Tilt Shift on a Z body

While more movements is fun and can be useful, the cost likely goes up substantially (it requires a larger image circle to offer those freedoms and additional mechanical systems), as it has for the 19 mm compared to the others.

The image circle is the same regardless of how you access it. The problem is that you can't tilt on the same axis as you can shift on by default, but you can have the functions realigned or do it yourself (which is a different limitation, though one I find less limiting).

I personally use what movements are available, and don't really miss what isn't there.

I prefer not to be limited by a design flaw.

I've used the 19 mm's ability to level horizon, shift down, and tilt at the same time in the same direction (to get a near-far scene in focus without keystoning) but the result can look rather extreme compared to tilting the camera down and applying tilt to increase near-to-far sharpness, and I wouldn't really say that this is a "better solution" judging from the aesthetics of the outcome. It's just another option to have.

Yes, I want to have options, and having them doesn't mean I overuse them. I sometimes tilt the camera as well as shift the lens, and I am happy enough with my 15mm Laowa shift lens which has no tilt function. I also sometimes stack focus as well as using the tilt function, and sometimes I want the ability to selectively focus using the tilt function (though I personally have no interest in "miniature effect" shots). I also combine the shift function with software when I want to make a panorama.

The more restricted movements cover most situations for me.

Sure, and f/4 covers most situations for me too, but I still want and use wider apertures. Same for sluggish AF motors in my lenses.

Having to pay 4k€ for each focal length is quite a lot of money if one wants to get a full range of focal lengths (that are manual focus and don't really replace any normal lens but are in addition to them).

Canon lenses do what I'm talking about and cost about $2000 (USD); not even close to 4k€.

As for duplicating FOV, that happens to me all the time. For instance, 43° diagonal on 3:2 format is 55mm on my D800 and 37mm on my D500. I can get that using my:

• Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC on my D800 (slightly cropped)
  
• Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D (also slightly cropped)
  
• Pentax 67 55mm f/4 with T/S adapter on my D800
  
• Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G on my D500 and D800
  
• Rokinon T/S 24mm f/3.5 on my D500 (heavily cropped, but as usable as my D300 ever was)
  
• Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G on my D500 (slightly cropped)
  
• Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G on my D500
  

It could be argued that I have too many options here (I definitely have more options than I would ever bring along in one or even two camera bags), but every one of those lenses serves a different function. At the other extreme, there's always my smartphone camera in my back pocket.

For me tilt is mostly useful on the longer focal lengths and shift on the shorter ones. If Nikon can make the PC Nikkors for Z mount optically simpler because of the larger opening and the space freed by the lack of mirror, great, this could reduce the price a bit. But it could take a decade or more before they get started with it, as tilt/shift doesn't seem to be a priority for Nikon, for many years they barely had any offerings in this segment. Canon recently updated their tilt/shift lineup for EF mount and haven't done anything for their mirrorless mount yet, and neither has Sony. It doesn't look like there is a lot of manufacturer interest.

Sure, and all I'm saying is that if you have the image circle, and you are going to make it accessible for tilting and shifting, that those functions should be independently adjustable (as Nikon has done for the 19mm PC-E, Canon has done for their T/S lenses, and Schneider has done for their T/S lenses).

No-one has really used the extra 'space-depth' gained by using a quality FX F-mount lens, say a 24mm, on a FX Z mount body.

I mean, who uses these tilt/shifts in auto exposure and AF?

Auto keystone correction and auto focus stacking have pretty much (!) done away with the need of tilt-shift lenses, for stationary subjects regarding perspective distortion and limited DoF......:)

The Photoshop tool has been more than good enough for me as far tilt/shift effects are concerned. But I guess some people really really need these lenses, and it's not just anybody. Dunno - I used to have these lenses (think it was 24mm and 85mm) and hardly ever used them for any real life purpose. Yes, they might have yielded some advantage but to me was negligible compared to the effort required.

Shift is mostly a viewpoint thing..

Tilt is a whole new ballgame regarding things like the plane of DoF.

Shift is for correcting the keystone effect, and one can fix that with transform in PhotoShop, but tilt alters the focal plane and there is no easy way to fix that in post processing. If the subject is still, perhaps focus shifting can address some of that issue.

Some people really need these lenses for practical purposes (true especially for the tilt part). For my landscape and wildlife photography, I found I did not want them enough to add the additional weight to the bag; then I also always considered a zoom lens good enough for anything (except maybe macro photography).and that whatever observable lost sharpness if any was more than made up by other factors, photographic or otherwise. So for the most past I did not see the big fuss over them. That said, Canadian Rockies photographer Darwin Wiggett used them and in fact he influenced my purchase of those lenses, though they were soon forgotten and in fact suffered water damage in the basement during my house fire. The difference the lenses made are probably evident in his exquisite landscape photography and I believe he can probably demonstrate the difference of using/not using them on some of the his images.

Never say never. ;)