The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon-->m4/3 TILT adapter arrived

V

Vivek

Guest
These are very technical aspects of photography.

One reason why I like Jack/Guy workshop outfit.:thumbs:

Things that need to be explained in person with real gear followed by lots of practice.;)
 

Diane B

New member
I do think workshops are great but its also possible to learn about and use tools without that--and some aren't able to either afford the workshops or in a geographical location to take advantage of them. I honestly haven't seen a workshop dealing with this particular interest of mine in using this type of lens/technique.

One doesn't need to be able to build a tool to understand how it works (though I'm grateful to those who do and can enlighten those of us who can't/don't). I also think there are some that are very interested in the technical part of photography gear and some less. I fall in the latter category probably (and I do think--and shudder at the possibility I'm stereotyping LOL--that women are less inclined to want to monkey around with the mechanical/technical parts of photography). I want the gear that will allow me to create the images I want--I need to understand how to use that gear in order to use it creatively--and agree with Vivek that practice is the key to using it. Without understanding what it does and how--you can't control the outcome. The first week I had my own TS (I rented the 24 TS first and determined that it was less useful to me for my first TS lens) I spent inordinate amounts of time just adjusting carefully the tilt, the aperture--learning what happened when I rotated the lens with these changes. I documented all of it and repeated things until I understood exactly what outcome to expect from what I did.

There are some who like the randomness of certain tools/optics, etc. but using something like the original Lensbaby drove me to distraction. I do like the Lensbaby Composer where with careful shooting can control certain factors--but its a different look and I'd like both. I do like very much to work with changing the planes of focus to suit my previsualization while shooting--and I like having the benefit of liveview which makes it a lot easier to use handheld--and certainly on tripod.

Diane
 

greypilgrim

New member
These are very technical aspects of photography.

One reason why I like Jack/Guy workshop outfit.:thumbs:

Things that need to be explained in person with real gear followed by lots of practice.;)
Yah, wish I could afford them (or Thom Hogan's for that matter). Not that they are a good value....

Doug
 

greypilgrim

New member
One doesn't need to be able to build a tool to understand how it works (though I'm grateful to those who do and can enlighten those of us who can't/don't). I also think there are some that are very interested in the technical part of photography gear and some less.

I fall in the latter category probably (and I do think--and shudder at the possibility I'm stereotyping LOL--that women are less inclined to want to monkey around with the mechanical/technical parts of photography).
I'm afraid I'll have to bust your stereotype a bit :). And this may sound crazy from a person who's daytime job is an engineer, but photography is, and has been for years, my non technical pursuit. If I can understand it intuitively and by the results I achieve, I really don't care about the math...

I want the gear that will allow me to create the images I want--I need to understand how to use that gear in order to use it creatively--and agree with Vivek that practice is the key to using it. Without understanding what it does and how--you can't control the outcome. The first week I had my own TS (I rented the 24 TS first and determined that it was less useful to me for my first TS lens) I spent inordinate amounts of time just adjusting carefully the tilt, the aperture--learning what happened when I rotated the lens with these changes. I documented all of it and repeated things until I understood exactly what outcome to expect from what I did.

There are some who like the randomness of certain tools/optics, etc. but using something like the original Lensbaby drove me to distraction. I do like the Lensbaby Composer where with careful shooting can control certain factors--but its a different look and I'd like both. I do like very much to work with changing the planes of focus to suit my previsualization while shooting--and I like having the benefit of liveview which makes it a lot easier to use handheld--and certainly on tripod.

Diane
I think I will get to like having this artistic tool available for use. It's going to take a lot of experimentation and then going back to see what worked and what didn't, lather-rinse-repeat...

Doug
 

greypilgrim

New member
It's interesting that a number of you want to decrease the dof, while my immediate interest is to increase it. There are a number of shots like some "canyon" walls at Pinnacles where I want to get the entire wall in focus as I shoot along it (taking advantage of the wedge you mentioned above, Pellicle).

The interesting thing to me is seeing the shots above and experimenting has made it clear that there will be other applications as well (and more fun) :)...

Doug
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I do not want to underestimate anyone's desire or efforts but..

Movements- best understood from a viewcamera. Yes, there are differences when it comes to set-ups like Doug's adapter but they are small compared to the fundamental principles involved.

Jack's background as a practitioner of the viewcamera goes to the very roots.

That is what I wanted to highlight. :)

I am not aware of anyone else' workshops or their experience to comment on them.
 

pellicle

New member
Diane

this is todays effort, it was with the 180mm on the 4x5 at about f8



it might not appear obvious, but the foreground grasses are in focus, but the middle are not, yet the top part of the tree is. Based on my experiments with other lenses a 28mm lens on a 4/3 camera would be able to net the same as long as it was as able to open up to an aperture of about 15mm ... this would be somewhere in the f1.7 vicinity ... which is possible if you ask me

PS ... yes, it was bloody cold
 
Last edited:

greypilgrim

New member
Diane

this is todays effort, it was with the 180mm on the 4x5 at about f8

it might not appear obvious, but the foreground grasses are in focus, but the middle are not, yet the top part of the tree is. Based on my experiments with other lenses a 28mm lens on a 4/3 camera would be able to net the same as long as it was as able to open up to an aperture of about 15mm ... this would be somewhere in the f1.7 vicinity ... which is possible if you ask me

PS ... yes, it was bloody cold
So, your "wedge" angles out from the near grass skimming over the tops of the middle grass and covers the trees (having gotten wider as it went)?

