Nikon Perspective Control Lenses - only for interested people

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Its primary purpose in the vertical axis is to allow you to take tall subjects, avoiding converging verticals and having yards and yards of foreground in the frame.

I was not trying to capture the whole building. Perhaps I wanted a shot only of the top of the building without perspective, and got this… the foreground is not included, nor did I want it included. Your stitched photo looks horrible, as everything is obviously distorted. Maybe if I moved my eye to an inch or less away from the screen, it might start looking “real”. Technically, I guess it is “real”, but viewed at a normal distance, it looks so wrong.

What I did achieve is:

I used the shift lens to accomplish this - no other practical way I know of, other than using Photolab to correct things.

In this photo I both feel that I am looking up at the building, and there is no annoying perspective issue.

I’m not trying to do what any of you might do, I am taking a single photo, which I could take standing up, no tripod, to get what I want, no stitching desired.

Again, please tell me in word that you wouldn’t argue with, where I am looking, and if it doesn’t include the word “up” or "down, it is not acceptable. That’s why I used “essentially looking up” way back when. Anybody who looks at this photo will feel that I was shooting “up”. I do know, the stuff you are trying to tell me, and I don’t disagree… but if I post it online, anybody (except you) looking at just this one picture, will assume I was shooting upwards.

More later today, and I will also do the test for Joanna.

You are trying to get me to do what you might want to do, but if I wanted only a photo of the top of the building. That wasn’t what my goal would likely be. I would use the shift lens to capture everything I want in a single photo.

I do understand what you are trying to tell me, but that is not what I want to capture.

Enough… first pancakes, bacon, and coffee, and after that I’ll do Joanna’s request.

[George]

@mikemyers

anybody (except you) looking at just this one picture, will assume I was shooting upwards.

NO. When shooting up or down you would get converting lines.
I do understand what you mean. You aimed horizontal and produced 3 images, down, middle and up. Showing the down image is showing about 1/3 of what you see. The context with the other 2/3 is gone. That’s why you say it’s looking down. I do understand that but keeping saying this without correcting yourself is not smart.
Look at the images I posted of the staples. Since the staples are always in the frame you don’t see something is up or down.

George

[swmurray]

@mikemyers

Anybody who looks at this photo will feel that I was shooting “up”. I do know, the stuff you are trying to tell me, and I don’t disagree… but if I post it online, anybody (except you) looking at just this one picture, will assume I was shooting upwards.

It doesn’t appear to be looking up to me as the image does not have a “distorted” keystone or DOF to suggest the photo was taken other than horizontal. The viewer has no way of knowing the camera’s perspective is different than your personal perspective from the balcony. That is the point of the “shift” function. “Looking up” or “Looking down” does NOT describe the view as seen by the viewer of your image so has no meaning from the viewer’s perspective.

Again, suggest using terms “shift” and “tilt” to describe the way you used the PC lens.
These are the terms chosen by the photo industry to consistently describe these functions, be they Nikon, Canon, Sony, and other lens manufacturers. Other photographers understand these terms so are useful for communications.

Making up your own terms and descriptions based solely on your viewing perspective, not the camera’s perspective is confusing, leading to this unnecessarily long exchange.

[mikemyers]

@George

NO. When shooting up or down you would get converting lines.
I do understand what you mean. You aimed horizontal and produced 3 images, down, middle and up. Showing the down image is showing about 1/3 of what you see. The context with the other 2/3 is gone.

There you go. All I want is the top of the building. Of the three image I took for this discussion, that was just for this forum. In real life, I would have ONLY taken the “up” image, as that is all I want. I’m just taking a photo of the top of the building. The other two images are irrelevant.

If I wanted to take a photo of my own building, I would stand on the street, looking straight ahead, and raise the PC lens until I saw what I wanted.

Everything you are saying is valid IF in fact I was going to combine all those images. Maybe sometime I might want to combine two of them, but all three??? The illustration up above for all three images combined looks horrible. It’s an “impossible” photo, and to me, it looks ugly and distorted. For me, there are only TWO ways to keep vertical lines vertical, and that is either with PhotoLab, or a PC lens.

Instead of using encyclopedias and math, go outside, find the building next to yours, and capture a photo specifically of the top of it without perspective issues. No more, no less. For me, THAT is what this discussion is about. You are talking about something that is irrelevant TO ME.

This is your image:

This is the image I wanted:

No perspective issues, and it was captured in one shot. No combining images. Just a 35mm les, which I could have aimed upwards (and had perspective problems) or effectively aimed upwards, letting the PC lens do the hard work. Had I not used a 35mm PC lens, to avoid perspective issues, I would have ended up with something sort of like this, with the top cut off.

What you are accomplishing, is showing much more of the building than I could in one frame, avoiding perspective.

I’m going out to my balcony now to take Joanna’s test. Curious, do you own a PC lens, that you can try these things with yourself?

[George]

You’re mixing up different people.

