Film Camera?

<p>Hi folks! Please forgive me if this question comes across a little silly. Anyway, I'm really interested in shooting Architecture. I want to get the best quality without having to step up to a larger format. The two lenses I am most interested in is the TSE 17 and TSE 24mm. Since my budget is restricted and I don't have a FF camera, I was considering getting a used canon Eos 3 or something similar. I'm actually a Nikon shooter but for this type of work I feel canon is better equiped. So, I'm curios what restrictions or limitations am I placing on my self shooting slides and having them scanned. And, will the two TSE lenses work with older Eos film bodies. Any thoughts would be appreciated...cheers!</p>

<p>High quality drum scans are excellent but time consuming and expensive. You can quickly pay for a used 5D with film, processing and scanning fees. I still scan my old sides and to get really good quality--good enough for large prints--I have to use 4000dpi and 16X multi-sampling. 1 or 2 passes can be pretty noisy, especially in shadows.</p>

<p>And, yes, the TSE lenses will work with any EOS body.</p>

<p>EOS 10S & EF 28-105 USM • Fujichrome side scanned with FS4000US (16X)<br /> <img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/korea_images/Nak_San_Sa1994_11s.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="478" /></p>

<p>The Canon EOS 3 is a wonderful camera, if you go the film route.<br>

However, because of high demand it is also one of the more expensive of the Canon EOS film line. For some details on all of the possibilities look at Canon's historical "museum" on line ( http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/chrono_1991-1995.html ) from roughly 1990 to 2000 for models that have the latest bells and whistles but are film cameras, In addition to the <a href="00WyuM">EOS 3</a>, look at the <a href="00WxgJ">EOS 10(s)</a>, the<a href="00WvBD"> EOS 1</a> or 1N, or even the still current model the EOS 1V.</p>

<p>A EOS 5D Model 1 would give you a digital 35mm sensor camera for around US$1000 to 1200 on eBay.</p>

<p>I'm saving for my own TS-E 17mm, but in the meantime, I'm using my PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 fully manual (as it always was) on my own 5D - bought for that purpose.</p>

<p>Using the 17mm TSE without live view would be totally impractical. I strongly suggest that whilst the EOS3 and 1V are superb cameras, they are totally unsuitable for use with the newest TSE lenses.</p>

<p>I've been using shift lenses since 1971 on 35mm bodies. A tripod will suffice at worst, and it is by no means impossible to view the effect through the viewfinder while hand holding, especially with a grid viewfinder.<br /> Maybe easier with "live view", but not "totally impractical" by any means without. I admit I've gone no further than 24mm wide with these, but can't imagine such a difference for another 7mm, even at the wide end.</p>

<p>BTW, of course, the 5D has no live view either, if you take Scott's injunction to heart.</p>

<p>Hi Scott! Could you be more specific. I'm pretty sure tilt shift lenses pre-date live view. I'm not trying to start a debate, just want to know what limitations I would have...thanks</p>

<p>Roman, JDM,</p>

<p>If shift is the main reason for getting the lens then, on film, you are just as well served with a MkI 24, and I agree, through a viewfinder, or hand held, it is not too difficult to get rightish, though for my uses it is not accurate enough.</p>

<p>If tilt is an important aspect of either lenses use then trying to work through a viewfinder is just not going to happen, particularly with the woefully inadequate adjustment knob on the lens and its scale. You cannot use tilt effectively with these lenses through a viewfinder.</p>

<p>But this is really missing the point of both these superlative new optics. They are as good as it currently gets, to hand hold them makes little to no sense, you can only get the results they are capable of delivering if you use the best techniques, a tripod is the most basic of these, but live view really is the key to unlocking their amazing potential. Failing that, tethering and trial and error could work, but again, not on a film camera!</p>

<p>Now a 17mm is a touch over $2,000 and a 24 a touch under. I would work out which lens was more important and go for that one and get a FF body with live view. The 17 works well with a 1.4 TC so you get a 24mm too. It doesn't work well with the 2xTC though. The 24 works even better with a 1.4 and adequately for most uses with a 2xTC with a modest shift or any tilt.</p>

