Titl shift lens for the 645D

Aboudd · 10-24-2011, 12:39 PM

This report is on the Ukranian version of the Hartblei available from Vitaliy at the tilt-shift store. It works.We finally got a break in the weather that allowed me to do a definitive field test for the Hartblei 45MM. My first test yielded poor results, but it was shot in very flat light. This series was done in partly cloudy/sunny conditions and the results were much better. Most shift lenses have resolution fall off wide open, the Hartblei is no exception. I shot the photos using aperture preference, which was fine when the lens was in neutral position, however when it is shifted, a 2/3 open compensation was needed. The Hartblei performs well starting at F8, and seems to hit a sweet spot in the F11-16 range. There is no F22, a bit strange, it jumps to F32 from 16. It looks pretty good stopped down as well. Resolution falloff at shift is the same as neutral. Lousy at F3.8 fine at F8 and above. Color rendition in a good contrast situation looks pretty good. It was horrible in flat light as was the sharpness. In my first tests last week I compared it with the 55 2.8 A. The 55 was markedly sharper in flat light. In cloudy/sun situations, the Hartblei compares reasonably well to the Pentax 45-85 zoom, but is still not as sharp or as good at color rendering. It won't show as well on the images I am posting because they are not RAW or full size, but you will get the idea. By the way, I did no sharpening or other manipulation other than some subtle exposure and color balance adjustments. So for sharpness and rendering, these are accurate

My conclusion at this point is that the Hartblei is a viable T/S alternative for the Pentax 645. I am still bothered that the mount is a bit of a tight fit, the lens does not slide on and off as easily as a Pentax lens. I should add this caveat. All of my Pentax lenses are used, the Hartblei is new, so I do not know if that is a factor. The lens is also lacks an auto-diaphragm, so you have to focus wide open and stop down to shoot. There is no communication with the camera, so your metadata will show only the shutter speed, not the aperture. If you like to record this stuff, keep a pencil and pad handy. While all of this slows the action down a bit, I am sure it is still faster than using a technical camera, although the output of the Hartblei lens probably won't match that of the Arca or Cambo, but a reminder here, they are not general purpose cameras.

Finally, my dealings with Vitaliy at the tilt-shift store have been good overall. Delivery is slow however, so expect to wait 4-6 weeks for delivery of your lens.

There are ten photos with this post. There will be a few more in a separate posting.

Last edited by Aboudd; 09-06-2014 at 06:40 PM.

Aboudd · 10-24-2011, 12:42 PM

Here are a few more to go with my original posting.

Stefan Steib · 10-24-2011, 01:30 PM

@ Aboudd

I did already answer this at GetDPI

The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - Hartblei 45mm TS New Version?

and here

The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - Hartblei 45mm TS New Version?

As it is the market will not pay back for a devellopment with these limited numbers. Hen and egg it seems.
As much as I would want to say something different and unless some arabic investor who´s into photography will jump in, this brings us to a halt here.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

Aboudd · 10-24-2011, 02:32 PM

Hi Stefan,

I was just teasing you. I can tell by the prices on your 35MM format lenses that a T/S for 645 format would be at a business killing price point. Of course now that Leica has deep pocketed Blackstone, they might do it, but I am sure it would be at least a $10,000 lens if they do.

Zygonyx · 11-04-2011, 08:37 AM

Hello Aboudd, thank you for these shots.

Nevertheless, i still have difficulties in seeing on my screen, the real "added value" of the tilt-shift mechanism : could you please bring some plain TS shots in comparison to rectilinear ones too ?

Could you also give us the number of milimeters/degrees you have shifted/tilted ?

chicagonature · 11-08-2011, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

Not really. You can print as large as you want. The DoF will be fine as print viewing distance increases with print size. DoF changes with relative viewing distance, not print size. I have just put up a 3,5 x 12 foot pano shot with the 645D and there is no problem. I have made plenty of 30 inch and 40 inch prints.

Focus stacking is away around limits of DoF, but introduces its own problems. But it does let you use larger aperture with less diffraction. But I think you will find the effect of diffraction overstated.