George

[mikemyers]

These two images are a result of your test.
Exposure metered as f/10, 1/800th, ISO 200
Upper image is no shift for lens
Second image is full shift for lens

First photo, as described, but lens not shifted:
780_6343 | 2024-07-24.nef (27.3 MB)

Last photo, same as above, but shifted lens upwards
780_6344 | 2024-07-24.nef (25.8 MB)

Side note: while the D780 and PC lens can cut off the top of the image, the Leica M10 has no such issue. All photos were shot in Live Mode, so I could see the level indicator.

[mikemyers]

@George

NO. When shooting up or down you would get converting lines.

Well, for me, I want to shoot “up” or “down” without the converging lines, and I do this with a PC lens, to control (minimize) the perspective.

I don’t think I know anyone outside this forum who knows anything about “tilt” and “shift” lenses, and before this topic got started, I didn’t understand either.

@swmurray

It doesn’t appear to be looking up to me as the image does not have a “distorted” keystone or DOF to suggest the photo was taken other than horizontal. The viewer has no way of knowing the camera’s perspective is different than your personal perspective from the balcony. That is the point of the “shift” function. “Looking up” or “Looking down” does NOT describe the view as seen by the viewer of your image so has no meaning from the viewer’s perspective.

Methinks it is obvious, as I don’t have a helicopter, so I was obviously much lower than what’s in the photo. My friends and family are not aware of any of this - it it’s a photo of the tops of buildings, it “must have been looking up”. I’m not sure the lack of perspective would matter one way or the other. …but have it your way. If I talk to a non-professional photographer, I know that none of them will think it was photographed head on, rather than up.

@swmurray

These are the terms chosen by the photo industry to consistently describe these functions, be they Nikon, Canon, Sony, and other lens manufacturers. Other photographers understand these terms so are useful for communications.

Agreed.

@swmurray

Making up your own terms and descriptions based solely on your viewing perspective, not the camera’s perspective is confusing, leading to this unnecessarily long exchange.

They will already “know” the image is looking up. I won’t need to say a word about it. And were I to mention “shift” or “tilt”, they would not understand at all.

@George

You’re mixing up different people.

At this point in the discussion, I’m sure you are correct about that.

I think that when I write “essentially looking up” that does not say I am looking up, and would be obvious to all the non-photographers around me, who will likely assume I really was shooting upwards.

I thought using the word “essentially” was enough. I’ll need to find a different word, that will be acceptable by photographers, and non-photographers.

…and I am very glad we have had this discussion, as I learned a lot. Until this discussion, I just figured a PC lens would let me get a photo of something like the top of a building, without the annoying perspective.

…and thanks to Joanna’s test, I now know that the PC lens works as intended on my Leica M10, but not on my D780. Raising the lens beyond a certain amount means the top of the image is blocked by something, so it’s all “black”.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

All photos were shot in Live Mode, so I could see the level indicator

When I suggested the test, I expected you to use the viewfinder, not Live View. The level indicators are visible In the viewfinder

To see a level in the finder, press MENU > CUSTOM SETTING MENU (pencil icon) > f Controls > f3 Custom controls > select a control button you’d like to use for the level > and then select “Viewfinder Virtual Horizon.”

It is possible that the PC lens shift can be different on one camera to another. We get similar differences when moving the shift on an LF camera, depending on the coverage of the lens.

Would you please post a phone snap of the side view your D780, on tripod, levelled and with the shift lens adjusted to the maximum without cropping. I still get the feeling you are missing something. The ragged edge to the cutoff is puzzling and reminds more of the lower edge of the balcony above yours than it does of the inside of the camera. Although, it is possible that you are seeing the back of the raised mirror in Live View.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

When I suggested the test, I expected you to use the viewfinder, not Live View. The level indicators are visible In the viewfinder

@Joanna

To see a level in the finder, press MENU > CUSTOM SETTING MENU (pencil icon) > f Controls > f3 Custom controls > select a control button you’d like to use for the level > and then select “Viewfinder Virtual Horizon.”

Did as you suggest:
Menu
Custom Setting Menu >
f (Controls)
…and I get this sequence:

In the last image, I assume I set the camera such that when I press the button to the left of the lens, on the front of the camera, it should show the “Viewfinder virtual horizon”.

Voila! It worked. I got a small icon at the right of the viewfinder when I press this button, to tell me if the camera is level.

Perhaps I’m too old for this stuff. I had no idea such a thing existed in viewfinder mode.

Thank You!!!

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

The ragged edge to the cutoff is puzzling and reminds more of the lower edge of the balcony above yours than it does of the inside of the camera.

No need, you are correct, I didn’t realize the balcony could get into the image, but I just checked, and sure enough, that was the issue. Like I wrote, I’m getting too old, and I’m tired of testing this lens. For this afternoon, I was shooting right at the sliding glass door to my balcony. The earlier photos were out on the balcony.

It may or may not do what others want it to do, but it certainly does do what I want it for. My use is shooting things above and below me, without the perspective showing up in the results.

I can’t afford one, but one of these days, I might find myself with a tilt/shift lens. Then there are all sorts of new things to learn, which I am oblivious to.

