Cameras with rear tilt only.

[rich caramadre]

Thanks for all the replys everyone. I've been using my deardorff's for a number of years. 8x10 and 5x7/4x5. I use front tilt quite often for near far focus and was just wondering how people handle that with a 2D type camera. Pretty much as I expected.

[cobbu2]

I am actually working through this issue also; I went out for my first outing with my newly-acquired 5x7 Eastman No. 2 field camera this past Friday. I tilted the entire camera forward, just slightly. I wanted to get the mountains in the background in focus, so I focused on them then tilted the rear backward very slightly to get the foreground in focus (focused on the far, tilted for the near). With the aperture at f/22, I thought the treetop would be in focus along with the rest of it, but it's very slightly out of focus there. Is there something better or more I should have done to get the entire tree in focus along with the mountains and the foreground?



Thanks, Allan

[William Whitaker]

Lack of front movements allows for a sturdier and more robust front standard which then allows the use of large/heavy lenses (e.g., fast portrait lenses). Everything's a tradeoff. But, depending on your goals, being able to support large lenses could be an advantage. This is exactly why my Ansco Universal 8x10 is my keeper. To each his own....

[neil poulsen]

I used to have a Kodak 2D 8x10 a few years ago, so I was keen on 2D accessories. I've seen 2D reduction lensboard adapters that include a smaller bellows and tilt. Very effective solution. For a 2D, it wouldn't be that difficult for an S. K. Grimes to make one of these adapters.

But as previous posts have suggested, it's possible to get the same effect by other means.

[pepeguitarra]

I use the Kodak 2D Eastman and Century 8x10 Field camera. They only have front raise/fall, and rear tilt and rear swing. I have been able to use them in landscape without any problem, tilting the camera and adjusting with the rear tilt. I have seldom notice a difference. When I shoot products is when I do like the 8x10 Intrepid, it has all the movements. The Kodak 2D is a great camera, very stable and with a long bellows that allows for the use of long lenses. I also have the 8x10 reduction to 5x7, a very useful thing.

These were taken with the Kodak 2D:
Test-5x7 too by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Test 5x7 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

[pepeguitarra]

... For a 2D, it wouldn't be that difficult for an S. K. Grimes to make one of these adapters...

Someone else already did it. I am working in making my own too. Using as a guide the one made by another maker, but with some different things to avoid a straight copy.

[Vaughn]

I am actually working through this issue also... s there something better or more I should have done to get the entire tree in focus along with the mountains and the foreground?...Thanks, Allan

This is not an easy situation to take advantage of tilt, as tilting throws part of the tree farther out of focus relative to other parts of the tree. In your case, you probably used too much tilt. You could have used less tilt to just get the grass almost into focus, then used the f/stop to bring both the tree top and grass into focus.

Or perhaps use the same amount of tilt, but focus a little farther out.

Some of this depends on the focal length of the lens, format of the camera, and the amount of enlargement required of the negative. If contact printing, a smaller aperature can easily be used (f45 or 64) and get everything within the needed depth of field. I prefer to let a tiny bit of sharpness go (due to diffraction or whatever) rather than not have the image focused as I want it...especially since any reduction in sharpness in a contact print due to using f64 rather than f22 will not be seen.

PS -- I have the 5x7 version of your camera, also.

[Two23]

Lack of front movements allows for a sturdier and more robust front standard which then allows the use of large/heavy lenses (e.g., fast portrait lenses). Everything's a tradeoff. But, depending on your goals, being able to support large lenses could be an advantage. This is exactly why my Ansco Universal 8x10 is my keeper. To each his own....

I have a Chamonix 4x5 and 1925 5x7 Korona. I use the Chamonix when I need more movements and the korona when using heavy pre-Civil War lenses.

Kent in SD

[Mark Sawyer]

My question is what is the reason to have rear only movements on a view camera? I'm thinking of a camera like a Kodak 2D. I've always used rear tilt to straighten verticals but then have to also use the front tilt bring the front and rear back into parallel with each other for focus. It seems any rear movement would also need front movement to correct focus. Am I missing something?

What you're missing is that with front rise and fall, which the 2D has, you can replicate front tilts at the rear.

[cobbu2]

This is not an easy situation to take advantage of tilt, as tilting throws part of the tree farther out of focus relative to other parts of the tree. In your case, you probably used too much tilt. You could have used less tilt to just get the grass almost into focus, then used the f/stop to bring both the tree top and grass into focus.

Or perhaps use the same amount of tilt, but focus a little farther out.

Some of this depends on the focal length of the lens, format of the camera, and the amount of enlargement required of the negative. If contact printing, a ... especially since any reduction in sharpness in a contact print due to using f64 rather than f22 will not be seen.

PS -- I have the 5x7 version of your camera, also.

Thanks Vaughn... I think you're right in that I concentrated a little too much with the back tilt; that tree was the middle object of the scene and with a combination of a little less back tilt and stopping down another stop (or two) would have made the difference.

I really enjoyed using this camera the other day, the controls are easy to use and everything is quite sturdy, I can see why the basic design is so popular.

Cheers, Allan