The heck with AA filters.... what about in body tilt shift?

Considering that the Pentax K mount needs a deep body anyway, add another 5mm of depth and add in-body tilt-shift. Every K mount lens, even the cheap ones, turned into a tilt lens... Considering its essentially a mechanical system, perhaps with $25 of micro stepper motors a lead screws, you could certainly angle the sensor 5-10 degrees. In addition.... you would have the ability to position the sensor forward or backwards several millimeters.

You would lose the ability to see the effect TTL.

-- Bob
http://blog.trafficshaper.com
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=bob0rama
http://public.fotki.com/boborama/

Don't forget that moving the sensor forward or backwards can mess up with the focusing. That's the whole deal with the flange focal distance.
--
14 years old suffering from LBA

GabrielFF said:

Don't forget that moving the sensor forward or backwards can mess up with the focusing. That's the whole deal with the flange focal distance.

Click to expand...

In the "off" position, the sensor would return to its "normal" position, of course, turning it back into a boring old camera. When using tilt lenses, you manually focus anyway, so its not an impediment. The OVF could be used to compose the shot, the live view to do the preening of the tilt.

Obviously there would be a need for the senor to be positioned back to factory - hence the motors.

-- Bob
http://blog.trafficshaper.com
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=bob0rama
http://public.fotki.com/boborama/

If you move the sensor frontwards, you loose closeup focus.

If you move the sensor backwards, you loose infinity focus! Makes it basicaly useless, since tilt-shift will probably be used for architecture.
--
14 years old suffering from LBA

GabrielFF said:

If you move the sensor frontwards, you loose closeup focus.

If you move the sensor backwards, you loose infinity focus! Makes it basicaly useless, since tilt-shift will probably be used for architecture.

Click to expand...

Yes, so certainly every view camera every produced could not be focused to infinity - thereby wiping out a century of architectural photography? What I'm proposing is a view camera with really tiny film, say, APS-C sized "film."

The primary purpose would not be to move the sensor forwards or back - though it might prove useful to adapting lenses from other cameras - or some other application nobody has bothered to think about too much - like a built in extension. Having the ability to do so is a side effect having having the sensor work like a Craft-Matic Adjustable Bed with ultrasonic vibratory massage / dust removal.

-- Bob
http://blog.trafficshaper.com
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=bob0rama
http://public.fotki.com/boborama/

well, i have to admit this is different.

some people have explored using the composition adjust feature as a limited shift. if this thing you propose worked, i would consider buying one. couldn't say i would buy one, though.

built in tilt/shift...
built in lens baby
SR with 24 bazillion lenses
T/S with 24 bazillion lenses

big downer is someone will take the idea and create an... 'app' to use the near-infinite depth of field of a camera phone and some blurring to get the same effect with out all the bulk!!!! kinda like those boca apps.. may already exist... another reason why an iPhone is all we really need :^|

What is the use of a camera phone if you can't get home? Call for help?

"hello, can you direct me home I am...., geez, help.... I cannot see where I am on my phone"

Tan68 said:

another reason why an iPhone is all we really need :^|

Click to expand...

--

Tan68 said:

The difference between genius and LBA is that genius has its
limits.

• Janneman ( adaptation of the Kings quote from Albert Einstein)

Click to expand...

Hi,

I think it was the Leica R8 35mm film SLR that had in-body AF that moved the sensor back and forth to AF. It allowed them to create an AF system that was not dependent on changing all the R series MF lenses to AF, and gave all users of R glass an AF system without selling their legacy glass. It resulted in a big body, and that's without TS movements.

I love TS and would welcome its addition to Pentax, but Bob I don't think this is it...... The principle sounds fine (though note that sensor/film plane tilt is has slightly different effects from lens axis tilt). It could only work as you say using LV to set the amount of tilt/swing. However, I suspect that the cost of development work to create an in-body TS + IBIS sensor would be huge and far, far greater than the development work needed to create a handful of TS lenses - that technology is already well known and a lot less complex.

My $0.02c worth. Cheers, Rod

.. it's a relatively small number of architecture and landscape photographers who use T-S at all. I doubt it would be worth it for Pentax to do such a thing and aside from that they would have to develop a very precise mechanism for returning the sensor module to it's home position or AF really becomes a mess.

In the end I will be happy if Samyang finally makes a manual 24mm T-S for the Pentax that doesn't cost a ton.

--

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.

Fantastic idea. Actually, Pentax should incorporate that into K-02. With only CDAF, shifting the focal plane is never a problem. Another thing to do is removing the AA filter, then a K-02s may be the perfect studio and landscape camera. I would buy that instead of K-5IIs.

BobORama said:

Considering that the Pentax K mount needs a deep body anyway, add another 5mm of depth and add in-body tilt-shift. Every K mount lens, even the cheap ones, turned into a tilt lens... Considering its essentially a mechanical system, perhaps with $25 of micro stepper motors a lead screws, you could certainly angle the sensor 5-10 degrees. In addition.... you would have the ability to position the sensor forward or backwards several millimeters.

You would lose the ability to see the effect TTL.

-- Bob
http://blog.trafficshaper.com
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=bob0rama
http://public.fotki.com/boborama/

Click to expand...

