Are Shift Lenses Still Useful?

HAND.

My Pentax K-1 allows shifting the sensor to mimic a shift lens. The lens must cover the shift. There is less shift than a shift lens. I need to use it more.
Thanks,
barondla

Yes, sure the lens is a 24mm with a bigger image circle mathematically. But, I wanted a simple paragon to explain how a shift lens works.

You seem to have some sort of phobia regarding shift lenses, judging by your replies so far. Why is most professional Architectural photography done with these lenses? Do the experts know less than you do? The answer is easy. Composing and getting it right in the the viewfinder, LCD, or tethered computer makes for better more confident composition, which I guess is something we all aim for.

Shift lenses are usually much better corrected for distortion, compared to regular lenses, so adapting MF lenses is a doubtful bodge at best.

If you have ever done any Architectural photography, "fiddling with knobs" is just a minor time waster. The biggest "time waster" is getting the right viewpoint, followed by setting up the tripod and levelling the camera. But the biggest time waster of all, is travel to and from a site.

This set took me about four hours to complete, with everything shot with a tripod underneath the camera. It was an enjoyable relaxing experience.

Which 4 x 5 field camera is smaller and lighter than the largest and heaviest tilt/shift lens?

HAND.

HAND.

Of course a 4 x 5 field camera will produce superior images! But you're dodging the original question.

But 5x4 film costs a fortune now, so it is not very practical. Digital capture has opened up so many possibilities.

Just like the tourists who entered whilst I was there, who spent literally three minutes in the building, a quick picture with the cell phone, crossed it off their bucket list I quess, and walked out without really having seeing anything. Not even bothering to stop and look at the incredible decorated pulpit.

HAND.

No doubt about that! But I was disputing the claim that a 4 x 5 field camera with full adjustments is less "clunky" and lighter than a tilt/shift lens.

Having used a 5x4 camera, that goes without saying. Just think about loading all those film holders. Then viewing the dim ground glass screen with a magnifier. Just to finish, inserting the film holders and pulling out the protection, and then remembering to cover the film ant the end of the exposure. That is all without the levelling eccetera.

Computational Photography: rubbish in, rubbish out.

Okay, I'm sorry for missing the substance of your explanation. Just one more thing, and I don't mean to niggle, but I think this is relevant. Usually you are actually moving the lens and not the sensor. If you mount the lens to the tripod and then move the camera, then you are moving the sensor. This can be relevant because when you move the sensor rather than the lens it avoids ever so slightly changing the AOV, and that can sometimes be an issue when you are focusing close-up and stitching.

That's probably one of the factors that has kept me from ever buying a shift lens; the fact that there is no tripod thread hole on the optical side of the shift, on any of the lenses that I looked at photos of. That just seems completely absurd to me.

Pity it only exists for that one lens. Although Laowa have one for the 15mm Zero D shift.

I just use an angle bracket as I am only interested in panoramas, with my shift lenses.

The Schneider 50 f/2.8 PC-TS Super Angulon (now discontinued) has a 360° rotating tripod mount, the chief reason I chose mine over the 45mm Nikkor T/S. I shoot a lot of verticals, and use 50mm often - it's a joy not to have to flop over the whole heavy camera/lens combination on the tripod. I use tilt more than shift. Lenses such as Zeiss Otus 55 and 85mm f/1.4 would benefit from a tripod mount, in my personal opinion.