Tilt will increase DOF by how much?

[michael_mahoney1]

For several years now I've been frustrated by not obtaining adequate sharp focus in "near-far" type landscape shots. I'm currently using a Pentax 67 with a 45mm lens for most of these type shots, and am wondering if a move to 4x5 with movements will increase the DOF. Which movements will help the most, and which camera should a beginner consider, with low cost ( under $1000 for body and WA lens )used? Any and all suggestions appreciated.

[richard_hill1]

You might take a look at the older Calumet 400 series cameras. They

are a well built monorail with all movements except rear rise. The

weight is aprox. 5lbs. You can almost always find them on e-bay,

price generally varies acccording to condition. Two years ago I paid

175.00 for mine, including a case.

The first lens I was willing to take outside is a Zies Jena Tessar

135mm f4.5 $55.0, again on e-bay. This uncoated OLD lens is

signifigantly sharper than I anticipated, even when compared side by

side with a Rodenstock 135mm sironar-s.

This was an inexpensive investment to see if I wanted to shoot

outside. I still use this camera even though I have others. Hope this

helps.

[doug_paramore]

Michael: With the front and back tilts on a view camera and a lens

stopped down a bit, you can realize almost unlimited depth of field.

It is possible to obtain focus from a few inches to infinity under

many conditions. I often make near-far photographs with an object

just in front of the lens and maintain sharpness through infinity.

That is primarily with a foreground object such as flowers or foliage

at the bottom of the image and the distant object at the top. There

are several low cost wooden field cameras which fit in the price

range you mentioned. In addition, there are many, many good used ones

on the market. I would suggest you do not but the press type for your

stated purpose, although a technical camera such as the Linhof, MPP,

HOrseman and others work fine. You need back tilt, and the pure press

cameras do not have it.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with your quest,

[pete_andrews]

A move to 5x4 won't increase depth-of-field, but it will allow you to

<i>control</i> the plane of sharp focus.<br>For example, with a 75mm

lens (about the equivalent of your 45mm), the difference between

infinty focus and 1 metre is 6 mm of bellows extension. Tilting the

lens by just under 3 degrees will result in the focal plane being

shifted by 6 mm over the long dimension of the 5x4 format. This means

that one edge of the film can be focussed at 1 metre, and the other at

infinity; and 3 degrees is by no means a large amount of

tilt.<br>These shifts and tilts can be applied in both axes, so that

almost any two points on the film can be brought to a sharp focus at

the same time. Note the word 'points'. Camera movements can't bring

large <i>areas</i> of the scene to a sharp focus simultaneously.<p>If

your 45mm is your favourite lens on 6x7, then you

should go for something like a 75mm Super-Angulon, Nikkor SW, or

Grandagon, allowing about $500 to $600 for a good used example (dealer

prices), and the rest for a monorail type camera with bag bellows.

IMHO a view type camera would be more suitable for general outdoor

use, but they're not very practical with short focal-length

lenses.<br>PS Look for a deal on the camera that includes a few double

dark slides - they can be surprisingly expensive.

[jean_marie_solichon]

Michael: I did exactly what you are wondering about a little more

than two years ago now: I abandonned my Pentax 67 in favor of 4x5

view camera. Believe me: I'll never go back to MF SLR (altough I

still find useful my 35mm SLR). My first purchase was a TOYO 45 AII

and Nikkor 90mm but you can certainly find a cheaper and perfectly

efficient outfit. I use front tilt in 80-90% of my shots and front

swing 10% (plus front rise and fall).Yes, movements will allow you to

fully master DOF.

[paul_owen]

Michael Make the Move!!! The control you have over depth of field is

amazing!!But just the start, once you see an image on that big GG

you'll be bitten!!

For typical landscape work, the only movements I use are front tilt,

and front rise/fall and sometimes rear rise/fall.

As for choice of camera, IMHO I would tend to look for a modern field

camera, maybe a used Wista? Get yourself a 90mm lens (my lens of

choice in MF was 45 on 645 and 47 on 6x7/6x9) and I found the 75mm

too wide. I use a 110XL and was surprised just how wide this lens is,

but I think a 90mm would be a great choice.Dont have to worry about

wide angle bellows either.

Best of luck Paul

[bob_salomon3]

Tilting or swinginh the front or rear does NOT increase depth of

field. Stopping the lens down increases depth of field.

