Field cameras with out shift

[mitch]

Well, I had a zone VI field camera for a few years, I liked it alot but having read all the bad reviews of it I decided to let it go. For what ever reason I just assumed I would be happier with something else. That was stupid.

Anyway, I'm now looking at a camera made by that company that makes the "world's best field cameras". The model that I think would best suit me does not have shift, front or rear. Most of the work I do is landscape and I did use the shift quite a bit on my previous camera. I'm wondering if I would miss it?
Have any of you all had this predicament? What did you decide?

Thanks,
Mitch

 

[Steve Hamley]

Mitch,

If you used it and liked it, you should probably get one with shift.

HOWEVER, you can do the same thing by angling the camera and swinging both standards parallel - as was taught in the Deardorff way. It isn't as convenient as real shift because it's impossible to look through the groundglass while you're doing this.

But go ahead and get the next model up. All it takes is a small down payment, the bank will squeeze the rest out of you.

Steve

 

[chiller]

Mitch if you think you will miss them -- you will. Even if you don't

Steve.

 

[photobackpacker]

Well, I had a zone VI field camera for a few years, I liked it alot but having read all the bad reviews of it I decided to let it go. For what ever reason I just assumed I would be happier with something else. That was stupid.

Anyway, I'm now looking at a camera made by that company that makes the "world's best field cameras". The model that I think would best suit me does not have shift, front or rear. Most of the work I do is landscape and I did use the shift quite a bit on my previous camera. I'm wondering if I would miss it?
Have any of you all had this predicament? What did you decide?

Thanks,
Mitch

Hi Mitch,

I hate settling for something less than the best. I have been a contributor - that is one who buys new and sells used, only to buy new again. Why - because I hate being held back by my equipment - or, more accurately, I have the possibility that I may someday be held back by my equipment. I am not alone. If you really want to upset your equipment equilibrium, attend a seminar put on by one of the masters...

If you let the Zone VI go because of bad reviews, (in other words - the opinions of others), you are more than likely a member of this exclusive club.

Membership dues come in two forms - 1. Those who settle and trade up and up - spending a fortune on the way 2. Those who step up and buy the best they can justify (not afford) and are content (for at least awhile.)

If you have ever heard the words, "whats wrong with the camera you have?!", you now know the secret password to our club meetings!

Good luck

 

[rbarker]

You won't miss it. Yes, you will! No, you won't.

Shift on both standards is certainly handy - assuming the lens one is using has sufficient coverage. But, in the field, shooting at or near infinity focus, it might be a lazy person's excuse for not panning/tilting the head a touch, combined with a bit of swing. Or, just moving the darned tripod over.

The only time I (personally) find shift essential is with macro, commercial or architectural interior work, where moving anything can really be painful or impossible. For field cams, it mostly just adds weight.

 

[mitch]

I know what your saying. I've learned a few lessons indeed. I did really like my zone VI. There was a little play in the pivot points of the front standard which bothered me. By the time I was able to look at some other cameras (used) I noticed they all had similar issues. So, there I was, having sold my camera and thinking I should have just sent it in for some fine tuning. . . Now, I'm looking at the RW45 knowing that I dont need rear rise or shift, but if they could just give me shift up front I would be happy (and I think it would be a good move on Ebony's part). Unfortunately the next step up is another $1k and I get a whole bunch of features and weight I don't need. I'm leaning toward picking up a used zone VI.

Thanks for the responses, you are all right.
Mitch

 

[David H. Bebbington]

For what it's worth, I agree with the previous replies. I wouldn't be without the movements of my Sinars in the studio, outside I really like to use a Crown Graphic, which of course has only tilt/shift/rising front. For me, the #1 factor for outdoors cameras is rigidity, closely followed by portability and robustness. If your camera is so heavy that you hate to carry it, or you are losing definition because of lack of stability, you are not going to get good pictures.

As rbarker says, shift is essential in the studio when you have everything just right but need to re-compose by a few millimeters. Outside, doing this by resetting the tripod head is really no sweat.

 

[Campy]

I almost never use front or rear shift, I just move the tripod. When do shift I do so just to check the composition. If shifting looks like it would improve the composition then I put the shift back to its normal position and move the tripod. When you use shift you're moving the image towards the edges of the lens image circle, where most lenses don't perform at their best. I prefer to keep the image as close to the center of the image circle as feasible for that reason, also to eliminate the possibility of vignetting. If I photographed interiors or other places where the space was cramped I'd probably use shift more but I usually have plenty of room to move the tripod instead. But if you use and like shift a lot then certainly you should get a camera that has that movement.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I certainly use shift more for interiors and still lifes, but sometimes it's very handy for landscapes.

Why should the lens axis always be centered from left to right? What if you want to convey the impression that you are standing at the edge of the vista, looking to the right or left, rather than standing in the middle and looking straight out? Maybe you want to look straight down a road, for instance, along the right edge of the frame, with a field occupying the rest of the frame. Shift lets you do it.

Sometimes there are situations where it is impossible to stand in the ideal position for the framing you want, because there is an obstacle or water or a crevice. Shift is often the answer.

You can do it indirectly as long as you have front and rear swing, so that's another possibility, if it's not something you use often, but I think it's a movement that many landscapists forget they have.

 

[dancqu]

... "world's best field cameras". The model that I think
would best suit me does not have shift, front or rear.

I'd like to take a look at that model. They've a web site?

I've worked with a view camera but now do landscapes with
medium format. I question the need for shift or swing front
or back or both. For verticles and depth of field, tilt front
and back would be nice. Dan

 

[Ole]

A while ago I had two LF cameras, both with front shift, tilt and swing. Now I have six, and two of them have tilt but not shift or swing, three have shift but no tilt or swing. Both the "big ones" (5x7 and 18x24cm) are "shiftless".

Rise is what I use most, followed by tilt and swing.

 

[James Bleifus]

Well, I had a zone VI field camera for a few years, I liked it alot [snip] Most of the work I do is landscape and I did use the shift quite a bit on my previous camera. I'm wondering if I would miss it?

Mitch, my advice is buy what you feel YOU need. I've recently converted to large format and cut corners to try and save money. All that led to was spending more money later and having to buy things twice because I had to replace the equipment that I cut corners on. So I spent more money trying to save money. If you're used to using shift then I'd buy a camera with shift. It's cheaper to buy it right the first time than to have to buy another camera later.

Cheers,

James