Film Camera?

[Uhooru]

<p>Will one of those lenses fit on my Leica? Oops, wrong forum...</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Scott<br>

I agree that the 5D and the new Canon TSE lenses are great and the 5D offers some real advantages in architecture but how do you fit this kit into the phrase "limited budget" in the original post? I am sayong that a limited budget approach is to get a full frame digital body over a film body and get an older 28pc (which are less available for Canon) for a combination with superior image quality. Since the poster expressed a preference for Nikon - this is a Nikon solution superior in image quality to a Canon film solution.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>Limited budget is subjective. Roman, the OP, asked <em>"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." </em>My earlier suggestion was to drop one of the $2,000 lenses and get a suitable body instead, budget balanced (I don't work for the Fed!).</p>

<p>Even the MkI 24 TSE from Canon, available at comparative give away prices, has considerably more functionality than the Nikon PC. The poster did not favour NIkon's, he showed most interest in the new Canon lenses, justifiably, as they are game changing tools. Were he a Canon shooter with a need for a specific Nikon optic the limitations could be worked around, the 14-24 springs to mind as it can be used on Canon bodies, but if you want one of the asked about two, the only realistic route is a FF Canon digital body.</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Scott<br>

I agree that the 5d is a good choice but I really question the need for tilt in most architecture shots so I don't understand your claim of more functionality for this application - they are not "game changing" lenses for architecture where a tripod mounted, slow process makes their automatic features and tilt <em>less</em> important.<br>

My first post was mostly about avoiding film if you want to get good prints above 8x10 with small detail which is the lifeblood of architecture photography without needing to go the high end route of a 5D and the latest TSE. Those refinements may make adifference above 16x20 and worth going after (I'm waitng for a higher res body to replace my D700) but Roman's restricted budget may make the 16x20 tradeoff acceptable.</p>

[rashed_s]

<p>I went into different way by getting the Hasselblad Flex body and use it with the Hasselblad 50MM Lens, the scanner is the Epson Pro 750, Canon have no much better quality than nikon, you can go for a nikon F5 or F6 and a TS lens ued from keh.com or b&h, I have the F5 bought as D condition from b&h for very reasnable price.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>It is true that for architecture tilt has long been considered less important, but it is still very useful, relying on DOF and various focus methods to keep highly varying subject distances in sharp focus is largely eliminated, most pro architecture shooters use tilt. The only aspect that makes them game changers, as Richard Sexton points out in my first link, is that the combined functionality of live view, ff high pixel counts and the quality and functionality of the latest two TSE lenses from Canon have made 135 format photography viable for over 90% of his work, high level architecture. He can now take the same images with different gear, that is a game changer. The images might not be new, but the way they are captured is.</p>

<p>Rashed,</p>

<p>To claim that I suspect you have not used either of the two newer Canon TSE lenses, the 17 is unrivaled in any format and the 24 is the sharpest, least distorted and most aberration free ultra wide most testers have ever seen.</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Scott<br>

I'm not trying to argue a point - I am genuinely confused about the push to tilt and shift lenses. I understand using tilt on a large format with the depth of field problems of the average 90mm on 4x5 - even if rarely needed for most architectrue where most of the subject is at infinity usually (as appposesd to landsape where you might want a near bush in equally sharp focus to a distint hill) With the 35mm format though the dof of a 24mm (let alone a 17mm) just seems to make tlt a usless option. I could see the need for product photgraphy but not landscape or architecture. I say this having recently killed my credit card on a Nikon 24 pce - but I got it for low color firnging and the extra 4mm over my 28pc. Am I missing something and should I stasrt playing around with the tilt mechanism?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>No antagonism here I assure you, just healthy discussion. Absolutely play with the tilt on your new 24, it is great fun controlling what is to be tack sharp. Isn't it like the old Canon's though, it is factory installed in one orientation? I find even with the 17 DOF can't be relied on for keeping things sharp, one use I make of it for distant and low subjects is to tilt forward a little to bring the plane of focus close to the ground level, this often leads the eye in, or anchors the subject, people like their car parks, drives, grounds and paths sharp as well as the subject building.</p>

