# lens shift



## den9 (Aug 26, 2010)

does this make sense?
Technorama Shiftadapter

i understand tilt and ****, but wouldnt this be no different then raising the tripod 10mm or so?


----------



## Helen B (Aug 26, 2010)

No, it's not the same. If you raise the tripod 10 mm all that happens is that your field of view rises 10 mm. If you use lens rise (shift vertically upwards) then the field of view looks up at an angle. even though the film/sensor plane may be perfectly vertical. It's easier to describe graphically than in words, so try reading the Wikipedia entry on lens rise and fall.


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

so if i shift the lens up 10mm ill get the top of the building, and if i raise the tripod ill get the top of the building, but converging lines, even if the camera is dead level and flat?

if i had that camera and wanted to get shoot that building shown on the original link, how do i determine how high to set my tripod?

thanks for helping me out, this is very important to me.


----------



## Helen B (Aug 27, 2010)

Imagine a camera mounted perfectly level on a tripod. The lens axis (the line through the middle of the lens) is perfectly horizontal. At one end (the camera end) it passes through dead centre of the image and at the other end it passes through the front of a building, at a point which is at exactly the same height as the camera. It is dead centre in the field of view. In our imaginary case we see that with the camera level, we are cutting off most of the building's roof.

Because the film/sensor plane is perfectly vertical, there is no convergence of the buildings vertical lines.

Now, if I raise the tripod column 10 mm all that happens is that I see 10 mm more of the building's roof.

If, instead of raising the camera, I simply raise the lens while keeping the back stationary the lens axis will remain horizontal, but the line between the centre of the film/sensor and the "centre" of the lens will rise up above the vertical. It is this line that defines the field of view. Therefore the camera is now looking up, and 10 mm of lens rise translates into a much greater rise in the field of view.

Suppose you have a 50 mm lens, and you raise it 10 mm. On a building 50 m (about 150 ft) away the field of view will rise 50 000/ 50 x 10 = 10 000 mm, or 10 m (about 30 ft). The film/sensor is still vertical, so building verticals will remain straight and vertical in the image.

How does that sound?

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

I sort of understand, your saying its the same effect as tilting to lens up to get the whole building, without converging lines. But doesn't this camera just shift up and down, not tilt? It took me awhile to understand the canon tilt shift lens, but this linhof seems like it justs goes up and down, no tilting though. It just doesn't make sense to me, its driving me nuts.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2010)

"Shift" is not the same as tilt, so den9 your intuition is treating you well. Shifting the lens's position while maintaining the same,identical "film position" is a well-regarded way to make stitched panoramic photographs. Rest assured, the folks at Linhof know what they're doing, and Linhof 617 users are technically-minded,serious landscape and architecture shooters who will be wetting themselves at the prospect of having a shift version of this well-regarded camera.


----------



## Helen B (Aug 27, 2010)

Tilt doesn't have much effect on the field of view, just on the plane of sharp focus. It is shift (rise and fall when in the vertical direction) that affects the field of view. That is why many lenses for architectural use only have shift, such as this Schneider PC Super Angulon:









Derrel said:


> Shifting the lens's position while  maintaining the same,identical "film position" is a well-regarded way to  make stitched panoramic photographs.



We prefer to hold the lens in the same position while shifting the back - this keeps the point of view the same for each shot.

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

so for converging lines, you need to keep the camera level to avoid them

and tilting has nothing to do with fixing converging lines, just shifting? correct?

and with the linhof 617 it doesnt have converging lines anyway, if its straight correct?

and the shift plate adaptor is just so you can make stitching photos better?


----------



## Helen B (Aug 27, 2010)

den9 said:


> so for converging lines, you need to keep the camera level to avoid them



Yes, unless you want to correct them in post. Specifically you need to keep the film/sensor plane vertical. That does not always mean that the camera itself has to be level - some cameras have rear tilt. Rear tilt affects both converging lines and plane of focus; lens tilt only affects plane of focus.



> and tilting has nothing to do with fixing converging lines, just shifting? correct?