I appreciate all the new things I never realized before, and one of these days, that will likely become important to me.

I do have a right-angle viewfinder for my D3 which screws into the back of the normal viewfinder, and allows me to look down into the camera as I’m taking a photo with the camera down near the ground. I doubt it works on the D780 - will check. Or, I can use the Visoflex for that.

[George]

@mikemyers

Well, for me, I want to shoot “up” or “down” without the converging lines, and I do this with a PC lens, to control (minimize) the perspective.

You now sound like a spoiled child stomping around screaming “I only want this”.
Just use it as you want.

George

[George]

@mikemyers

…and thanks to Joanna’s test, I now know that the PC lens works as intended on my Leica M10, but not on my D780. Raising the lens beyond a certain amount means the top of the image is blocked by something, so it’s all “black”.

That I still don’t understand.

George

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@George

That I still don’t understand

Basically Mike took the shot from too far under the balcony above

[mikemyers]

@George

You now sound like a spoiled child stomping around screaming “I only want this”.
Just use it as you want.

I suppose in your eyes, I’m as bad as a person using a micrometer as a glue clamp. Perhaps when/if I realize all the other things that I can do with a PC lens, I’ll agree.

For now though, I only had one goal, and with all the technical advice from you and Joanna, now I not only know how to do it, but I understand most of what is going on.

In the future, I’m likely to be able to do other things with this lens, that I haven’t yet even tried to imagine. Perhaps I’ll find a use for capturing all 9 images (up, down, right, left, and create an image that I otherwise couldn’t - but if I was doing that, why wouldn’t I just mount a wider lens to begin with? Maybe 21mm, maybe 16 mm? I don’t think the shift-lens would be very useful for me to do this, but maybe that’s yet more things I don’t (yet) understand.

Perhaps, if you saw this as you describe, as a spoiled child repeatedly saying “I only want this”, you would accept that, and reply with a more serious answer, without emphasizing so many things that you realized seemed to be irrelevant for me.

I know the lens can also move horizontally, which may also be useful to me. I haven’t gotten that far yet.

You also could also have written “you dummy, you’ve had this lens for maybe 20 years and never even tried it?” Maybe I should have learned all this stuff long ago. In retrospect, I’d have agreed with you. I had no idea why I might use it for, or how to use it, and downloading the instructions (once Nikon found a link to the lens instructions) was a huge help.

Oh, and Joanna explained the obvious - the “black” at the top had everything to do with where I was taking the photo from, and I didn’t realize the obvious answer, even after seeing the “rough” cut-off for the edge between sky and my overhead balcony. I was concentrating 100% on following Joanna’s instructions, especially the ability to see if my camera was level using the viewfinder, not the Live View. Very stupid of me. Maybe years ago, I’d have instantly realized what was going on. Maybe I’m guilty of having what I used to refer to as a “one track mind”. Maybe getting older makes this worse? I will ask my clinical psychologist about this at our next meeting.

But even if you now think you were wasting your time, I certainly do appreciating your making me aware of so many things while using a PC lens. Thank You.

[George]

@mikemyers

You also could also have written “you dummy, you’ve had this lens for maybe 20 years and never even tried it?”

I didn’t want to overdo it.

The big problem with you is that it always ends up with you. This thread is about the Nikon perspective lenses but is now solely your person. As usual.

But thanks to you there’s now a general “share your images” section. That’s positive.

George

[mikemyers]

In this case, I’m learning, not teaching. Other people may want very different uses of a PC lens. No way could I ask “in general” when I didn’t know what I was talking about. Unfortunately, that is the case far too often for me. On the other hand, you and Joanna were “teaching”. …which is good, as you both went way beyond the simple thing I wanted to do.

Should I ever require a “tilt/shift” lens, I will be lost, not having any idea what to do with the “tilt”, or how much “tilt” to use.

Yes about the “share your images”, and my contact person at DxO is pleased with how that is working.

[mikemyers]

This has nothing to do with this current discussion. @Joanna, you wrote that now I have a better understanding of perspective control lenses, I should return to the Colony Theater and try to do better than before.

It’s not going to happen. If I can’t get the entire front of the theater into the photo with a 14mm lens, my 35mm PC lens doesn’t have a chance. But now I realize that what I was attempting was completely impossible. I went back there two days ago, and photographed most of the theater from across the street.

This is most of the theater, but it continues on on the right side a lot further. My previous theater photo showed the “lobby”. This photo shows the huge interior of the theater:

All I wanted to capture was the front of the theater, but unless I move a lot of things out of the way, it’s not gonna happen. Perhaps with a 12mm lens, or a full fisheye lens. I do have one of those, but I doubt it’s worth it. If you want me to, sure, I’ll go back with that fisheye lens.

I always wanted one of these, but never could have afforded it, and I don’t know what I would do with it if I had one:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/8mm-f8.htm

Screen capture - but read the whole article to really understand:

This has nothing to do with Perspective Control lenses, but it is probably the only way I can get a photo of the front of this theater. Sorry for the interruption. If I win the lottery or something, I’ll buy a tilt-shift-lens.