<p>Prioritise, but to get quality results that compare well to the best medium format film budget for a ff digital camera with live view.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with using a TS-E 17 or 24 on an EOS film body such as the EOS 3 or 1V. I purchased a mint EOS3 last year for $100. Check KEH.com for good deals on EOS film bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sheesh, how the hay did furry chested cavemen manage with T/S lenses in the 90s, before friggen' digital and LV? Wasn't that hard. I've had more success with the angle eyepiece than LV. Ambient light often washes LV out to the point of being useless (unless you put a freakin' towel on your damn head).</p>

<p>Puppy, Donald and JDM,</p>

<p>Have any of you tried to use the tilt on a 17mm TSE, either with live view or through a view finder? You would need the eyesight of a hawk to have any chance of getting your plane of focus anywhere near where you wanted it. My experience is it is not possible to use tilt accurately, or effectively, via a viewfinder. The angle finder idea is a good one but at only 2.5x (I seem to remember, maybe wrongly) it is too under powered, 5x on live view does not work anywhere near as well as 10x.</p>

<p>Please feel free to post images you have shot with effective and accurate use of tilt that you did via a viewfinder.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/digital_tool_for_architecture.shtml">This might help.</a></p>

<p>So Scott, besides using a view camera, with tilt and shift, are you saying no one got accurate tilt corrected photos using 35mm SLRs before digital? That doesn't seem to make sense. But maybe you are right. I'm just asking.</p>

<p>Accurate and sharp tilt has been a bastion of MF/LF film architecture photography for decades.<br>

If you are going film, then you can get a Horseman MF in 6x9 or 6x12 with inbuilt tilt, shift, for about $1200. You also have the added bonus of using it for panorama landscapes too.<br>

Architecture photography is not the realm in 35mm. You could also look for a Hassy Arc body on ebay.<br>

Do more research....there is a whole world of MF photography out there to help you.</p>

<p>Yep.</p>

<p>4x5 with ground glass and a loupe was the answer pre live view for quality architecture. That is why the two new lenses have sold as well as they have, they are serious lenses that sell to pros who couldn't do what they do with a 135 system before. Another major upgrade, and a nod to the necessity of being able to use the feature, is the independent control over shift and tilt rotation.</p>

<p>Think of the maths, the J line stretches from 22 feet to 3 feet in under a degree of tilt, on the 17mm that is about 20º of rotation on a 1/3" sized knob with no indents, you can't do it with the maths and you can't do it with the viewfinder. The wide angles are particularly prone to this difficulty, the 90mm has been a popular product shooting lens for years, but the tilt is much more visible and pronounced at f2.8 and 90mm than f4 and 17mm, but most shooters had NPC backs for their 1 series cameras anyway, polaroids were the live view of the film era.</p>

<p>Wow! Thanks every one, thats some serious food for thought. It appears I have a lot to learn.</p>

<p>When shooting digital, you have the advantage of being able to shoot high dynamic range imagery (HDRI) and also to composite multiple shots into panos (either vertical or horizontal). You can also easily adjust perspective in post processing.<br>

I would think that a used full-frame camera (5D Classic) with a 17-40mm lens would be a relatively inexpensive start to architectural photography.<br>

I would not balk at architectural photography using my present 40D and 12-24mm Tokina lens as long as I had a good tripod and access to a full fledged image processing program.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Roman,</p>

<p>Fortunately there are many very good resources out there. Here are a few links. The first one has a graphic illustration of the difference between shifting in software and the MkI 24mm TSE, the MkII is considerably better. The link I posted earlier has an example of HDR and stitching too.</p>

<p>I hope they help.<br /> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html<br /> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html<br /> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/lenses/ts-e_24_f35_l_ii.html<br /> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/lenses/ts-e_17_f4_l.html<br /> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses1.htm<br /> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx<br /> http://hame.ca/tiltshift.htm<br /> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17ts.shtml</p>

