Talk:View camera

Expensive?

I not sure a view camera is so expensive compared to a Leica or a High end Nikon or Canon (argentic or digital). For instance see http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=771827 for the camera and http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=1011922 for the lens. Ericd 20:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I meant relatively expensive compared to cameras as a whole. Anything compared to a Leica, High end Nikon, Alpa etc looks reasonable value. I was trying to suggest that they are not banged out in their millions by fifteen year old Chinese girls working 14 hour shifts! Nor did I mean they are bad value. But however you slice it an entry cost of £1000 compared to £20 for a compact and £150 for an SLR has got to be counted as something of a drawback. There are more expensive SLRs than £150 ones but then, there are more expensive view cameras than the Toyo! Monk Bretton 21:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they are no disposable view cameras :). You will use such an engine to have to have top quality. In fact a good view camera is cost effective compared to a top 35mm, a comparison with a digital SLR or a medium format camera like an Hasselblad will be much more disbalanced in favor of a view camera. BTW the Toyo is not the most expensive nor the cheapest but the Schneider is top glass I think you can get a Congo for 300-400 $.

Ericd 22:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed the article a little to focus more on the mass-produced/limited production thing. I agree they are reasonable value--particularly after looking on the internet at some weird types that aren't generally available here. But I still think cost ought to be mentioned. 95% of people when asked 'would you pay $1000 for a camera that didn't have autofocus?' Would give an emphatic 'No.' [Okay, I'm assuming that, I can't point to any peer reviewed research on the issue! :)] For what it's worth all the reviewers (all three of them!) on this website:[1] list 'cost' in the 'weaknesses' column. Perhaps a paragraph on the cost/value debate could be included. Monk Bretton 10:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Linhof, a brand known to be as cheap in it's category as Leica in 35mm. The Technika 23 is something different from a typical view camera : this the ultimate evolution of the Press camera concept you can use 120 rollfilms you can use it handheld you have scale focusing, a rangefinder, and an optical finder. You can make a reportage with a Technika while you can't do this with a Toyo. It's also worth to notice that the market for the Technika is very narrow, for those wanting to reduce costs, there are many used Speed Graphic with similar features at dirt price take a look at Ebay : http://search.ebay.com/speed-graphic_W0QQfromZR8QQsokeywordredirectZ1 even with CLA and a brand new Schneider or Nikon lens you can do the job for 25% of the price of the Technika.

Ericd 16:34, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not certian argentic is a widely accepted term for a film camera, I am certain that view cameras are both digital and film these days (especially with the stuff Sinar's been doing), so the term doesn't apply. Matt Gabriel 12:30, 15 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Press Cameras are indeed view cameras. I've yet to see a Speed Graphic or Technica without a ground glass and a wide array of movements. There are medium format press cameras, such as Koni-Omega and Mamiya, but they are visibly and operationally different. There are also large format cameras with no movements at all, such as SLRs, TLRs and fixed-focus aerial cameras - tho Press cameras are sometomes lumped in with this lot, they are very different, closer to field cameras than not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.120.156 (talk) 2:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Old adage

I get a chuckle out of the "old adage" as twisted toward view cameras: "f/64 and be there a half hour early." There's probably not a place for it in the article... but it's fun to put things like this on the discussion page. Fg2 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Film Sizes

There's a small error in the article concerning film sizes: 9x12 [cm] is not "equivalent" to 4x5 (or 5x4, if you prefer the backwards Brit way of naming things) inches: it's its own size, still available. Film holders made to take one size won't take the other. I know; I've shot both 4x5 and 9x12. So I'll fix this if there's no disagreement, OK?--66.52.186.111 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two portions of the lens

The article states, after introducing the Copal series of shutters, widely used for lenses in view cameras:

"The lens is designed to split into two pieces, the front and rear elements mounting to the shutter and lensboard."

More typically, with a Copal (or similar) shutter, the two portions of the lens (which might each comprise more than one element) are mounted to the front and rear of the shutter, which is itself mounted to the lens board.

If the rear portion is of large diamater, it must be mounted to the rear of the shutter after the shutter is mounted to the lens board.

The shutter (which usually includes the aperture iris) can thus quite properly be called a "between-the-lens shutter", a term that is actually broadly used to distinguish any shutter of the familiar type, located within the entire lens, from a "focal plane shutter".

--Doug Kerr 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo request

While this article is very well illustrated, a photo of a view camera would add to it. Ehn 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a victorian field camera and there is a nice Sinar in a local shop - will try to get some pictures. Justinc 12:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently created a color illustration for the dutch wikipedia: View Camera.svg, allthough it's not a photo it might be useable here too. DutchSnaily 13:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

This is a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Make No Name (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC) --Make No Name (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movements on small- and medium format cameras.

The assumption that tilt/shift and PC lenses for small cameras provide only limited adjustment is somewhat of a misnomer, especially with regard to tilt and swing. The current Canon and Nikon lenses provide tilts of 8° and 8.5°, respectively. With a 24 mm lens, a tilt of 8° puts the PoF rotation axis at 172 mm from the lens axis—that’s getting pretty close to the ground. Taking an equivalent picture with a 4×5 using a suitably scaled lens would require over 30° of tilt, which strikes me as quite a bit. I’ve left the statement as it was, but we might want to consider revising it. JeffConrad (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons compared to medium & 35mm formats

The section titled "Pros and cons compared to medium & 35mm formats" is making a systematic mistake: confusing View camera, which is a camera design, with Large format, which is a film size. There exist large format cameras that are not view cameras and view cameras that are not large format.

Several of the advantages and disadvantages listed, however, are about film format and not about the camera design. For example, "improved image quality for a print of a given size" is an advantage of large format, not of view cameras in general. 63.80.102.4 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Camera movements?

