covering power question

So the longer the focal length, the greater covering power? I'd like to have

sufficient covering power to be able to do some low angle shots that might

include a high degree of front rise. Also, what do you guys consider sufficient

for degrees of tilt, swing, and all that jazz? The body's that have ridiculous

amounts of "flex" if you may, are they really for very specific photographic

situations? For instance, an architect?

Lenses of the same design type have the same angular coverage independent of focal

length, so as the focal length becomes longer, the diameter of the circle of coverage

becomes larger. Since the circle of coverage is what is matters, you could say that longer

focal lengths have greater coverage. But statement is only true for lenses of the same

design type.

Comparing different design types, super-wide lenses such as Super-Angulons or Nikkor-

SWs have larger angular coverage than regular coverage lenses such as a Xenar. So a 150

mm Nikkor-SW has more coverage than a 210 mm Xenar.

The best approach is to look up the coverage of a particular lens that you are considering.

Typically a LF photography who regular does architecure will want lenses that will support

extensive amounts of front rise. A common setup is to shift the lens upwards to lessen

the amount of foreground without obtaining converinging verticals.

In most landscape situations, the amount of tilt needed for depth of field is quite small,

only several degrees. The camera advertisements that show contorted cameras are

misleading.

>So the longer the focal length, the greater covering power?

Pretty much but it can vary.

>'d like to have sufficient covering power to be able to do some low angle shots that might include a high degree of front rise.

Depends on how low and the lens length. If you are talking with the camera upside down hanging on a tripod right at the ground yes it takes more movement. My last on the ground shot took 2x the normal tilt to get everything in focus. I think it was around 12-14 degrees. Normal would have been 5-8 degrees.

I have a G-claron 150mm lens that has a lot of coverage and is tiny. On the other hand there is the Nikon 150mm SW that is huge heavy and covers even more like 8x10. You would probably want one of the SW or grandagon, or schneider equiv.

>Also, what do you guys consider sufficient for degrees of tilt, swing, and all that jazz?

It depends. For normal landscape I generally end up at 5-6 degrees of tilt. I rarely use rise but most cameras should have enough of that. In extreme conditions, like SW closeup, camera on the ground, 1:1 Macro etc you need more movements.

If you have never used a 4x5 camera and are considering one and you think you will use a lot of combined movements I would proabably start with a rail camera with at least separated or geared movements or a Linhof tec V. If you want a low cost light hiker, go for a super graphic.

>The body's that have ridiculous amounts of "flex" if you may, are they really for very specific photographic situations?

You can only go so far before you run out of image circle and the bellows get in the way. Those shots you see with the camera twisted up are hokey. In reality 90% of the time for normal shots you dont need that much movements.

>For instance, an architect?

More movements would be helpful for architectural photography.

Most of the 150mm lenses or a nikon 90mm SW will have more than enough image circle. Here is a list

http://www.brucebarrett.com/large_format/LF_Lens_Coverage.html