Yes, you can do LIMITED tilting and shifting With these speciality lenses but view cameras Allow much more shift/tilt/swings and with essentially All lenses you mount on the cameras (provided They have enough coverage, that's up to the buyer ). Never heard of the Zovod lenses, are they any good? jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Inet Shopper Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet > Sorry guys but you really cant do serious > Architechure with any pentax cameras or > Lenses because you need full camera movements > That only a view camera can provide for architecture. > Its amazing what you can do with a view for that. > jco I thought tilt/shift lenses were designed to perform perspective correction? According to this page: http://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/shift-tilt.html for Pentax K-mount cameras, there are shift and tilt/shift lenses available from: Pentax(!): SMC A 28mm f3.5 shift Schneider-Kreuznach: 28mm f2.8 shift, 35mm f4 shift (M42) Zavod Arsenal: 35mm f2.8 shift and tilt/shift, 80mm f2.8 tilt/shift Also, at: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/pentax_cameras_lenses.htm There are 2 Russian lenses of interest - a 35mm f2.8 tilt/shift, and an 80mm f2.8 tilt/shift. So it seems all is not lost for Pentax users. The Zavod Arsenal and Russian lenses at least offer tilt/shift which should correct fully for perspective, at least within their design limits. Disclaimer: I have never used a view camera, so there may indeed be adjustments possible with a view camera, that cannot be similarly achieved with a tilt/shift lens on an SLR. I will be happy to be corrected. But anyway I guess I don't qualify as a "serious" architecture photographer... I'm not too concerned about perspective correction - I usually just try to hold the camera level, and I sometimes use the perspective distortion for dramatic shots. I'm more concerned about wavy/barrel distortion. > In fact, all the "wide-to-normal" or "wide-to-small tele" zoom lenses that I > know show too much distortion for "serious" architecture photography. That is > also the case with the 16-45, judging from the photos I have seen and user > reports. But I also think that many zooms lenses are useful for that > kind of photography if the photographer understands their limitations > and can live with them, or is prepared to correct the shots in post > processing. > Carlos Thanks for the inputs. Most of my picture-taking is done while travelling, so a zoom is definitely more convenient than a bagful of lenses. As for architecture, here are some examples of "architecture" that I photograph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ If the link works, you can see that I don't shoot brick walls ;-) so if the wavy/barrel distortion is not too obvious, I'm OK. Normally, the limiting factor is me, not the equipment. And if the final budget dictates either the 16-45 alone, or the kit 18-55 plus one (used) fast lens, then I'm going with the latter. Benjamin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
