Ebony asymmetric tilts

[David A. Goldfarb]

My main camera is a Sinar P, which has assymetric tilts and swings. The problem with variable axes is, how do you know what the axis really is? With a fixed system, you can have a dotted line on the ground glass. That said, don't the Toyo Robos have variable axes? If so, maybe someone with first hand knowledge will chime in on how well this works. I love the assymmetric movements.

I also have a Sinar P and like the asymmetric movements. I think the Linhof Master GTL has variable asymmetric movements. I haven't used one first hand, but I think the idea is this--

On a Sinar P, what if the area that happens to fall on the dotted line isn't a part of the scene where you want the plane of focus to be? The solution on the Sinar P is to apply rise/fall/shift to move the dotted line to a more convenient place, determine the tilt or swing angle, and then recompose by applying the opposite rise/shift/fall. If you had variable asymmetric movements, you could move the tilt or swing axis anywhere on the groundglass, so you wouldn't have to recompose. Seems like a handy thing for studio still life.

[timothyhyde]

I have had three Ebonys, each assymetric, and think the weight gain is not appreciable. I do love the ease of focus however and wouldn't be without the feature. The mahogany is definatly lighter: my 5x7 mahogany is definately lighter than my recently-sold SV45U2E interestingly enough.

[Colin Graham]

On a Sinar P, what if the area that happens to fall on the dotted line isn't a part of the scene where you want the plane of focus to be? The solution on the Sinar P is to apply rise/fall/shift to move the dotted line to a more convenient place, determine the tilt or swing angle, and then recompose by applying the opposite rise/shift/fall. If you had variable asymmetric movements, you could move the tilt or swing axis anywhere on the groundglass, so you wouldn't have to recompose. Seems like a handy thing for studio still life.

That's what I was thinking...but maybe it would be too fussy and ultimately bulky on a flatbed. Probably something better left to a monorail. Thanks.

[Campbell]

Steve Hamley said:

"Asymmetric movements don't cost $1,000+ on the 4x5 models. The difference at Badger Graphic between a SV45U and a SV45TE is $500."

That's not a valid comparison. The 45U is a non-folding camera, totally different from the SV45Te or the SV45U2. Comparing apples to apples (i.e. folding cameras that are basically identical except for the presence of the asymetrical back) the cost of the asymetrical back is exactly $1000 (Badger price for SV45Te $2,895, SV45U2 $3,895). I owned the SV45Te and the SV45Ti, both were disappointments and I sold them so that I could get back to the Linhof Master Technika I mistakenly sold to buy the Ebonys.

[Steve Hamley]

It's $3,395, for the SV45U, not $3,895. The difference is $500.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/c...uct_list&c=108

I never mentioned a 45U. The SV45U is a folding camera; that's what "V" means in the Ebony model designation.

The SV45U2 costs $500 more because it has rear shift and so is not a direct comparison with the SV45U or SV45Te, neither of which have rear shift. The SV45U2 does cost $500 more than the SV45U because of the rear shift; both have asymetric rear movements. So yes, the SV45U2 does cost $1,000 more than the SV45Te, $500 for the asymmetric movements and $500 more for the rear shift.

Steve

[Campbell]

It's $3,395, for the SV45U, not $3,895. The difference is $500.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/c...uct_list&c=108

I never mentioned a 45U. The SV45U is a folding camera; that's what "V" means in the Ebony model designation.

The SV45U2 costs $500 more because it has rear shift and so is not a direct comparison with the SV45U or SV45Te, neither of which have rear shift. The SV45U2 does cost $500 more than the SV45U because of the rear shift; both have asymetric rear movements. So yes, the SV45U2 does cost $1,000 more than the SV45Te, $500 for the asymmetric movements and $500 more for the rear shift.

Steve

You're correct, my apologies. One of these days I'll learn to be more careful in sorting through all the S, SVs, SUs, Tes, etc. in Ebonys extensive line.

[Curt]

What I want to know, besides how great they are, is what formulation, physics, design, determination, or other method determines the placement of the dotted line on the ground glass. The back tilts at a specific point and the gg lines are on a specific path. It's hard to believe this was an arbitrary layout. Some math must have gone into it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I suspect it's more an aesthetic judgment than a mathematical one, having to do with the question of how much headroom does one typically need at the top of the image (bottom of the groundglass). And I guess if you shoot covers for a culinary magazine with a long title, always requiring a lot of headroom, you're just always compensating for that.

[Curt]

Thanks David,
I began to suspect that it was the case. I spent some time online researching this and I always came up with up with a description of what it is rather than a mathematical formulation. I'm building an 11x14 camera and thought about using asymmetrical tilts and incorporating them into the design. The only physically identifical features on existing cameras are the location of the pivot point and the lines on the ground glass. Recreating the feature is problematic. There's no formulation to follow except to make an optical bench and use trial and error. It looks like base tilts for this one.

Curt