[photoptimist]

I don't see the usefulness of a tilt-shift lens for landscape (not even for architecture) but perhaps it is useful for increasing DOF. I have no experience with that.

My point is that if you are post-processing your photos it is much more practical to do all the corrections in post because also photo's taken with a tilt-shift lens need these corrections (to a lesser extend) unless you are a very experienced user or when you don't see the necessity to perfectly line them out at 0.1 degrees.

It's a personal preference -- some of use don't see the point of having to fix something with post-processing that could be done right in the first place.

With the electronic levels built into a Pentax camera, getting perfectly alignment with a shift lens is easy-peasy -- just level the camera and then shift the lens to get the desired composition. No post-process is needed.

[stevebrot]

I don't see the usefulness of a tilt-shift lens for landscape (not even for architecture) but perhaps it is useful for increasing DOF. I have no experience with that.

I guess it is safe to say that if one's experience has not produced the need, that is adequate reason for not knowing it exists. There are limits to what may be done in PP, particularly from a quality standpoint (merged/stretched pixels from perspective adjustments are lost/munged detail) and it is impossible to create "in-focus" from OOF "in-software".


Steve

[Kobayashi.K]

It's a personal preference -- some of use don't see the point of having to fix something with post-processing that could be done right in the first place.

With the electronic levels built into a Pentax camera, getting perfectly alignment with a shift lens is easy-peasy -- just level the camera and then shift the lens to get the desired composition. No post-process is needed.

@photoptimist I usually appreciate your posts for correctness and level of information, but now I must disagree

The electronic level as seen in the viewfinder has a resolution of one degree (my Pentax K5-II), which is actually a huge deviation and a useless feature because in practice it is easy to level out a hand-held camera at less than 0.5 degrees with a bit of attention. If you show a photo on screen though the eye can easily see deviations of 0.1 degree, so that's the range for additional corrections you have to do in post.

It is an illusion you can make a perfect photo directly from the camera, not even remotely. I hear this often, notably from film users who learned this before the digital camera was invented (to be clear I still use film myself). Now I suspect this argument is mostly used by people who dislike sitting at a computer screen to do some work.

[Wheatridger]

I don't see the usefulness of a tilt-shift lens for landscape (not even for architecture) but perhaps it is useful for increasing DOF. I have no experience with that.

My point is that if you are post-processing your photos it is much more practical to do all the corrections in post because also photo's taken with a tilt-shift lens need these corrections (to a lesser extend) unless you are a very experienced user or when you don't see the necessity to perfectly line them out at 0.1 degrees.

I guess you've never been asked to photograph an eight-story building from 60 feet away? That was my situation on a real estate shoot in Denver. Standing across a narrow downtown street, my 12mm on FF K-1 was sufficient to capture the entire wide facade if I tilted upwards, but I wasn't left with enough margin to handle the perspective shift necessary to straighten up the verticals. But no problem! I just mounted that lens (a Sigma 12-24 EX) onto a Fuji XE-2 body with a shift adapter, K-to-X mount. The Fuji, being APS-C format, can frame a full 10mm of shift without vignetting corners with this lens. Less than half that much shift was necessary as I easily framed the entire building at an effective 18mm and dialed the image for perfect vertical lines. And being mirrorless, these was room enough for the adapter.

[MJKoski]

Shift should be an essential part of any camera system. It allows to do very unique things - for example one can produce perfectly straight lines with tall trees at close distance when using UWA + vertical panorama stitching to capture it all with a perspective not available any other way. I use sensor shift all the time and it it way too limited currently. I would be happy with APS-C sensor integrated to 645-mount (and lenses of course) for massive sensor shift.

From my Skeleton-project - Canon 17mm TS-E, 3 frame vertical shift panorama at very close distance to tunnel entrance (vertical lines are vertically straight):



Another example, this time with 90mm TS-E. 3 frame vertical shift panorama with tilt used to get the road in focus all the way to the church:

[bdery]

I don't see the usefulness of a tilt-shift lens for landscape (not even for architecture) but perhaps it is useful for increasing DOF. I have no experience with that.

