Nobody doubted that. That’s what a shift lens means to do.
But what the hell do you mean by “pointing downwards”???
And did you see my images??? Or you just don’t want to discus that?
George
1 Like
But not just that. it is shooting a different part of the image that is being projected into the camera body.
If you were to look at the inside of the back of the camera, without any internal obstructions, you would see an image that is this large…
… with the rectangle denoting the maximum area that can be covered within the image circle and highlighting the main reason for using a shift lens for architecture, which is to get rid of the foreground in favour of including the full height of the building.
In fact, what you would see projected into the camera body is the image circle completely filled with what the camera is pointed towards - a circular image that is 74mm diameter.
If the sensor were large enough, it could record everything that is within the 58mm x 46mm rectangle that fits inside the image circle.
But the camera body is designed with a 36mm x 24mm sensor so, with the optical centre at around 5ft up from the ground on the front of the building; this is what is actually recorded…
… a window cut out of the full circle image.
By raising the front of the lens by the maximum 11mm, that window moves…
So, the angle of view has not changed. It is the “viewing window” that has moved to show a different part of the full image circle.
The optical centre is still in the same place and the camera is still pointing at it. The difference is that the sensor rectangle is now covering a higher part of the building.
The spatial relationship between foreground and background objects does not change
That has been my argument all along. That phrase simply doesn’t make any sense. Let’s hope Mike gets a better idea from my latest diagrams.
It means when I hold the camera in my hands, and lower the lens, the camera acts more or less as if I aimed it down. It doesn’t shoot what is directly in front of me, it is aimed at a point much lower.
I still need to study your photos and figure out what you are showing me. There is obviously LOTS more for me to learn, but one thing at a time. Joanna seems to think that when I lower the lens, the camera is looking in front of me. I know and have shown it is looking in front of me, and down, and with the example of the hydrant, the photo will show the top of the hydrant as well as the front, as if I were standing there looking down at it. When this gets resolved, if ever, I’ll move on to other things, including your photos. This is so obvious and simple, I don’t know why there is any argument.
Because of this discussion, I’m learning new things all the time, and while I had some issues before using the D3, everything went perfectly using Live View on my D780.
For that matter, I don’t understand what you mean by 11mm. I would lower the lens just enough to get the effect I want. For the recent photos, I lowered the lens all the way, to exaggerate what I am describing.
Tomorrow is a free day - I will try to understand what you posted.
To me, I can’t see more of the top unless I raise my camera, and if I raise my camera I am certainly effectively looking down at it. Of course I’m not tilting the camera down, nor do I want to. I have to raise my camera to even SEE the top. Maybe you are using “looking” differently than I am. But what I just wrote, is what I mean. Simply by raising the camera, that alone means I am looking down at the hydrant, as it is now lower than the camera.
Well, I can raise and lower the lens, and my point of view changes accordingly. The lower the lens, the more the camera is capturing further down, just like in the photos I just posted. The end result is the PHOTO, not all this other stuff. That is my definition of looking up, or down, or straight ahead. Maybe you’re using a different definition. None of that matters to me - just the photograph, the end result of what I’m doing. I can see the camera looking higher or lower, as I turn the knob to lower or raise the lens.
If you’re standing on the street, and want to photograph something lower than you, you can do one of two things. Aim your camera at the object, or lower your lens. Either way will let you photograph that object, centering it in your camera frame, even though it is lower than the camera. This is all I am trying to say, worded more simply.
If you aim your camera down, or up, then you may have perspective issues, to correct in PhotoLab. If you lower the lens, there are no perspective issues, vertical lines remain vertical.
Does that help?
Yes, makes perfect sense. You’ve already captured an image, and you can use the DX Crop wherever you want. But what if in your original image (first image) the building was so tall you decapitated it by aiming the camera straight? Then what do you do?
Choice 1 - aim camera higher.
Choice 2 - raise lens higher than camera.
Choice 3 - use wider lens
That’s my situation.
When you have time, please take the same three photos like I did, with a wide angle lens, one head-on, one with the lens raised, and one with the lens raised and also the camera raised. Preferably, similar to either or both of my captures.
I’ll do better than that. Here’s a series as would be taken with a 20mm shift lens, shifted horizontally, and vertically to all possible extremes…
And here is the image taken with a standard 20mm lens…
In all shots, the sensor is in the same position, therefore all images are taken from exactly the same perspective, it’s just that shifting the lens changes which part of the overall image gets recorded.
Your examples are invalid for comparison because you are moving the camera and not just the front of the lens.
Moving the camera changes perspective, which is why you see more of the top of your hydrant.
Shifting the lens does not change the perspective, it just changes the framing.
