[CreationBear]

My knees are still making strange clicking sounds from Monday's adventure in the Smokies with a full pack and a 4-lens kit, so naturally I'm sitting here thinking about adding (not subtracting) a big chunk of glass from my bag... Specifically, I'm curious if any of y'all are running the 67 75/4.5 Shift--I sized up several scenes that could do with a bit of "straightening," but mostly I'm interested in "shift pano" possibilities and wanted to see if I understand the basics:


1.) I'd get 20mm of shift left and right, but with a seven centimeter wide "sensor", that would make for a two-shot pano, i..e. the equivalent of a 6x11 once I merged the frames in Photoshop?


2.) I believe that shifted shots call for an extra stop of light when you meter--but is there always a noticeable fall-off in exposure at the edge of the frame, like a partial vignette, that would make "indexing" two shots difficult?


3. ) And, finally, I'm assuming you can handle any parallax issues by moving the camera left or right in the clamp the opposite direction of the lens shift?


Any thoughts (or interventions) appreciated...

[photoptimist]

Some thoughts:

1) Correct: The Pentax 6x7 format is 56mm x 67mm so using the full range of ±20mm shift gets you a 56x107 panorama (or a 96 x 67 super portrait).

2) Metering with shift is tricky (and probably should be avoided) because the image from the shifted optics does not couple well with the optical features of the focusing screen and exposure meter optics. I don't know the compensating factors for the 6x7 metering system (I've only done stuff with K-series APS-C & FF with the SMC 28/2.8 shift). I handle the issue by doing all metering with the lens unshifted and panning the camera a bit to check the range of exposures in the panorama, picking a fixed exposure I want to use for both shots, and then locking that exposure (typically with M mode or with AE-L). When shifted, the fall-off in the viewfinder is always much worse than the fall-off in the final image. Every guide I've ever seen about shift lens work suggests metering without shift.

3) Correct. If you need to avoid parallax effects, moving the camera 40 mm in the opposite direction of the 40 mm shift movement of the lens would keep the nodal point of the lens in the same location.

[CreationBear]

When shifted, the fall-off in the viewfinder is always much worse than the fall-off in the final image.

That's actually very good to know--is it possible that the "add a stop" advice is Kentucky windage for a TTL meter and wouldn't apply to exposure given by a handheld light meter? (I use the unmetered chimney finder on my P67.)

[Ron Boggs]

I owned that lens once upon a time and though the shift is fairly significant, I don't recall it shifting but about 10-15% of the frame which with shifts to both sides still wouldn't get you even double wide. Wait, was that the 35mm shift lens? Either way, I don't recall anything even close to as radical as you are suggesting...

Don't know at all how to try to configure 20mm of shift? Are you sure it isn't 20 degrees of shift? I still have a manual...let me check...

---------- Post added 02-07-18 at 11:42 AM ----------

Well, I see in the instructions where it mentions 20mm max shift. That's not 20mm relative to the 6x7 cm film size...it's 20mm relative to the 75mm lens perhaps? So about 25% to each side adding about 50% more width...I think? I'm trying to rectify this with my recollection of what the lens actually does when shifted rather than running the math...hell, I can't even spell math!

You may want to rent this lens first...if it was as easy as you're thinking, somebody would have figured this out long ago. I figured it out and bought a Hasselblad XPan II which shot one click pano's with no computer or stitching necessary. Sold it in this forum when I walked away from film...still miss the Hassy and my 67II...almost didn't use 35mm for 10 years while playing with medium format.

Good luck with your project!

[photoptimist]

That's actually very good to know--is it possible that the "add a stop" advice is Kentucky windage for a TTL meter and wouldn't apply to exposure given by a handheld light meter? (I use the unmetered chimney finder on my P67.)

That sound right. In any case, a hand-held meter will give the correct exposure for center of the 75 mm lens and the bulk of both shifted frames are exposed with light from the center of the lens. Used wide-open, that lens might vignette by some amount in the corners of the shifted image so if you are exposing for the shadows, then it might mean you need some exposure compensation. But if you stop-down the lens, that vignetting should be minimal and the straight reading from the meter will be the one you want to use.

Shift lenses are a lot of fun, but they can require a bit of experimentation in exposure and composition. Images from that 75 mm lens with ±20 mm shift will have a perspective that's more like a wide angle lens (similar to a "panorama" made from a cropped shot taken with a 47 mm lens).

[Ron Boggs]

The ultra wide 45 mm is very light and very inexpensive while the 75 shift (also considered a wide angle in this format) is big, heavy and costly! I adored the 45mm with 67II. Have a few 30x40's hanging in my home right now!

[CreationBear]

Ha, thanks gents! This wouldn't be the first time I made things more difficult than they have to be--as Ron mentions, the 45/4 is a classic...I traded mine for a late 55/4, which fit my terrain a bit better, but they're both great lenses.

[Ron Boggs]

Hey, you're just trying to have fun! And a shifted 3 shot pano from one tripod lock? Cooool...

[gofour3]

Any thoughts (or interventions) appreciated...

I have a copy of the 67 75/4.5 shift manual that I got from the Pentax web site. It's a big help in figuring out the various ways to use this lens.

