I used an old Deardorff 4x5 for a long time that had limited rear movements and I didn't really notice it until I started going to workshops and seeing what other guys had.
I used an old Deardorff 4x5 for a long time that had limited rear movements and I didn't really notice it until I started going to workshops and seeing what other guys had.
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
The Ebony Universal bellows is better than a regular bellows, but still does not allow a lot of movement with wide lenses. I cannot get full movements with my Nikon 90mm F4.5, and I cannot get any front drop or rear rise at all without the bellows cutting off the image. That has been the only real disappointment with the camera. Count on a wide angle bellows for serious wide work.
While you should be able to get the rear of the 72mm xl into the camera, there are several threads on the problems with the 90mm XL.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
I get full movements on the Toyo 45AX with my 90mm Grandagon f4.5 on a flat board and full movments with the 75mm f4.5 Grandagon on a recessed board. The only movrment that the AX lacks s rear rise. But the AX is a folding field camera and not a monorail. If you need a lot of movements, then a monorail would be the way to go - the Arca Swiss Discovery maybe. The only limiting factor with my ROBOS is the lens.
Thomas
Darn right I'd miss my rear movements. I've taken a number of photos where I couldn't use enough front tilt to focus; there simply wasn't enough image circle available. When you run out of front tilt, having back tilt can make the shot possible.
I'm transitioning from a camera with no rear movements (Gowland Lite) to a camera that has no front movements (Century 10A), so I'll let you know how that changes things!
Without wanting to drift from my original questions, could someone also explain how much rear tilt I might expect to need, as I've never had the option and dont know.
For example, a portrait orientated landscape photo on a beach with some rocks in the foreground and beach going off to the sea in the background at infinity. I know I only need to use a few degrees of front tilt to get the focus plane right for focus from near all the way to infinity, but how many degrees of rear tilt am I likely to need to enlarge the foreground objects to fill the frame?
What about a church with a steeple or factory with chimney - type photo. As opposed to using front rise to keep the verticals from converging, I can point the camera up and plumb the rear standard. Again, how many degrees of rear tilt would I expect to use?
I appreciate this might be a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" question but if anyone can shed any light I would really appreciate it, as I dont want to choose a camera with fairly limited rear tilts, to find that I need more than is available.
Thanks in advance!
You would need to tilt the rear standard sufficient to bring it vertical again, so it depends on the camera's angle.
This is the 'how long is a piece of string' question There are so many variables that a definitive answer is impossible. However, unless you are doing something really outrageous, it's unlikely that you would run out of movement. In general landscape work I never have, and I find that the amount of movements needed is very small. Architecture and interiors are a different story. HTH
Bookmarks