Yamanobori,

I commonly use my 33-55mm lens at f/32 for landscapes with subjects that are very close to the lens. Let's say that my nearest subject is 17 inches away and I focus at 34 inches (the hyperfocal distance). On slide film it looks quite good, even when printed very large. What might the print look like on the 645D? Is the diffraction noticeable? I thought diffraction is more of a problem with digital sensor, but I haven't been able to get a reliable answer.

Yamanobori · 11-08-2011, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by chicagonature

Yamanobori,

I commonly use my 33-55mm lens at f/32 for landscapes with subjects that are very close to the lens. Let's say that my nearest subject is 17 inches away and I focus at 34 inches (the hyperfocal distance). On slide film it looks quite good, even when printed very large. What might the print look like on the 645D? Is the diffraction noticeable? I thought diffraction is more of a problem with digital sensor, but I haven't been able to get a reliable answer.

The short answer about diffraction is no. The long answer...

With the difference in film/sensor size, you are going to lose about stop of DoF--if your lens is set to f/11, the f/8 DoF scales will indicate the depth of field. I also imagine you are going to have a stop less on what you think is the loss of sharpness to diffraction. I could see the effects of diffraction in my film medium-format work at f/16, but the loss of sharpness from a larger aperture would be worse. It is a compromise.

When you pixel peep, you are going to be more sensitive to diffraction. On a print, you are back to normal viewing conditions and things work well. I was hearing the the 645D was showing the effects of diffraction over f/11. I shot an image with the D FA 55 (which folks also don't like) at f/22 and made a 40" print out of the file. It is hanging in my living room and it is beautiful. The detail is nice and crisp. My f/11 images are sharper, but you could only notice that side by side. You would never think the f/22 image is soft. The DoF in the f/22 image is also important--the f/11 image just is not there.

Where does the minimum aperture become too small? That depends on you and the shooting conditions/object. High contrast objects are going to fair better and if you are a pixel peeper, then you are lost--I will pray for your soul. I would say you can shoot at f/32. If you think f/32 is your limit on film, you might be happier at f/22 (with DoF indicated by the f/16 DoF scales). Personally, I have not found diffraction something to worry about. I think there is a member here that shoots with your lens on a 645D at f/32.

Here is a sample image taken with the 55mm D FA at f/22 and a 100% crop (and I am not even sure that is at the plane of focus). Unfortunately, converted to jpeg. Unsharp masking was applied during RAW processing, but I usually sharpen my 645D images regardless of the aperture.

Attached Images

Last edited by Yamanobori; 11-08-2011 at 07:52 AM.

Yamanobori · 11-08-2011, 07:55 AM

chicagonature, kjames5 is a member here. Check this link:

BEHIND THE PUBLISHED IMAGE--KERRICK JAMES

zapp · 11-09-2011, 08:24 AM

Diffraction limits the maximum possible resolution produced by a lens. This does not in all cases mean that a lens is diffraction limited... You may still experience a visible improvement of the overall image appearance especially towards the corners when stopping down although image quality should be severely limited by diffraction in theory. With film you typically see this effect around f16 or 22. With modern lenses you will realize that diffraction starts degrading center resolution as soon as f5.6-8 or even earlier. In theory a smaller pixel spacing requires better reslution lenses and larger apertures. If you do not see it, you do not need to think about it.
The question is what you want to sample with your sensor. Do you want to use your digital pixels to capture as much detail as possible per pixel? -> balance image signal with pixel size. Or do you want to get a complete sample of the image projected on the sensor -> use many, many tiny pixels, but do not assume better resolution per pixel.

chicagonature · 11-09-2011, 01:44 PM

Hi Yamanobori,

Thanks. Your words confirm what I've been feeling all along, but I never had any corroboration.

I've been shooting prairie landscapes here in the Chicago area for many years and I'm very happy with the results I get with my 33-55mm lens on a 645NII body. Yes, an image may appear little soft if you pixel peep the digital scan. But, I find that with some "local contrast" adjustment in Photoshop combined with finely-tuned sharpening in FocalBlade that it looks simply beautiful when printed large.

