lens shift

[Helen B]

i was at the store today playing with a canon 24mm tilt shift on a 5dmkii

i sorta understand what happens now when you shift it up and down, theres really no light when you shift down.

Not sure what you mean. Shifting down ("fall") has the same effect as shifting up ("rise"), just in a different direction. I mostly use fall when taking pictures from roofs, looking down on other buildings. If I simply pointed the camera down I would get converging lines. By holding the camera level and using fall I can look down while keeping verticals vertical.

how would my camera have more horizontol coverage than a panoramic camera?

OK. We are imagining the two cameras in portrait orientation (ie long side of the frame vertical). A 90 mm lens on the 617 and a 17 mm lens on the 35 mm camera. The greater the value of film dimension divided by lens focal length, the greater the coverage.

In the vertical (long) dimension:

617 camera - long film dimension = 170 mm; lens FL = 90 mm
170/90 = 1.89

35 mm camera - long film dimension = 36 mm; lens fl = 17 mm
36/17 = 2.12

Therefore in the long dimension the 35-17 combination has a little more coverage.

In the horizontal (short) dimension:

617 camera - short film distance = about 58 mm perhaps; lens fl = 90 mm.
58/90 = 0.64

35 mm camera - short film dimension = 24 mm; lens fl = 17 mm.
24/17 = 1.41

Therefore the 35-17 combination has a lot more horizontal coverage.

(It should be obvious from the aspect ratio of the two frames, without doing that calculation.)

wouldnt my 17mm lens have converging lines from distortion when vertical?

There shouldn't be much. It depends on how good the lens is in terms of distortion. Just remember to make sure that the camera is perfectly levelled.

Good luck,
Helen

 

[den9]

when are refering to the above post, horizontal is still the width when the camera is mounted 90 degrees sideways?


this gave me a laught today, i was in a bagel shop and spotted this picture on the wall, its such a terrible photo imo, the crop is too tight, and the converging lines are just awful. by the way its city hall in philadelphia.
i wonder if it was the owner who took it?
the only thing it has going for itself is that it matches the paint on the wall

 

[den9]

well i went out tonight and i relearned alot of things i already knew.

you have to be standing very far to get a 30 story building in the shot even with a 17mm lens, unless you are very low and pointing the camera up.

there is no room to stand back in 90 percent of the city, and if you do there is usually something in the way of your shot.

i really wish i could get in the middle floor on the building across the street from the other building.

other things i learned

waiting an hour for a lady to move her car, then giving up sucks.

homeless people are annoying, i used to stop and listen to them, but they all say the same stuff, so now i just say no for anything they say.

if you dont let homeless people ask you a question, "you must hate niggas too"

lens hoods get alot of stares.

its funny when people take handheld pictures at night of buildings, especially with a flash. good luck.

in todays digital world, alot of people ask you did your pictures turn out good while walking away. all i can say is i hope so, and tell them you are using film.






by the way i was able to stand far enough back to get the building you see on the above post in a shot with the camera perfectly level. broad street ends directly in the center of the building, and starts again on the other side. its always the longest and straightest city street in the world. just a random fact for the day

 

[Helen B]

when are refering to the above post, horizontal is still the width when the camera is mounted 90 degrees sideways?

Yes. I try to keep with the convention that says that when the long side of the frame is vertical the camera is in 'portrait' orientation ('landscape' being the other way), and I still refer to the horizontal as 'horizontal' - ie the short side of the frame in this case.

this gave me a laught today, i was in a bagel shop and spotted this picture on the wall, its such a terrible photo imo, the crop is too tight, and the converging lines are just awful. by the way its city hall in philadelphia.
i wonder if it was the owner who took it?
the only thing it has going for itself is that it matches the paint on the wall

Yes, well, that can be the deciding factor. Did it match the sofa, or is it an ottoman?

Best,
Helen

 

[Helen B]

well i went out tonight and i relearned alot of things i already knew.

you have to be standing very far to get a 30 story building in the shot even with a 17mm lens, unless you are very low and pointing the camera up.

Shift lenses have their limits as well, of course. Here's an example where I couldn't get quite enough fall (shift down). I could have made some corrections in post, but didn't because sometimes a little convergence looks better than no convergence.

 

[den9]

how do you like your super angulon?

anyone have a comparism to the 24mm canon tilt shift?

 

[Helen B]

That PC Super Angulon is quite a good lens. I have had it for about 15 years. There is some slight distortion at the outside corners (the ones at the edge of the coverage of the lens) when it is shifted the full 11 mm, but that is not always noticeable.

The great advantage of it is that it has an interchangeable mount, so I can use it on both my Nikons and my Leica R6.2.

I have never compared it to the Canon 24 mm TS-E. I also have Nikon PC-E tilt-shift lenses which are comparatively recent designs, and more convenient to use on a fully compatible camera (the iris operation is fully automatic during shutter release).

With a gridded screen on an SLR these shift lenses can be used handheld quite easily.

Best,
Helen

 

[den9]

i dont think 24 or 28 would be wide enough for me if i decide to put it in portrait mode, it seems like im always on 17mm when down the city.

i might consider this lens someday.

i always tried to raise the tripod method, which i thought would be the same at lens shift before you informed me. to my surprise about to foot of tripod head lift it did very minimal if any change at all.