"Affordable 24mm shift" is a pure oxymoron, kinda like "government
intelligence". As Warren pointed out, a low-end view camera is actually
economically viable, at least the acquisition costs are similar. However,
the cost of continuing operastions, to borrow a euphamism from the financial
world, is many times higher. Film, on a per shot basis, is at least 10
times the cost. Mind you, the images are magnificent on that vast expance
of film, but its still expensive. For Zuikos, we are getting accustomed to
paying a fairly high price compared to other brands. But all view lenses
tend to be pricey as they also each have a shutter. Check - it adds up
fast.
Learning the basics of view camera operation is fairly straightforward. B&H
has a fine introduction to the elements of camera movements on their website
at http://www.bhphoto.com/photo/large/intro/introduction.html It covers all
the basic movements and explains The Scheimpflug Rule well. It is worth
spending a few minutes reading it.
I did not hear mentioned the use of a roll film back, unless that is what
Warren means by a "reducing back". Several vendors offer a back which fits
in the standard sheet film holder, but holds 120 roll film in formats from
6x4.5 to 6x9. You need get better results using lenses with smaller image
circles that normal 4x5 lenses, and in shorter focal lengths to accomodate
the smaller film size. It is a very viable option given the specialty of
what you are trying to do.
If you are feeling positively wealthy, look into the View Camera converter
from Horseman, also posted on B&H's website.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far".
>Subject: Re: [OM] looking for an affordable (used) 24mm shift
>
>> > From: ibennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Irvin Bennett)
>> > Hi,
>> > I am new to the list and compiling pictures of old dairy barns and
>> > silo's in Virginia. I have come to the conclusion that I need a shift
>lens
>> > to get the pictures I want and was hoping someone could steer me in
the
>> > right direction. Thanks!
>> >
>
> From: <WKato@xxxxxxx>
>> I was also lusting after one for a while but came to the conclusion that
a
>> view camera might be better for this type of photography. You should end
>up
>> paying about the same but the view camera will be more versatile. For
less
>> than $1000 you could get a Calumet Cadel, 65 or 90 S. Angulon, bag
bellows
>> and a couple of film holders and you'd be all set. You could also get a
>> reducing back for 6x9 and you'd have a negative you could easily print
>with
>> most enlargers.
>>
>> PS. How much were you thinking of paying?
>>
>> Warren
>
Irvin Bennett <ibennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I was hoping to find a used one in the $700-$900 range but if they are out
>there I haven't seen them yet. I have no experience with any type of view
>camera (unless my Polaroid Swinger counts). What type of learning curve is
>involved and how much of an additonal investment would be required to get
>good pictures? Also, is there much difference in film cost and
processing?
>It seems like once you started down one road (oly.), it is hard to
>change.....
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|