I will now seriously consider getting myself 645D and 25mm lens to begin next spring.

Thanks again!
Mike

chicagonature · 11-10-2011, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by zapp

Diffraction limits the maximum possible resolution produced by a lens. This does not in all cases mean that a lens is diffraction limited... You may still experience a visible improvement of the overall image appearance especially towards the corners when stopping down although image quality should be severely limited by diffraction in theory. With film you typically see this effect around f16 or 22. With modern lenses you will realize that diffraction starts degrading center resolution as soon as f5.6-8 or even earlier. In theory a smaller pixel spacing requires better reslution lenses and larger apertures. If you do not see it, you do not need to think about it.
The question is what you want to sample with your sensor. Do you want to use your digital pixels to capture as much detail as possible per pixel? -> balance image signal with pixel size. Or do you want to get a complete sample of the image projected on the sensor -> use many, many tiny pixels, but do not assume better resolution per pixel.

Hi Zapp,

Thanks for your answer and I understand most of it, except when you get to the end.

Instead, what is your answer in relation to photographing a finely detailed landscape with the Pentax 645D using a wide angle lens set to 33mm at f/32 or the 25mm set to f/22 in order to fully maximize the focus range?

You can see a small sample of my prairie images here: http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/land-and-sky.html.

Thanks!

chicagonature · 11-19-2011, 03:43 PM

I don't know if anyone is still reading ths thread, but in keeping with the TILT/SHIFT theme, does anyone know about this:
Using the Canon Tilt/Shift Lens that have a very, very wide optical circle that is large enough to cover the medium format image film/sensor size. In fact, Hartblei Cam is a $9000 camera that is designed specifically for the Canon T/S lenses. This means that it's very thin. But, what if it could be attached to a Pentax 645D? You'd lose infinity focusing, but maybe that wouldn't matter if you're a landscape photographer, like me, who rarely (if ever) focuses at a hyperfocal distance any farther than 8 feet away getting everything from 4 feet to infinity in focus).

Does anyone know how this might work? Obviously, it might be inelegant and kind of a kludge, but the new 25mm lens for the 645D, wihch is NOT T/S is $5,000 and for that same price you can get both Canon T/S 17mm and 24mm and have a grand left over! So, MAYBE it's worth a try.

Yamanobori · 11-19-2011, 08:36 PM

Mike, the flange distance would be too long to mount a Canon lens on the 645D body. You would only be able to convert tilt/shift lenses ffrom 6x6 or larger medium-format systems.

chicagonature · 11-19-2011, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

Mike, the flange distance would be too long to mount a Canon lens on the 645D body. You would only be able to convert tilt/shift lenses ffrom 6x6 or larger medium-format systems.

Doesn't it just lose infinity focus and possibly focus at greater distances? Or is something else affected? Just wondering.

Yamanobori · 11-20-2011, 12:44 AM

Mike, if you can find an adapter, you may have the neatest macro tilt/shift lens. The difference between a 645 and a 35mm flange distance will be significant. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but a 645 flange distance is around 70mm and 35mm is 40mm.

If I remember correctly, the Pentax 67 had a 75mm shift lens that is easily adpated to a 645D. While I am unsure if there has been a camera mount made, Cambo and Horseman make tilt shift adapters for DSLRs. And Novaflex has a bellows unit that has tilt shift. These units use enlarger lenses, so there is a problem with wides if you want to do landscape work.

Because of the mirror box, DSLR do not make a great platform for camera movements. You would be better off with a Phase One back and a view camera. You sacrefice the convienience of a DSLR, though.