Correct. Ideally tilting only affects the plane of focus, not the perspective or the field of view. There may be a slight change in the field of view if the lens is not tilted about the rear (second) nodal point or because the entrance pupil is not coincident with the rear nodal point - but these should be slight changes in field of view. Shifting affects field of view, thus allowing the back to stay vertical while the camera 'looks up'. Shifting itself does not change converging lines - ie as you shift a lens you do not see any change in the verticals of a building, only in field of view.



> and with the linhof 617 it doesnt have converging lines anyway, if its straight correct?


Only if the camera back is vertical (= camera is level: Technorama does not have rear tilt).



> and the shift plate adaptor is just so you can make stitching photos better?


Not quite. The shift plate adapter primarily allows the camera to 'look up' while the camera is level. It also allows perfect stitching, because it holds the lens stationary while the back moves up and down.

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

so if the camera is horizontal, and you take a skyline picture from across a river, will you need to shift up to prevent converging lines?

what does shifting down do?

why doe it not create converging lines when vertical?

have you ever checked out horst hamanns new york vertical book?

will you buy me a linhof 617 with a 72mm lens?

thank you so much for all the help! some reason im assuming you own or have experience with this camera?


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

damn i just thought of another thing

how can you tell how much shift you need since you arent looking through the lens, and since the view finder doesnt raise up, how do you know you are getting the building in the shot?

this camera is very confusing and expensive, but some day i will get one.


----------



## Helen B (Aug 27, 2010)

den9 said:


> so if the camera is horizontal, and you take a skyline picture from across a river, will you need to shift up to prevent converging lines?



If the camera is horizontal you do not need shift to prevent converging verticals. You only need shift to move the field of view up (or down) to get the framing you would like.



> what does shifting down do?



It moves the field of view downwards.



> why doe it not create converging lines when vertical?



It would, if the camera was not level. The vertical angle of view is so great that you may not need to shift in order to get the top of a building in when the camera is level. You just crop out the bottom part of the picture.



> have you ever checked out horst hamanns new york vertical book?



No, but I'll check it out.



> will you buy me a linhof 617 with a 72mm lens?



I would like to be able to!



> thank you so much for all the help! some reason im assuming you own or have experience with this camera?



Not with the 617 with shift adapter. I've used the plain 617, and other similar roll film cameras that have shift systems. I have used large format cameras with tilt and shift for over thirty years, and I have both shift and tilt-shift lenses for my 35 mm / digital SLRs.



> how can you tell how much shift you need since you arent looking through  the lens, and since the view finder doesnt raise up, how do you know  you are getting the building in the shot?



That's really what the ground glass back is for. Some cameras link the lens shift to a viewfinder angle shift.

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Aug 27, 2010)

if my 35mm slr with a 17mm lens was tilted vertical, and perfectly level, would there be converging lines?

i cant thank you enough for the help, its hard to find info on not so popular cameras.

by the way my birthday is october 1st


----------



## Helen B (Aug 28, 2010)

den9 said:


> if my 35mm slr with a 17mm lens was tilted vertical, and perfectly level, would there be converging lines?



Yes. That's true for any camera, of course. This technique (using a very wide lens with the camera-lens axis level) is quite common as an alternative to using shift lenses. You are usually cropping a lot of the foreground, and hence losing resolution, but that may not matter.

Your 17 mm lens will give similar vertical coverage to the 617 with 90 mm lens, and wider horizontal coverage (when both cameras are in 'portrait' orientation).

A cheaper alternative to the 617 would be a large format camera with a panoramic rollfilm back. You would actually have more lens movements than the 617. The Shen Hao TFC-617 is an example.
















Alternatively you could get a 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 camera and simply crop the image down to 6 x 17 (from 5 x 7) or even 6 x 24 (from 8 x 10). This would make vertical format simpler than with a dedicated 6 x 17 camera (and you would have more lens movements).

Best,
Helen


----------



## den9 (Aug 28, 2010)

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.

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

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

im going to give a shot today.

i feel like i owe you money for your advice and knowledge now lol.


----------



## Helen B (Aug 28, 2010)

den9 said:


> 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 (Aug 28, 2010)

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 (Aug 28, 2010)

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 (Aug 29, 2010)

den9 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2010)

den9 said:


> 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 (Aug 29, 2010)

how do you like your super angulon?

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


----------



## Helen B (Aug 30, 2010)

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 (Aug 30, 2010)

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.


----------