Phil.

I adored the 45mm with 67II. Have a few 30x40's hanging in my home right now!

Yep I still have your old 67 45/4 and it's a great lens!

Phil.

[photoptimist]

The shift-lens vs. wide-angle works both ways.

I've always thought of UWA as the poor-man's shift lens for architecture -- you point a UWA at a building with the camera perfectly level, crop-off almost all of the lower-half of the image, and you've got the same keystone-free architectural image as a shift-lens could take.

Of course, cropping a UWA for architecture or to make a 2:1 panorama doesn't give the same resolution as the shift-lens can deliver.

[Ron Boggs]

Not the resolution after cropping nor the distortion free edges...though my old and now Phil's 45mm is definitely a crisp copy, it still has a bit of distortion--as expected. That 45mm lens is the equivalent of 22.5mm on FF/35mm or 15mm on APS-C. I've not seen a comparison, but to my eye the 45mm lens on 67 format has less distortion than the 15 Limited on APS-C even though it's considered an old design. And that's not a slur on the 15...I like it just fine! (Should I stand back and watch for data to come streaming in regarding actual measurements of distortion? I'd actually kind of like that!).

---------- Post added 02-07-18 at 04:38 PM ----------

So back to the OP...would it be better to carry the gear to mechanically shift a moderate pano? Or would it be better to equip to shoot and crop a super wide angle that roughly matches the width of the moderate pano shot through the shift lens?

I might take a third option. I think I would opt to shoot the pano frames through my sharpest normal or close to normal perspective lens. Since this is all related to the OP's landscape work, frightening sharpness across the frame (rather than bokeh) would probably be the goal? (when shooting 6x7, I used the late model 100/4 Macro as my normal since it supposedly had the best resolution in the line--and 67 depth of field is so thin as to not punish me for the f4).

However, if the foreground is super close and you need ridiculous hyperfocal depth of field...then the super wide with cropping may win out...except how will that crop fit the super close foreground...must be shooting vertical now...well then maybe back to the super sharp standard lens and stitched pano?

Can't deny that shooting through the shift lens is an enjoyable, s l o w, fun way to shoot, so the aesthetic value of the experience also factor's in.

I guess it all depends!

[CreationBear]

I used the late model 100/4 Macro

Let's agree on the ground rules: you can't make me want this lens.


Seriously, a great discussion, guys--to be honest, one of my take-away's from this last venture afield is that sometimes there's just no substitute for movements, though setting up a field camera in some of these rhododendron culverts would be taxing at best. I will say that you film guys have gotten in my head, though--I was practically standing on my head trying to set up a "near/far" shot using the DOF scales, but unfortunately none of the barrel markings were close enough to be precise. It wasn't until the ride home that I realized I should have just shot a "focus bracket" and stacked as I normally would once I got the scans. "Facepalm" as the kids used to say...

[Ron Boggs]

OK, you don't want this lens!

[photoptimist]

Not the resolution after cropping nor the distortion free edges...though my old and now Phil's 45mm is definitely a crisp copy, it still has a bit of distortion--as expected. That 45mm lens is the equivalent of 22.5mm on FF/35mm or 15mm on APS-C. I've not seen a comparison, but to my eye the 45mm lens on 67 format has less distortion than the 15 Limited on APS-C even though it's considered an old design. And that's not a slur on the 15...I like it just fine! (Should I stand back and watch for data to come streaming in regarding actual measurements of distortion? I'd actually kind of like that!).

---------- Post added 02-07-18 at 04:38 PM ----------

So back to the OP...would it be better to carry the gear to mechanically shift a moderate pano? Or would it be better to equip to shoot and crop a super wide angle that roughly matches the width of the moderate pano shot through the shift lens?

I might take a third option. I think I would opt to shoot the pano frames through my sharpest normal or close to normal perspective lens. Since this is all related to the OP's landscape work, frightening sharpness across the frame (rather than bokeh) would probably be the goal? (when shooting 6x7, I used the late model 100/4 Macro as my normal since it supposedly had the best resolution in the line--and 67 depth of field is so thin as to not punish me for the f4).

However, if the foreground is super close and you need ridiculous hyperfocal depth of field...then the super wide with cropping may win out...except how will that crop fit the super close foreground...must be shooting vertical now...well then maybe back to the super sharp standard lens and stitched pano?

Can't deny that shooting through the shift lens is an enjoyable, s l o w, fun way to shoot, so the aesthetic value of the experience also factor's in.

I guess it all depends!

Cropped UWA pano, shift-lens pano, and sharp-lens pano are all good options with those three being naturally ranked from lowest to highest in end-print resolution and ranked from easiest to hardest in terms of in-the-field setup and post-processing labor.

The sharp-lens pano option offers nearly unlimited resolution, is more flexible, but is also a lot more challenging because of the issue of the effects of geometric projections ( Geometric projections in panoramic photography )

[CreationBear]

OK, you don't want this lens!

Ha, KEH recently had an E+ rated copy up for over a month--but the CFO has given me reason to believe that the next lens I buy needs to come packaged with one of those igloo-style doghouses...