So, while I was getting the adapter (originally) to be able to have all that in focus, this is a totally different way of using it. Fun.

Thanks,

Doug
 

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
. . . As it is on the m4/3rds we're talking 100 mm and with the WA converter it is about 42mm but even a bit harder to use or focus selectively (though I do keep it on most of the time rather than use the native 50). I'd like very much to shoot with the 28/2.0 or 24 f/2.8 or even my 35 f/2.8 and get in the realm of FLs I prefer with more control over all . . . . .


Diane.
Hi Diane - I have just ordered the Russian Zenitar 16mm/2.8 in M42 mount to see how it works with this tilt adapter.

Keith
 

Diane B

New member
Hi Diane - I have just ordered the Russian Zenitar 16mm/2.8 in M42 mount to see how it works with this tilt adapter.

Keith
That would be a nice FL for me. I'll look forward to seeing what you think. Glad others are trying this and giving the rest of us a good idea of how it will work out.

Diane
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

So, your "wedge" angles out from the near grass skimming over the tops of the middle grass and covers the trees (having gotten wider as it went)?

So, while I was getting the adapter (originally) to be able to have all that in focus, this is a totally different way of using it. Fun.

Thanks,

Doug
yes, that's right :)

it is a lot of fun and it allows you to explore your visualisation. I'm glad I've been able to have some hand in helping that process.


I took this one with my makeshift adaptor for my 28mm lens on my G1

 

scho

Well-known member
from communication I had last week:



I can't imagine why EOS, but hey ...
Thanks. I have a few Canon FD lenses so that is encouraging. I'd also like to see a native m43 mount tilt adapter. Wonder how the 20 1.7 or even the 7-14 would perform.
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

Thanks. I have a few Canon FD lenses so that is encouraging. I'd also like to see a native m43 mount tilt adapter. Wonder how the 20 1.7 or even the 7-14 would perform.
the thing is that 35mm lenses are designed to cover an image circle which is compatible with the 36x24mm rectangle. The micro 4/3 lenses are designed to cover the 18x13mm rectangle. This means that the 35mm lenses have coverage to spare which makes them a candidate for use on a smaller format.

This sort of thing used to be common, with 4x5 (inch) lenses being usable on the smaller 2x3 inch. However many inexperienced 4x5 photographers would try to pick up some "bargain" (say) 90mm lenses designed for 2x3 and find that while it might just cover the film there was often vignetting and certainly no room for any tilts or shifts.
 

scho

Well-known member
Hi



the thing is that 35mm lenses are designed to cover an image circle which is compatible with the 36x24mm rectangle. The micro 4/3 lenses are designed to cover the 18x13mm rectangle. This means that the 35mm lenses have coverage to spare which makes them a candidate for use on a smaller format.

This sort of thing used to be common, with 4x5 (inch) lenses being usable on the smaller 2x3 inch. However many inexperienced 4x5 photographers would try to pick up some "bargain" (say) 90mm lenses designed for 2x3 and find that while it might just cover the film there was often vignetting and certainly no room for any tilts or shifts.
Thanks for pointing that out. I completely forgot about lens coverage :eek:
 

Diane B

New member
from communication I had last week:



I can't imagine why EOS, but hey ...
I can't imagine EOS either--but as you say..... LOL. There are people who keep bringing up the EOS on other forums and since I have an EOS to m4/3rds adaptor, have tried quite a number of the lenses and know the only 'trick' so far to change aperture, I try to advise that they may be happier with FDs. I do like my EF 45 f/2.8 TS--but its too long to suit me for most things--and it IS big and heavy.

I actually looked for an FD 35mm TS today--but then the Ebay auction got to the point where I can likely buy an adaptor--and even add another lens if I want, so I backed off. I wouldn't mind having the shift also but more interested in the tilt right now.

I'm excited for anything for FD as I have the FLs I like to use with one without buying more lenses--and it would be wonderful to have 2 choices.

Diane
 
V

Vivek

Guest
the thing is that 35mm lenses are designed to cover an image circle which is compatible with the 36x24mm rectangle. The micro 4/3 lenses are designed to cover the 18x13mm rectangle. This means that the 35mm lenses have coverage to spare which makes them a candidate for use on a smaller format.

I disagree with this. Reason: from the shots folks have posted here in this forum (Rafael, for example), even the 7-14 zoom has more coverage than the sensor but is manipulated by the camera to give the final image.


To answer Carl's question: the answer to both the candidates you mentioned is- yes.
 

pellicle

New member
Goodmorning

I disagree with this. Reason: from the shots folks have posted here in this forum (Rafael, for example), even the 7-14 zoom has more coverage than the sensor but is manipulated by the camera to give the final image.
that could be ... however just how much further and how fast a fall off is another question. I haven't tried to test it. Even if I did it would of course be wide open and thus may increase coverage when stopped down ... one could only hope.

To answer Carl's question: the answer to both the candidates you mentioned is- yes.
well, unless there is a micro 4/3 lens designed for doing this how would you get any tilt happening? The native lenses mount tightly to the camera, so you would need to somehow allow for the movement.

Would you care to explain how this would be done without thus making the lens quite a macro limited to never being able to focus even near infinity? Because I have never seen any adaptor which would allow any systems lenses to be mounted and converted to tilt (or shift).

I was thinking further about my answer last night and thought that if proper center axis rear tilt could be done then coverage would of course not be as significant a problem ... certainly small tilts would be possible.
 
Top