<p>I believe the push to tilt is a result of its usability (including Nikon's comparatively recent adoption of it onto their PC lenses), this again comes back to live view. Pre live view tilt with wide angle 135 format lenses was a cute feature that enabled "toy" style images by winding it fully the "wrong" way, and educated guesses as to where to get your J line when used "correctly". Now it is a fully workable feature that can maximise the lenses capabilities. You needed to be able to see what the lens was doing to be able to use it, which takes us all the way back to Roman's first inquiry, "could he use the lenses on a film camera?", well yes they will physically fit, and work, but you won't be able to use them effectively because you can't use tilt effectively through a viewfinder, and, even for architecture work with ultrawides tilt is still a useful feature.</p>

<p>Shadforth,</p>

<p>Your two examples show the limitations of non shift lenses for architecture, the horizon has to be through the center of the frame and it only works for single story buildings, or you have to be far away. To work around those you have to manipulate the images in post.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you can't take a picture of a building without a T/S lens, far from it, I was just answering in relation to the thread where the OP was talking about $4,000 worth of lenses. You can't shoot quality architecture without some specialised equipment.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>This is great folks. I love reading these discussions...I'm learning so much along the way. "Scott", thanks a bunch for all those links. Miy interest in the 17 TSE was geared toward Interiors. Question is do I need a 17 and a 24 or skip the 24 and get a 45, maybe vice versa. Anyway, hope you won't mind if I drop you an email from time to time if I have any further questions? Thanks again everyone...cheers!</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Put your money in the Lenses! Timeless advice, and especially in your situation, where you are specifically seeking particular lenses. First things first, get ONE of the lenses, and a cheap body to use with it, and see how it goes/how you like it. Then sink more money into it, after you know through experience what you NEED.<br /> You were on the right track. Get a cheap Canon Full Frame Film camera, such as a Rebel 2000. This will only set you back pocket change, like $16 (!). Has 35 Zone evaluative metering, a most important feature, and was a decent film camera (I had the Rebel, which was a step below it). if you want to go a little higher end, get an Elan 7E, at $79. But really, this would be just for your ego, all you need is a camera with a decent meter and working shutter.<br /> http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-CE029990355500?r=FE</p>

<p>Optionally, get a magnifying loupe for the viewfinder that fits Canon. You can use this later too, when you upgrade to that full frame digital camera,</p>

<p>Order a few rolls of Provia 100 or E100G slide film. Tray the new Ektar 100 negative film also if you like. slide will give better scans, less grain, and better resolution, but trying a roll of the ektar would not hurt either for the extended dynamic range. Ok, say you get a roll of each from BH Photo or Adorama, your talking about $20 total, shipping included.<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Roll-Film/ci/2545/N/4277998830</p>

<p>So, your at $36 dollars invested, now for the big hit - pro processing and high resolutions scans to CD from North Coast Photo. See the Ken Rockwell site for full rez 15+MP scan samples. Slide developing plus these scans will set you back $20/Roll, expensive, but wont break the bank.<br /> http://www.northcoastphoto.com/film_developing_scans.html</p>

<p>Get your 24TSE Lens, and try shooting a few rolls, see what works, what doesnt, and learn through EXPERIENCE what you really need. The film camera route will cost mere pocket change, will give you the experience, and may in fact give you the results you need. You may even find it fun. at any rate, it allows you to start shooting Full Frame Now, without the expense. Get that 17mm before a fancy Full Frame with Live View, IMO.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Why does the horizon need to be through the center of the frame? I'll put the horizon where I like. I got $400 for these shots, so the customer is the final arbiter.<br>

I've just sold the 11-16, and am upgrading to FX. I'll look at the 24mm PCE Nikkor which shifts and tilts, but at $3100 I can buy a full Horseman or Linhof MF tilt/shift system with change left over.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Roman,</p>