10-24-2011, 12:39 PM	#46
Aboudd Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 187	Hartblei 45MM Super Rotator for 645D This report is on the Ukranian version of the Hartblei available from Vitaliy at the tilt-shift store. It works.We finally got a break in the weather that allowed me to do a definitive field test for the Hartblei 45MM. My first test yielded poor results, but it was shot in very flat light. This series was done in partly cloudy/sunny conditions and the results were much better. Most shift lenses have resolution fall off wide open, the Hartblei is no exception. I shot the photos using aperture preference, which was fine when the lens was in neutral position, however when it is shifted, a 2/3 open compensation was needed. The Hartblei performs well starting at F8, and seems to hit a sweet spot in the F11-16 range. There is no F22, a bit strange, it jumps to F32 from 16. It looks pretty good stopped down as well. Resolution falloff at shift is the same as neutral. Lousy at F3.8 fine at F8 and above. Color rendition in a good contrast situation looks pretty good. It was horrible in flat light as was the sharpness. In my first tests last week I compared it with the 55 2.8 A. The 55 was markedly sharper in flat light. In cloudy/sun situations, the Hartblei compares reasonably well to the Pentax 45-85 zoom, but is still not as sharp or as good at color rendering. It won't show as well on the images I am posting because they are not RAW or full size, but you will get the idea. By the way, I did no sharpening or other manipulation other than some subtle exposure and color balance adjustments. So for sharpness and rendering, these are accurate My conclusion at this point is that the Hartblei is a viable T/S alternative for the Pentax 645. I am still bothered that the mount is a bit of a tight fit, the lens does not slide on and off as easily as a Pentax lens. I should add this caveat. All of my Pentax lenses are used, the Hartblei is new, so I do not know if that is a factor. The lens is also lacks an auto-diaphragm, so you have to focus wide open and stop down to shoot. There is no communication with the camera, so your metadata will show only the shutter speed, not the aperture. If you like to record this stuff, keep a pencil and pad handy. While all of this slows the action down a bit, I am sure it is still faster than using a technical camera, although the output of the Hartblei lens probably won't match that of the Arca or Cambo, but a reminder here, they are not general purpose cameras. Finally, my dealings with Vitaliy at the tilt-shift store have been good overall. Delivery is slow however, so expect to wait 4-6 weeks for delivery of your lens. There are ten photos with this post. There will be a few more in a separate posting. Last edited by Aboudd; 09-06-2014 at 06:40 PM.

10-24-2011, 12:42 PM	#47
Aboudd Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 187	Hartblei sampels part II Here are a few more to go with my original posting. Last edited by Aboudd; 09-06-2014 at 06:40 PM.

10-24-2011, 01:30 PM	#48
Stefan Steib New Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 13	@ Aboudd I did already answer this at GetDPI The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - Hartblei 45mm TS New Version? and here The GetDPI Photography Forums - View Single Post - Hartblei 45mm TS New Version? As it is the market will not pay back for a devellopment with these limited numbers. Hen and egg it seems. As much as I would want to say something different and unless some arabic investor who´s into photography will jump in, this brings us to a halt here. Greetings from Munich Stefan Last edited by Stefan Steib; 10-24-2011 at 02:26 PM.

11-19-2011, 03:43 PM	#57
chicagonature Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 96	What about Canon T/S assuming the loss of infinity focus I don't know if anyone is still reading ths thread, but in keeping with the TILT/SHIFT theme, does anyone know about this: Using the Canon Tilt/Shift Lens that have a very, very wide optical circle that is large enough to cover the medium format image film/sensor size. In fact, Hartblei Cam is a $9000 camera that is designed specifically for the Canon T/S lenses. This means that it's very thin. But, what if it could be attached to a Pentax 645D? You'd lose infinity focusing, but maybe that wouldn't matter if you're a landscape photographer, like me, who rarely (if ever) focuses at a hyperfocal distance any farther than 8 feet away getting everything from 4 feet to infinity in focus). Does anyone know how this might work? Obviously, it might be inelegant and kind of a kludge, but the new 25mm lens for the 645D, wihch is NOT T/S is $5,000 and for that same price you can get both Canon T/S 17mm and 24mm and have a grand left over! So, MAYBE it's worth a try. Last edited by chicagonature; 11-19-2011 at 03:45 PM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Acquisto pentax negli Stati Uniti e garanzia Internazionale	Mitch	Photographic Technique	3	12-07-2010 03:16 AM
Looking for Pentax T226 close-up lens	miresc	Pentax Medium Format	0	07-02-2010 10:14 AM
645D: high resolution pictures	Reti13	Pentax Medium Format	13	05-26-2010 04:59 AM
Mack Warranty for Lens	MArkusss	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-16-2009 11:47 AM

10-24-2011, 02:32 PM	#49
Aboudd Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 187	Hi Stefan, I was just teasing you. I can tell by the prices on your 35MM format lenses that a T/S for 645 format would be at a business killing price point. Of course now that Leica has deep pocketed Blackstone, they might do it, but I am sure it would be at least a $10,000 lens if they do.