The shift is useful to preserve perspective. I also give examples of that in the Samyang review mentioned above.

[Kobayashi.K]

The shift is useful to preserve perspective. I also give examples of that in the Samyang review mentioned above.

Thanks @bdery, very informative review.

[photoptimist]

@photoptimist I usually appreciate your posts for correctness and level of information, but now I must disagree

The electronic level as seen in the viewfinder has a resolution of one degree (my Pentax K5-II), which is actually a huge deviation and a useless feature because in practice it is easy to level out a hand-held camera at less than 0.5 degrees with a bit of attention. If you show a photo on screen though the eye can easily see deviations of 0.1 degree, so that's the range for additional corrections you have to do in post.

It is an illusion you can make a perfect photo directly from the camera, not even remotely. I hear this often, notably from film users who learned this before the digital camera was invented (to be clear I still use film myself). Now I suspect this argument is mostly used by people who dislike sitting at a computer screen to do some work.

We're probably both right.

With the camera leveled to within 0.5 degrees, the keystoning angles can be less than 0.1 degrees for all but the most demanding subject matter. My personal experience is that a shift-lens easily straightens the perspectives for landscapes, cityscapes, and architecture.

As for "perfect" photos directly from the camera, that's also a matter of one's philosophy of photography. Some think that post processing makes a photo better and others think it makes the photo a fake. And some of that philosophical difference depends on the extent that one believes that a photograph is meant to be an objective view of "what is there," a brain-filtered view of "what I saw," a subjective view of "what I felt," or a manipulative message of "what I want the viewer to feel." Each belief affects what post process steps are required, acceptable, or forbidden.

On my side, I suspect the "do it in post" argument is mostly used by people who dislike more attentive use of lenses and cameras to do some work. We all have our different preferred ways of faffing about!

[SJA]

Shift should be an essential part of any camera system. It allows to do very unique things - for example one can produce perfectly straight lines with tall trees at close distance when using UWA + vertical panorama stitching to capture it all with a perspective not available any other way. I use sensor shift all the time and it it way too limited currently. I would be happy with APS-C sensor integrated to 645-mount (and lenses of course) for massive sensor shift.

From my Skeleton-project - Canon 17mm TS-E, 3 frame vertical shift panorama at very close distance to tunnel entrance (vertical lines are vertically straight):



Another example, this time with 90mm TS-E. 3 frame vertical shift panorama with tilt used to get the road in focus all the way to the church:

These are great examples, thank you. Are you using an adapter to use the Canon lenses on a Pentax or shooting them on a Canon body? I've heard good things about that 90 for product photos.

@photoptimist and @Kobayashi.K, you both have valid points. I do spend a fair amount of time processing my images, and feel it's necessary to produce what the eye sees, but I would like to get as much done in camera as possible. And focus stacking is a time consuming pain, and time is precious. Maybe I need to try it with a different program, but I often don't get the results I want. If all I had to do in post was straighten a pinch and pop my whites and contrast, I'd be a very happy camper.

[MJKoski]

17mm was attached to a 6D body and 90mm adapted to A7R1. Those were taken in 2015. I wish there was a good wide angle T/S for Pentax. I got Samyang 24mm now but it is an average lens at best.

[SJA]

17mm was attached to a 6D body and 90mm adapted to A7R1. Those were taken in 2015. I wish there was a good wide angle T/S for Pentax. I got Samyang 24mm now but it is an average lens at best.

Dang. I wish we had both a wide angle and longer lens option. Or a TS adaptor for the k mount that could take any k mount Pentax lens would be cool...

[MJKoski]

Mirex was mentioned before. It is maybe the best option. Mamiya 80/1.9 should be about equivalent to Canon 90mm ts-e in IQ. Then there are some Pentax 645 lenses as well in the same range.

[StiffLegged]

Beautiful images, MJKoski! (each picture tells a story)