<p>And the final one, a review of the TSE 24mm MkII, written by the legendary Harold Merklinger, the author of several seminal papers on focusing and tilting. The links at the end of this article are the absolute definitive work on focusing the view camera (tilt shifting). http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-ii.shtml</p>

<p>I confess that the tilt feature is much less used by me than the shift feature. I do mostly one kind or another of architectural photography. I have done this on 4x5" cameras as well as with TS-E and PC-Nikkor lenses in 35mm over the years back to the 1960s.</p>

<p>Of course, for the highest quality, you do have to use a tripod, but that's true of all photography, not just TS-E lenses. I still think you are making a convenience into a necessity in regard to "live-view".</p>

<p>However, while I haven't yet amassed the capital necessary to get one of the TS-E 17mm lenses, I am saving, and somehow for my purposes, like those of everybody else who used these lenses before "live-view," the viewfinder works quite well for me. </p>

<p>In my opinion, the key to successful use of tilt and shift in architectural photography is that no one notices that it has been used.</p>

<p>We used the Polaroid's more to check exposure. On the view camera you saw what you needed to due to the size of the ground glass. And still, the Architectural photogs I know today still prefer the view camera.<br>

Do these new tilt lenses cover both axis? swing and tilt? It's funny, the view camera I used at school was one of those calumets with no geared control knobs, you unloosened them, and then moved the adjustment and then tightened it. It was like practicing Yoga with both hands working the movement and propping the loupe on the glass with your eye socket:). I missed out when the school bought a bunch of very nice toyos to replace them. Anyways thats a digression, I wonder, since Architectural shots are usually set, would a laptop and tethered set up in live view work well to verify the corrections with the DSLR's? </p>

<p>If getting an image 11x14 or larger is your goal, you would get better iq with a D700 and an older 28mm pc - superior to any 35mm film or small sensor. A 17mm on full frame is overkill for most exterior architecture but great for interiors. Again though the shift is less important in interior shots and the D700's ability in low light is great. Go with full frame (Nikon) digital - you won't be sorry.</p>

<p>Barry,</p>

<p>With the two newest Canon TSE's you can rise/fall and shift any amount and you can swing and tilt at any angle all at the same time, a vast improvement on the earlier TSE's. My Polaroid comment was towards 135 format use of tilt, not MF with ground glass. The one consistent complaint with the Canon TSE's is the adjustment knob ratios, for the money a better geared movement would have been far more satisfactory.</p>

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>The 5D MkII and the new Canon TSE's, even just the 24 MkII, are a vastly superior architectural arsenal than a D700 and a 28mm PC. The extra pixels the Canon has really count when you start fine tuning the shot in post and the Canon lenses all have tilt, a very worthwhile addition.</p>

<p>Barry...you are standing close to the edge in being pig headed about Canon. Thats not the issue here.<br>

Neither 35mm solution is economical compared to the amazing value and range of adjustments that the MF or LF choices give you.<br>

And as for needing FX, again not necassary if you have a lens that keeps everything aligned. Here are two shots taken with the Tokina 11-16/2.8, on a DX body.</p><div></div>

<p>And, another</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p> Barry...you are standing close to the edge in being pig headed about Canon. Thats not the issue here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely you jest. Not sure I know what you are talking about. I don't think I said anything bout Canon or Nikon or Volkswagen etc. You must be a PC user! Actually, I don't really give a f about who's camera or lens one buys or uses, in fact I think the over concern I see on Photo net generally about equipment is a detriment to developing photographic ability, but again, I digress. I was just curious and interested about this type of lens generally in 35mm. I think its pretty cool that these kinds of corrections can be done on a slr or dslr. </p>

<p>Yeah, Barry and I stand together on the pig-headed side of Canon and the coolness of being able to so much in a 35mm sort of framework.<br /> The remarkable thing about the 17mm TS-E is that it does work for outside as well as inside. Even 24mm is a big step forward over the 28mm shift lenses.</p>

<p>And Barry, don't call us "surely." :)</p>