11-04-2011, 08:37 AM	#50
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,032	Hello Aboudd, thank you for these shots. Nevertheless, i still have difficulties in seeing on my screen, the real "added value" of the tilt-shift mechanism : could you please bring some plain TS shots in comparison to rectilinear ones too ? Could you also give us the number of milimeters/degrees you have shifted/tilted ?

11-08-2011, 12:54 AM	#51
chicagonature Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 96	Originally posted by Yamanobori Not really. You can print as large as you want. The DoF will be fine as print viewing distance increases with print size. DoF changes with relative viewing distance, not print size. I have just put up a 3,5 x 12 foot pano shot with the 645D and there is no problem. I have made plenty of 30 inch and 40 inch prints. Focus stacking is away around limits of DoF, but introduces its own problems. But it does let you use larger aperture with less diffraction. But I think you will find the effect of diffraction overstated. Yamanobori, I commonly use my 33-55mm lens at f/32 for landscapes with subjects that are very close to the lens. Let's say that my nearest subject is 17 inches away and I focus at 34 inches (the hyperfocal distance). On slide film it looks quite good, even when printed very large. What might the print look like on the 645D? Is the diffraction noticeable? I thought diffraction is more of a problem with digital sensor, but I haven't been able to get a reliable answer.

11-08-2011, 07:42 AM	#52
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Originally posted by chicagonature Yamanobori, I commonly use my 33-55mm lens at f/32 for landscapes with subjects that are very close to the lens. Let's say that my nearest subject is 17 inches away and I focus at 34 inches (the hyperfocal distance). On slide film it looks quite good, even when printed very large. What might the print look like on the 645D? Is the diffraction noticeable? I thought diffraction is more of a problem with digital sensor, but I haven't been able to get a reliable answer. The short answer about diffraction is no. The long answer... With the difference in film/sensor size, you are going to lose about stop of DoF--if your lens is set to f/11, the f/8 DoF scales will indicate the depth of field. I also imagine you are going to have a stop less on what you think is the loss of sharpness to diffraction. I could see the effects of diffraction in my film medium-format work at f/16, but the loss of sharpness from a larger aperture would be worse. It is a compromise. When you pixel peep, you are going to be more sensitive to diffraction. On a print, you are back to normal viewing conditions and things work well. I was hearing the the 645D was showing the effects of diffraction over f/11. I shot an image with the D FA 55 (which folks also don't like) at f/22 and made a 40" print out of the file. It is hanging in my living room and it is beautiful. The detail is nice and crisp. My f/11 images are sharper, but you could only notice that side by side. You would never think the f/22 image is soft. The DoF in the f/22 image is also important--the f/11 image just is not there. Where does the minimum aperture become too small? That depends on you and the shooting conditions/object. High contrast objects are going to fair better and if you are a pixel peeper, then you are lost--I will pray for your soul. I would say you can shoot at f/32. If you think f/32 is your limit on film, you might be happier at f/22 (with DoF indicated by the f/16 DoF scales). Personally, I have not found diffraction something to worry about. I think there is a member here that shoots with your lens on a 645D at f/32. Here is a sample image taken with the 55mm D FA at f/22 and a 100% crop (and I am not even sure that is at the plane of focus). Unfortunately, converted to jpeg. Unsharp masking was applied during RAW processing, but I usually sharpen my 645D images regardless of the aperture. Attached Images Last edited by Yamanobori; 11-08-2011 at 07:52 AM.