Watch this excellent video, which shows shifting in action…
Take particular note of what happens to the proportions as the lens is shifted. The further it is shifted out from the centre, the more you see the “wide angle effect”. This is because the shift lens is essentially a very wide angle lens, which is panning around the image circle.
If you understand that then what is this discussion for?
George
Although I am puzzled how to achieve choice 2 - a detachable lens perhaps 
Assuming he meant shifting up the lens. But who knows??
George
Yes, his use of terminology is confusing.
I give up.
I’ll take a video next time, looking at the hydrant, as I lower the lens, so you’ll all see what I see, and at some point the top of the hydrant will be decapitated. Then I’ll raise the camera, until I see the entire hydrant again. Vertical lines will remain vertical.
On the D780, if I turn on Live View for Video mode, I will capture everything I see.
Probably, but this works both ways - I struggle to understand much of what you’ve both been posting. Hopefully the video will explain better than I can, what I see.
Mike, this is the second time Keith Cooper videos have been suggested to you. The first time was 6 days ago.
I get the impression you had plenty of time to discuss all kind of issues you have but it seems you had no time to view the video.
Please tell me I am wrong…
But why on earth do you need a shift lens to do that? Just put the camera on a low tripod and align a normal lens halfway up the hydrant’s height.
@mikemyers have you actually watched Keith’s video? It shows exactly what a shift lens does in easy to understand English.
And did you look at my examples images of what happens to the images you get when you shift the lens? That took me some time to assemble and not a word from you - either appreciation or questions. I find myself asking why I bother.
You remind me of the man who found a hammer and treated everything he came across as a nail. You are trying to justify possessing a shift lens by trying to find uses for it for which it was never intended.
And you’ll raise the camera much more as you’ve lowered the lens. As you said before. The difference will be image distance/ subject distance. By head.
As long as you prefer your private language this will be a problem.
George
Yes, and I just watched it again to get the time code. At 3:40 into the video, the camera is on a tripod, level, and he adjusts the shift control, which in effect allows the camera to look “up”, while the camera is aimed straight ahead. Just like what I’ve experienced, you can effectively aim the camera up or down, without introducing perspective issues. This is exactly what I’ve been describing.
In my case, I shifted the lens all the way down, so to get the area I wanted in the image, I raised the camera. Because of the shift, I was effectively looking “down”.
(I could have just aimed my camera lower, in my case, but then I’d get the perspective issues. )
For me, shooting the hydrant, I was standing in place, shooting the hydrant, and as the image shifted down, I wanted to stop where the horizon was at the height I wanted in my image. Because I was higher than the hydrant, I was effectively shooting “down”.
Yes, I saw them, but I don’t know which is which, and they are all of things far away. What I see you doing is “raising” and “lowering” the horizon, by shifting the lens, not by aiming the camera - although at that distance, with mountains/hills, not buildings, I never would have noticed perspective errors had you just pointed the camera more “up” or “down” I do understand that now (although two weeks ago I was oblivious to it), but it doesn’t relate to what I’m trying to do.
What I’ve learned from all of this, is that I can hold my camera level, and use my shift lens to see “down” or “up”, without introducing perspective error. I think that is what you are all showing me.
I also know that with this lens I can effectively shoot “up” or “down”, again, without creating perspective errors - although it might very well create other distortions that might be annoying.
My take-away from this discussion is that I can effectively get my camera to look “up” or “down”, by adjusting the shift. And to get the image I want, I need to be careful of how high I hold my camera while doing this.
I’ll thank you all for everything posted here.
(If it wasn’t so durn inconvenient, I’d probably find a lot more use for my shift lens.)
Again, you don’t look down, the hydrant is lowered in your frame.
George
We are both right.
You are technically correct.
I am “effectively” correct as the image appears to be looking down.
Shifting the lens allows me to see things much lower than my original photo.
If you have a better description, I can use it, but telling people the hydrant is lowered in my frame will just confuse them.
How about my saying the PC lens allows me to see things much lower than where my camera is pointing?
I now know what you and Joanna mean, but I see it as a way to look down without distorting the perspective. Simple sentence, that describes what I’m doing.
That is (to me) what this discussion has been about.
99.9% of the people I communicate with will not understand what/why you wrote. (Two weeks ago, neither would I.)
How about “by using a perspective control lens, which can move above or below my camera, I can see things above or below me while avoiding perspective”.
@mikemyers , tilt/shift lens is on my to do (to learn) list as well. Very at the bottom. First I’ll try to get my standard lenses fully under control. After this I’ll think about zoom lenses with all the advantages and disadvantages. And this in hundred of combinations with my fotoboxes. Hopefully I can achieve this in the rest of my live.
NO. You’re wrong. And you just refuse to improve yourself.
Nobody cares. But if 2 want to communicate they have to speak a same language. Otherwise it’s a waste of time.
George
1 Like