It's been noted that there's a fair amount of duplicated material among articles such as this one, Perspective control lens, Tilt-shift photography, some articles on individual lenses (e.g., Canon TS-E 24mm lens), and perhaps some others. I think there is much to be said for a real article on tilt/shift lenses; among other reasons, I think there's general agreement on what such lenses are, which I don't think can be said for “tilt-shift photography”. Such an article would of course necessarily increase the duplicated material.

What do people think about having a dedicated article on Camera movements that would be general enough to cover view cameras and tilt/shift lenses for medium- and small-format cameras? JeffConrad (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a lot of duplication with large format (photography). I think we should rationalise but I am not quite sure how to split it best. Maybe I will bring up on the project page. Justinc (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been raised again in Talk:Tilt-shift photography. I think “camera movements” is a better term than “tilt-shift photography”, which is in most cases a misnomer anyway. The neologism is usually used to describe software simulation of selective focus achieved by use of tilt and large aperture, supposedly to simulate a miniature scene (which it doesn’t really do, but it’s occasionally used to describe use of movements on small-format cameras. The difficulty, as you mention, is just what to split from what. JeffConrad (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More photo requests

I think it would be incredibly instructive to have several images of a single subject (building probably) taken under all the modified lens positions described in this article, to help illustrate the effects. Meekohi (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rise and fall

Figure a) in the section entitled Rise and fall is incorrect. The red rectangle should be centred within the image circle. As it is currently shown, figure a) illustrates fall, just as figure b) illustrates rise. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt

In the section entitled Tilt the sentence

By using the Scheimpflug principle, the "plane of sharp focus" can be changed so that any plane can be brought into sharp focus.

is meaningless. I see two errors. Firstly, the plane that has been "brought into sharp focus" is, by definition, the "plane of sharp focus". Secondly, it simply isn't true that any arbitrary plane can be brought into any kind of focus at all. There is an infinite number of planes that can not be brought into focus using the Scheimpflug principle. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why to love wikipedia: this article

I was thrilled to find this article with sections by 'tilt', 'shift', ... - almost a choreography for a dance photographer ('turn', 'dip', 'sweep' - I have assisted one at a Case-Western dance school in Cleveland shooting dance improv )

I so hope edits preserve this articles layout in that regard !

Just a great article to open while chatting with a young photographer about perspective and tilt-shift equipment.

142.167.169.192 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List

I moved this list from the lens section to talk: RJFJR (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current large format lens manufacturers:

Schneider Kreuznach - Price-no-object high quality lenses.
Nikon - Noted for its high quality telephoto designs. As of January 2006, Nikon announced it would discontinue manufacturing LF lenses.
Rodenstock - Extremely high quality, reasonably priced.
Fujinon - Has a strong presence in Asia.
Cooke - Interesting and expensive soft focus and color-corrected convertible lenses.
Congo - Budget lenses that offer interesting soft focus and telephoto designs.
Seagull/Shen-Hao/Sinotar - Chinese budget lenses.
Wisner - Offer a modern convertible Plasmat set.
Sinar - Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.
Caltar - Rebranded Rodenstock lenses.
Linhof - Rebranded Rodenstock and Schneider lenses.

Sinar arTec view camera

I'm not sure why the Sinar arTec deserves to be listed as a unique, separate type of view camera. It is essentially a digital field camera designed for architectural work. The list includes the general categories of view cameras (monorail, field, press and technical), which are generally accepted in recognized reference texts, e.g. in Adams' "The Camera". The only source I find for the uniqueness of the arTec is on the Sinar website, which seems to be more promotional (see: WP:NOTADVERTISING). I think the Sinar reference should be removed from the list of view camera types, and maybe put in a footnote. Any other input? Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be moved to Camera; I don't know what it is. - NewageEd (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I studied the manual and agree with you. The arTec should not have it's own category and we should not advertise/promote products until there is a change in Wikipedia policy to do so, we also should not generate descriptions based on grossly limited studies of sources. Deleted the promotional item. - NewageEd (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Process camera is missing

It seems like a fourth view camera type is the Process camera. It has been important to civilization throughout the 1900's, and they have a ground glass to compose and focus. It would be nice to find a useable picture of a big horizontal one that has a vacuum to hold the film in place, and a vacuum to hold the artwork to the copyboard. I don't know whether any of them have movements. What do others think? - NewageEd (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little about process cams and fiddled with the categorizations, plus a bit of technical clean-up. The intro naybe shouldn't limit view cameras to large format according to Henney, Ray, Shaman, etc. - NewageEd (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential misunderstanding of the term "large format"

The lead quotes a glossary entry from Naomi Rosenblum's book, A World History of Photography, that defines view camera to be large format. This seems inconsistent with other sources that don't include a format size in the description of view camera; but, Rosenblum doesn't define large format, so we don't know what minimum size she considers to be large format. The glossary doesn't seem to have had the high degree of care attributable to the various chapters of the book; perhaps the glossary was added by the publisher's (Abbeville Press) editorial staff. Other examples of unexpected definitions contained in the glossary include those for spectrum, which the glossary limits to visible light; and dodging, which the glossary limits to computer manipulation. After reading Rosenblum's book, my impression is that she did not intend 4x5 to be the minimum size, as is stated in the Wikipedia article on Large format and elsewhere. The View camera article could be improved if the direct quote is replaced by more precise wording that is consistent with multiple independent reliable secondary sources. I'd do it myself, but I'm 300 km from a suitable library; hopefully someone can help. For historical information regarding cameras, the art of photography, and the science of photography, Rosenblum's book seems to be a good reference, with a useful bibliography: However, glossary definitions seem weird and inconsistent with what I've seen in other sources.