 

<p>

 

Tilts and swings cotrol the plane of focus.

 

<p>

 

Think of an auditorium and you are on stage.

 

<p>

 

When you focus on a row all the sets across the row are sharp but not

all the seats front to back in the room.

 

<p>

 

Tilt the lens (or the back if you want the shape of the chairs to

chage) and you can have all the chairs from the front row to the back

row sharp, wide open, but they will not be sharp across the row.

 

<p>

 

You have to now stop the lens down to increase the depth of field to

bring the chairs across the row into focus .

[michael_mahoney1]

Thank you for all replys

[john_hennessy]

Several responses said something to the effect that

 

<p>

 

"Tilting or swinging the front or rear does NOT increase depth of

field. Stopping the lens down increases depth of field. Tilts and

swings control the plane of focus."

 

<p>

 

That is true but fails to mention that the shape of the space inside

the DOF limits changes radically with swings and/or tilts too. Instead

of a rectilinear shape with a fixed camera, you get a wedge shape

fanning out with ever-increasing width into your image. The greater

the tilt, the narrower but more horizontal the wedge of DOF;

conversely, 1 to 3 degrees of tilt gives you a very wide wedge the

near edge of which intersects your tripod leg and far edge intersects

the horizon! Hope you'll forgive my rhapsodic exaggeration!

 

<p>

 

Wish I could recommend a good single book explaining this aspect of LF

but I don't know of such a book. Some of the main books I have looked

at over the years deal with swings and tilts only superficially.

[ken_burns1]

Actually, tilting does increase depth of field. Simultaneously, it

also decreases depth of field. It just depends on where you are in

the scene before the camera. Let me explain. If depth of field is

measured along an axis perpendicular to the plain of focus, DOF will

vary depending upon the distance from the camera. In near foreground

areas, depth of field will be quite shallow. As distance from the

camera increases, depth of field increases. At some particular

distance from the camera (depending upon the tilt angle and the

aperture) the depth of field will equal the DOF that could have been

obtained by stopping down only. Beyond that particular distance, the

DOF obtained by tilting and stopping down will exceed that obtainable

by stopping down only. Theoretically, at an infinite distance from

the camera, DOF will be infinite if a tilt has been used. Of course

infinite distance is not achievable within our universe. I know that

this might be a bit nitpicky, but it can be important to realize that

actual DOF varies as the distance from the camera varies when a tilt

has been used. The same principles also apply to swings.

[philip_y._graham]

As you can see, tilts and swings produce weird and wonderful effects

on the plane of focus and depth of field. Harold Merklinger�s

book, �Focusing the View Camera� provides a good insight into this

subject although it isn�t a particularly easy book to read.

 

<p>

 

Tilts can be very useful in certain �near-far� type landscape shots

where there is a single plane which you would like to be in focus but

they may not be useful when there is more than one plane which needs

to be in focus. For example, when you have a tall foreground object

such as a tree. The use of tilts in this case may allow the bottom of

the tree and the distant landscape to be in sharp focus but in doing

so the top of the tree may well end up out of focus even if you stop

down to a small aperture.

 

<p>

 

Some photographers use mainly front tilts whereas others prefer to

use a combination of front and rear tilts. If possible try and get a

camera with both types of movements and decide which you find best.

 

<p>

 

Although I love my large format camera, I regard it as an addition to

my medium format equipment rather than an alternative. View cameras

can do certain things extremely well (especially landscape and

architectural photography) but they do have their limitations. Think

very carefully before making a move entirely to large format.

[ken_burns1]

Merklinger has a web site at: http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/

 

<p>

 

You might find it interesting.

[william_marderness1]

I once owned a Pentax 67, too. I sold it for a 4x5, and sold that for

an 8x10. Yes, you can have sharp landscapes from inches to infinity

with the use of tilt. The most useful movements are tilt and rise/fall

for landscape use. Most landscapes need some front rise and tilt. If

you want to use normal and wide lenses, and if you want a light

camera, I would suggest a Tachihara 4x5. This camera is well-made,

inexpensive ($550), and I like it better than the Wista (a similar

camera at twice the price). If you want to spend more money, get a

Wisner. This camera will allow you to use long lenses (450mm), but it

weighs twice as much as the Tachihara.