What we need is a 17mm TS. A 24mm TS is not as useful for building architecture on an APS-C camera. You need to get the eqivalent of a 28mm TS FF lens to get the same perspective as 28mm FF on APS-C (i.e. 17mm is about right). The only reason for the existence of 24mm TS lenses now is to get a little more separation and FOV from the normal 28mm TS lenses of the past. Unfortunately I think only Canon makes a 17mm TS right now.
Kent Gittings

Just what we need another $500 "feature" only used by 0.5% of camera users to drive up the price of Pentax cameras even more. If Pentax felt there was no future for them in eye-controlled focus when they initially developed it you can bet if they did do this someone else would actually bring it to market. Someone who has the $$$ to bring out specialized camera bodies (hint Canon even though they don't do SR). I'm sure a thorough search of the Japanese patent files would turn up something like this.
And there is a reason all TS lense are manual focus. even the Canons.
Kent Gittings

KentG said:

Just what we need another $500 "feature" only used by 0.5% of camera users to drive up the price of Pentax cameras even more.

Click to expand...

Its actually a comparatively inexpensive feature to implement. The argument that nobody uses TS is perhaps based on the fact that the lenses cost thousands... At one point in-body stabilization was a boutique and expensive feature... The other advantage of an in-body solution is that every WR lense is now a WR tilt lens.

Its worth noting that many of some of the best photos ever taken exploited the view camera's ability to manipulate the focal plane.

Not to mention the ability to do video with this setup.

The alternative is that Pentax makes a bunch of boring commodity cameras....

-- Bob
http://blog.trafficshaper.com
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=bob0rama
http://public.fotki.com/boborama/

I think its a brilliant idea!

Apart from the design and practicality aspects, the notion of turning every lens into one that is T&S compatible is mind-blowing. We aren't going to design the system here on the forum, but be assured it COULD be developed.

Who knows, maybe it would also be useful for critical focus tweaking as well.

-- Joe B.

Agreed Kent, but I'll take anything that produces decent IQ and doesn't cost $2000.

For me it wouldn't be for architecture anyhow. I'm interested in deep DOF for landscapes in which case 24mm is still rather useful.

Just itching to play around with some Scheimpflug math.



--

Any government that has the power to correct any injustice and level any inequality also has the power to do ANYTHING it wants.

I agree with both of you.

I'm potentially interested in the Samyang TS lens for landscape, though there's little doubt that it will be a big and heavy lens judging by their existing range.

I'm going to be interested to see how much actual use the tilt function is with a 24mm lens. The inherent DOF of a 24mm lens is very deep anyway and I'm not sure how much extra will be gained by tilting the lens. I guess it will enable more extreme compositions, but I'm not sure that we'll want that all the time...... At least it will also enable faster apertures for more routine uses of a 24 mm lens. (For those who haven't used a 4X5" view camera, it takes a 90mm view camera lens to cover about the same angle of view as a 21-24mm lens on a FF 35mm camera. Given that there's very little inherent DOF at all on a 90mm lens, you need to both use tilt and stop down to get that much loved near-far everything-in-focus look. It's not an option. A 24mm has far fewer difficulties.)

Agreed that a much wider lens would be better for architecture. If I was going to ask Pentax to make only one TS lens (and suffered from the illusion that they're going to listen to moi) it would be a 16mm to give a 24mm equiv FOV. It will be interesting to see whether Pentax ever bring out an FF or Samyang ever bring out a wider TS lens for APSC. Or a longer one for that matter. - They're even more useful with tilt.

Patience...... Rod

BobORama said:

Considering that the Pentax K mount needs a deep body anyway, add another 5mm of depth and add in-body tilt-shift. Every K mount lens, even the cheap ones, turned into a tilt lens... Considering its essentially a mechanical system, perhaps with $25 of micro stepper motors a lead screws, you could certainly angle the sensor 5-10 degrees. In addition.... you would have the ability to position the sensor forward or backwards several millimeters.

Click to expand...

The big problem is the size of the image circle - it would be OK for lenses that cover the FF circle but not for a lot of the zooms and wider primes. I use Composition Adjust with my Sigma 8-16 and it vignettes before using the full 1.5mm of shift currently available. It would be interesting to see calculations of how much shift you would get from FA lenses on crop sensor bodies compared to what TS lenses of the same FL give.

The difference between a TS lens and this idea is that the TS lens moves so that it projects its image to the same place in the camera, whereas your idea moves the sensor away from the natural image circle of the lens.

BobORama said:

You would lose the ability to see the effect TTL.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean but you would see it through the lens in LV, but not through the OVF.

--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

well, that is why people that are in the know use only smart phones that have two cameras. one to photograph where you are and the other to photograph who you are.


welcome back to the ant... i usually have signatures hidden. haven't found how to do that, now. never mind. i can still hide them. the ant doesn't seem to be doing too well, though. he didn't animate for me. he must be tired...

janneman02 said:

janneman02 wrote:

What is the use of a camera phone if you can't get home? Call for help?

"hello, can you direct me home I am...., geez, help.... I cannot see where I am on my phone"

Tan68 said:

another reason why an iPhone is all we really need :^|

Click to expand...

--

janneman02 said:

The difference between genius and LBA is that genius has its
limits.

• Janneman ( adaptation of the Kings quote from Albert Einstein)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...