11-08-2011, 07:55 AM	#53
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	chicagonature, kjames5 is a member here. Check this link: BEHIND THE PUBLISHED IMAGE--KERRICK JAMES

11-09-2011, 08:24 AM	#54
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	Diffraction limits the maximum possible resolution produced by a lens. This does not in all cases mean that a lens is diffraction limited... You may still experience a visible improvement of the overall image appearance especially towards the corners when stopping down although image quality should be severely limited by diffraction in theory. With film you typically see this effect around f16 or 22. With modern lenses you will realize that diffraction starts degrading center resolution as soon as f5.6-8 or even earlier. In theory a smaller pixel spacing requires better reslution lenses and larger apertures. If you do not see it, you do not need to think about it. The question is what you want to sample with your sensor. Do you want to use your digital pixels to capture as much detail as possible per pixel? -> balance image signal with pixel size. Or do you want to get a complete sample of the image projected on the sensor -> use many, many tiny pixels, but do not assume better resolution per pixel.

11-09-2011, 01:44 PM	#55
chicagonature Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 96	Hi Yamanobori, Thanks. Your words confirm what I've been feeling all along, but I never had any corroboration. I've been shooting prairie landscapes here in the Chicago area for many years and I'm very happy with the results I get with my 33-55mm lens on a 645NII body. Yes, an image may appear little soft if you pixel peep the digital scan. But, I find that with some "local contrast" adjustment in Photoshop combined with finely-tuned sharpening in FocalBlade that it looks simply beautiful when printed large. I will now seriously consider getting myself 645D and 25mm lens to begin next spring. Thanks again! Mike

11-10-2011, 12:58 AM	#56
chicagonature Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 96	Originally posted by zapp Diffraction limits the maximum possible resolution produced by a lens. This does not in all cases mean that a lens is diffraction limited... You may still experience a visible improvement of the overall image appearance especially towards the corners when stopping down although image quality should be severely limited by diffraction in theory. With film you typically see this effect around f16 or 22. With modern lenses you will realize that diffraction starts degrading center resolution as soon as f5.6-8 or even earlier. In theory a smaller pixel spacing requires better reslution lenses and larger apertures. If you do not see it, you do not need to think about it. The question is what you want to sample with your sensor. Do you want to use your digital pixels to capture as much detail as possible per pixel? -> balance image signal with pixel size. Or do you want to get a complete sample of the image projected on the sensor -> use many, many tiny pixels, but do not assume better resolution per pixel. Hi Zapp, Thanks for your answer and I understand most of it, except when you get to the end. Instead, what is your answer in relation to photographing a finely detailed landscape with the Pentax 645D using a wide angle lens set to 33mm at f/32 or the 25mm set to f/22 in order to fully maximize the focus range? You can see a small sample of my prairie images here: http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/land-and-sky.html. Thanks!

11-19-2011, 08:36 PM	#58
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Mike, the flange distance would be too long to mount a Canon lens on the 645D body. You would only be able to convert tilt/shift lenses ffrom 6x6 or larger medium-format systems.

11-19-2011, 11:12 PM	#59
chicagonature Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Downers Grove, IL Posts: 96	Originally posted by Yamanobori Mike, the flange distance would be too long to mount a Canon lens on the 645D body. You would only be able to convert tilt/shift lenses ffrom 6x6 or larger medium-format systems. Doesn't it just lose infinity focus and possibly focus at greater distances? Or is something else affected? Just wondering.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-20-2011, 12:44 AM	#60
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Mike, if you can find an adapter, you may have the neatest macro tilt/shift lens. The difference between a 645 and a 35mm flange distance will be significant. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but a 645 flange distance is around 70mm and 35mm is 40mm. If I remember correctly, the Pentax 67 had a 75mm shift lens that is easily adpated to a 645D. While I am unsure if there has been a camera mount made, Cambo and Horseman make tilt shift adapters for DSLRs. And Novaflex has a bellows unit that has tilt shift. These units use enlarger lenses, so there is a problem with wides if you want to do landscape work. Because of the mirror box, DSLR do not make a great platform for camera movements. You would be better off with a Phase One back and a view camera. You sacrefice the convienience of a DSLR, though.