<p>Emails are very welcome. I actually got my 17mm TS-E for very specific interiors. As I said before, the 17 will take the 1.4TC and is still better than the MkI 24TS-E. I'd suggest getting one lens first, the 17 is certainly an interior shooters dream, and probably the situation where tilt is least useful, but stitched shift shots are very good. Then go from there, I will be getting a 45 and 90 when they are upgraded to the newer spec. But before you get any of them, just try with an ultra wide zoom, see what focal length you need, the 24 is a nicer, sharper and more user friendly lens than the 17, but if you need the width, then nothing else will do. Much of my shooting with the 17mm TS-E is stitched shifted interiors, this gives me an equivalent 11mm focal length rectilinear image with zero parallax.</p>

<p>Shadforth,</p>

<p>Why does the horizon need to be in the center? First rule of converging verticals! If you try to put it at the bottom of the frame then the buildings walls will appear to lean in. To correct that you need to distort in post or shoot with a center horizon and crop hard. If you have worked out a way of overcoming basic geometry then please post an example. Here is an example of the horizon very low in the frame, a more than one story building, and no corrections/adjustments in post. This kind of image can only be shot with a system with shifting capability.</p><div></div>

[warren_williams]

<p>Scott<br>

I thought you might like to know that this idea of a DSLR being an effective tool for documeiting architectrue is getting a lot of attention. I was just at a conference about documenting historic builidngs and a large format photographer there made a convincing case that unless you are going above a 20x24 print, a 35mm ff format 20 meg camera and a shift/tilt lens is the way to go.<br>

For historic preseervation where the accent has been on archiving the trend for years has been B&W because of color shifts in all slides and negs over time. Digital color has become a possibility. A process where you include a standard color chart to calibrate the "real" color is a must but the digital data won't shift over time. In spite of having to transfer files regularly to new media because of technology changes, this is a ***HUGE*** deal to historic preservationists.</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>I can't imagine using tilt without live view, but that's admittedly because I haven't tried it. Even on a view camera it's hard without a loupe, though, and I have 20/15 vision. Either get a used 5D to complement the lens or buy a field camera (or try to get a deal on an old Hartblei super rotator for the Nikon). A field camera and a couple lenses is cheaper than the equivalent digital kit by far and not much heavier for potentially slightly better image quality.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>It is exciting isn't it? What is more, the 20mp per 20x24 print is not a limit, here is an image I shot the other day just playing at the beach, it is perfectly stitched and aligned, it is a MF equaling 35mp native, as a top quality print it will print to 20x44. Just a snapshot but a bit of an eye opener. The 17mm adds too much distortion I know, but imagine doing this with a 24 or 45mm.</p>

<p>The last time I was at Angkor Wat (early last year?) they were digitally photographing the main bas-relief friezes, it was a laborious task with a huge wheeled camera setup that resembled a large tin box. I thought then that technology was going to fly past their efforts before they even finished the job in hand. I think it has.</p>

<div></div>

[warren_williams]

<p>Scott<br>

Yes it has. At the conference I was at, some people from Notre Dame had photographed parts of the forum in Rome with gigapan and had images which were incredible. They said they at one point pointed the divice straight up and photographed an underside of an arch 40'+ in the air and then examined the stiched image to get details that were not visible to the naked eye. We are just at the beginning of real high res capture of large scenes</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I suggest that you go to borrowleses.com or lensrentals.com, and try the lenses out for a while to see what you think first hand. You can even rent a 5D or 5D2. I don't think they have any film cameras.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I haven't read through all the posts, but I would tend to go for a 5D Mark 2 and a 17-40 F4L and fix perspectives in Photoshop or lightroom and rent a TSE when needed. The main reason I see to use a TSE is to get product out faster as you don't have time to use photoshop. However, that is negated if you are using film anyway as you have tyo wait for developer anyway. A 5D2 plust 17-40 will be much faster turn around time and probably equal or better quality than film camera if you have to scan images.</p>