PC-E Why does Nikon let Canon crush it in this area?

Started Dec 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
Leif Goodwin Senior Member • Posts: 1,390
Re: It doesn't matter that this is a close up photo because I'm applying this,

bigpigbig wrote:

Marcin 3M wrote:

It wasn't me with the link to this rule on wikipedia.


Look at the post before mine. Try to answer, who "comes across".

Two wrongs don't make a right. Be nice and people will be nice back. It is amazing how good it feels to smile at someone and have them smile back at you. Life is too short to fill with negativity.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but using tilt has someting to do with incerasing DOF in 99% of cases. Both toy image and link web site with tilting is about that.

Since this is my thread (might have gotten derailed but) I think what I am asking in the OP is about Canon and Nikon. For me, increasing DOF is less important than placing the dof where I want it. The sidewalk down a city street or a ski slope both come to mind. One needs horizontal tilt the other needs vertical tilt. With Nikon PC-E's this is impossible. Both instances would have people mobing in them and make focus stacking difficult (and video, as mentioned, impossible)

You used an over the top phrase in your OP i.e. "PC-E Why does Nikon let Canon crush it in this area?".

For people who want to use the lens for 'effects' then it will be limiting. I hate those 'toy scene' images. I suspect these people are the minority, but I might be wrong. Either way, for these people the new Canon lenses are better, albeit only two are available.

For people who want the lens for landscapes, then they will use the lens to give the illusion of increased DOF. In this use you want the shift and tilt axes aligned. I think that for most people this is the most common use, and oddly enough the lenses are supplied with the axes at right angles, so they might need adjusting. I'm trying to think why landscape use might need independent adjustment of the axes.

Lens tilt allows - as we all know - some creative approach to the subject. Other than "fake miniature", but rather with controlled shew of focus plane. Sorry, but with tilted UWA (17mm) lens on small frame (24x36mm) doesn't posess DOF that is shallow enough (at lest to my my taste). One can still use this approach for macro work - but hardly for any other subject.

I almost agree about the DOF of a 17mm but to each his own. I sure there are examples out there where the TS 17 has been absolutely vital to someones Art (creativity)

Yes, i know it is not to be done in pp. But also ts tilting is very limited - as we are talking about t/s - pc lenses, not monorail camera.

True. But true of Canon and Nikon.

Can You show not-macro sample of image taken with 17mm t/s, where not-perpendicular DOF distribution has a meaning?

Nikon is not the only camera on this world.

True, but this is the "Nikon Lens" forum and I made a thread asking why Nikon has not kept up with Canon when it comes to TS lenses.

Nor 17TS-E is only lens giving UWA T/S capability.

In the Nicanon world, it is.

-- hide signature --




-- hide signature --

Warning: this forum may contain nuts.

 Leif Goodwin's gear list:Leif Goodwin's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow