This repeated posting of inane images is an abuse of this forum.
Please stop, UserID.

Also, how many user accounts on UHH do you have? You appear to have
at least two.

Does it occur to you that Gene51 is a good photographer who is being very
generous in taking the time to share his experience and knowledge with us?

You are free to disagree with him, but there is no justification for this behavior.
It pulls the discussion down to an infanitle level. Please grow up.

Yep. Thaz the entire difference between
a mechanical shift and my method which
acoarst is not just mine alone. The whole
thing is just a matter of discarding some
of the MP count, usually about 35%, and
that has not really mattered since about
2012 or so.

Back when we hadda deliver original 135
chromes for publication, the mechanical
shift lens was de rigueur. I still have a PC
Nikkor, as they were called, with the grad
ND needed to fix the linear fall-off that a
shifted lens delivers.

It beats me why a certain person cannot
acknowledge that the "crop shift" is really
a true shift. The lens's axis is no longer
centered on the in-use portion of the film
or sensor ... thus it is shifted. I have no
doubt at all that "the person" knows and
is familiar with all of the "rocket science"
involved here. It's just very puzzling.

.

Hey Bipod I thought we were trying to help koosh who is going, presuming on vacation, to the Canadian Rockies with a couple of canon DSLRs and a kit lens plus a nifty fifty and a 24/105 zoom. I’m sure he will have plenty of resolution for his purposes.

Whether or not I make fine art prints with an 8X10 camera or any other camera has no bearing on that.

I’d be surprised if you make fine art prints from photos using an 8X10 camera on vacation. You might be one of only 10 people in the world taking an 8X10 camera on vacation. I’d also be surprised if you own an 8X10 camera. When did you last shoot 4X5?

Actually, Gene51, keeping a camera back level and cropping the foreground is a very legitimate technique that I also sometimes use.

(FYI, I also used 4X5 cameras in the 60s and 70s, owning a Linhof Karden Color as well as using others in a studio where I was once employed. I still own another 4X5 monorail camera and am very familiar with all its movements. I have worked over 50 years in various fields of photography, film, and television )

Now if I want to use for example, my 14mm f1.8 Sigma lens (or my 16/35 f4 zoom or my 24mm f1.4) on my Canon 5D4, to shoot say buildings, I will avoid converging verticals by keeping the back of the camera vertical and cropping the image a little. I can do a little more correction if necessary by using software. This of course results in a more narrow view. If I happen to want a panorama I will use the top of the final horizontal image and there is no more loss in resolution than cropping to use the middle of the image. In fact the resolution of any one shot panorama in a horizontal direction is exactly the same as in an uncropped image, when the full width is used.

Modern high MP cameras have plenty of resolution that a little cropping is not a problem.

Sure using a shift lens is better but that doesn’t make the technique of keeping the camera back vertical, a “fake technique”. It is a “good technique” By the way, I don’t know of a 14mm f1.8 shift lens. I think Laowa make a 15mm f4? lens with a vertical shift. We don’t all own an array of shift lenses in various focal lengths and if we did we probably wouldn’t carry them all around with us .

I agree Graham. I also do the same. But to call that the same as using a shift lens is complete nonsense uttered by a clueless individual. I called it a fake shift, because it isn't a shift at all. At no point do I regard opting to crop and adjust in post processing as anything less than good technique.

I don't use wide lenses for panorama. I find that the volume anamorphosis at the edges and corners problematic for most pano stitching programs, so I usually opt for nothing shorter than a 35mm on full frame.

I used Sinar in my own studio and for my own indoor work. But out in the field I had a lovely Horseman 985, and an odd duck - a Speed Graphic that had some limited rear swing/tilt capability - and the dual illuminated rangefinder focusing system for dark settings which did not require you look into a dark groundglass or rangefinder - you just pointed the camera and adjusted focus until you lined up the two light beams. I really miss that gear, though I do appreciate everything that digital has allowed me to do with my images.

`

@GrahamO .....

That discussion is pointless. He actually completely
grasps the principle but his universe spins on a tiny
rhetorical obsession.

I think he's also miffed cuz he thinks some know
nothing wannabee has gotten in his face ? He can
think what he wants. I noticed that both you and
he sorta "spieled" your resumes or "credentials" in
these recent posts. Well, I never did that, so he's
got that much more reason to thinking he dealing
with some armchair photo hero wannabee.

I don't spiel my creds cuz it tends to make some
folks defensive or competitive. Competitive ? What
I will say, is that I hadda compete with 3500 other
applicants for my job. Interview was pretty much
"Can you shoot glassware in the morning and hang
out of a chopper in the afternoon ?"

Have fun with Mr Shifty. I'm no longer amused by
that game. Too many extra innings.

.