the lens. For example, a Linhof 45re, and its predecessors back to the original Super Color, has 3.3" of rise front and back. Accessory attachments can increase that to 6.6"! On other models like the GTL there is almost 8" of front rise on 45. With this much movement you can easily run out of coverage with many lenses.

[Andrew]

yes, yes, yes... but the point I was making is that when you said "The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it" you implied that the lens coverage impacted differently for indirect vs indirect displacement.

If your lens has limited coverage you'll outstrip it just as easily no matter how you go about generating the movements once you end up with the same relative position of front to rear standard. I am specifically suggesting that you point the camera at your subject then straighten up BOTH standards, not just the rear one. If you point the camera and just make the rear standard vertical it is not generating the same effective movement. Straightening up the front standard is required to replicate the effect of direct rise/fall/shift and you will move the lens off axis.

so a camera that only has tilts and swings can generate exactly the same effect as direct rise, fall and shift and is only limited by the amount of available tilt/swing on the standards because you'd want both standards to be vertical and parallel. Either way you need a lens with adequate coverage. And I'm guessing many people are using equipment where the lens is the limiting factor rather than their camera

I hope I've used the terminology correctly there? what do you think...

[Oren Grad]

Andrew, you are correct. If the lens has undergone a parallel displacement, it doesn't matter what you had to do to the camera to make it happen - you have still moved the projected image relative to the film, and are subject to the same image circle constraint.

[Andrew]

why couldn't I have said it that succinctly ? !!!

Bob, I think we may have been talking a tad at cross purposes

[Bob Salomon]

yes, yes, yes... but the point I was making is that when you said "The drawback to direct displacements is that the lens has to have enough coverage to do it" you implied that the lens coverage impacted differently for indirect vs indirect displacement.

If your lens has limited coverage you'll outstrip it just as easily no matter how you go about generating the movements once you end up with the same relative position of front to rear standard. I am specifically suggesting that you point the camera at your subject then straighten up BOTH standards, not just the rear one. If you point the camera and just make the rear standard vertical it is not generating the same effective movement. Straightening up the front standard is required to replicate the effect of direct rise/fall/shift and you will move the lens off axis.

so a camera that only has tilts and swings can generate exactly the same effect as direct rise, fall and shift and is only limited by the amount of available tilt/swing on the standards because you'd want both standards to be vertical and parallel. Either way you need a lens with adequate coverage. And I'm guessing many people are using equipment where the lens is the limiting factor rather than their camera

I hope I've used the terminology correctly there? what do you think...

Andrew, point the camera at something. Level the camera, open the lens, leave the front standard centered and shift the back as far as possible (3.3") in the case of the Linhof. You can run right out of coverage.

Now bring the back to the 0 position and swing the lens. If you have optical axis movements, like the Linhof has, then the image dies not shift position or focus. If you have a base tilt or assymetrical tilts then the image and the focus shifts position and you can run out of coverage.

[Andrew]

of course the acid test is how much effective rise/fall/shift movement you get with a 75mm Fuji-swd lens on a Technika using the back tilt/swing....

I just tried with mine and the answer is a fraction over 1cm focused to infinity and you don't get to the edge of the image circle

but it's a pain in the rear [expected] because you end up with the front standard on the rail inside the camera body and you're focusing by moving the standard backwards and forwards by hand rather than with the gears because the standard isn't on that section of rail

maybe not as practical as one would hope for.... understatement

ROFL :-)
!

[Bob Salomon]

of course the acid test is how much effective rise/fall/shift movement you get with a 75mm Fuji-swd lens on a Technika using the back tilt/swing....

I just tried with mine and the answer is a fraction over 1cm focused to infinity and you don't get to the edge of the image circle

but it's a pain in the rear [expected] because you end up with the front standard on the rail inside the camera body and you're focusing by moving the standard backwards and forwards by hand rather than with the gears because the standard isn't on that section of rail

maybe not as practical as one would hope for.... understatement

ROFL :-)
!

Why is your lens inside the camera body? Isn't it mounted on the 001015 recessed Comfort lens board?