Canon Patent Application: Motorized Tilt / Shift

[neuroanatomist]

What is niche for you is routine for others.

All too common that people seem to think their own wants/needs/use cases represent those of the majority. The prevalence of that attitude doesn’t make it less asinine.

 

[keithcooper]

The only time I damaged a TSE lens (24mm II), was when I stupidly dropped it in Jersey. I don't want to know how much more expensive it would have been to repair a motorized one. TBH, I want (as an amateur!!!!) neither motor, nor AF. A pro user will certainly disagree (wouldn't you, Keith?). But a 14-16mm shift (no zoom). Otherwise, as long as you don't brutalize a TSE, they are not fragile at all.

Ah, no, I'm fine with manual movements - I'd just like movements to be recorded in EXIF for post processing. Interesting to see that the recent Fuji T/S lenses [30/110] include this to some extent [at a price...]
I'm fine with the build of the current Canon lenses - then again I don't drive my own car the same as a rental ;-)

However I'd note that the US version of the patent is much easier to digest
I've put together this overview of what's in it - especially how the tilt and shift is achieved by orthogonal movement of internal lens elements

See

[15 mins]

The US PDF is at

https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/20230305294

 

[SwissFrank]

it's to simplify the shooting of panoramic images

But you can also just take a single frame of autofocus 30mm instead of two frames of manually-focused shifted 50mm and skip the entire stitch step. Or a frame of 14mm instead of two 24mm, etc. Or just swivel any lens on the camera and stitch those.

Buying a special tilt-shift lens is never going to be the "simple" way of doing anything.

I get that you like doing it and do it a fair amount. I've done it too, even back in the 90s when PhotoCD was the main way to get a scan of film, and I had to stitch manually in Photoshop 5.0. I get that it's fun. But it's not simple.

> Some people still require fairly large images, and can't crop too much.

Hard to image many sales or prints or what have you just absolutely cannot tolerate a mere 22MP and yet, are fine with the lower IQ such an image will have outside of 22mm radius. I don't recall ever seeing MTF charts for shift lenses that show how they perform out of the normal 22mm radius circle, nor a description of the vignetting.

> Sometimes you can't back-off enough.

You can't back off enough to use a trinity zoom at 0.6x the focal length of your shift lens? You shouldn't have to back off even a millimeter. Whoever told you the alternative is backing off is pulling your leg.

> And these images are easier to stitch

Not easier than a single image that doesn't need a stitch, no.

> Tilt allows to rotate the focus plane, but it's not magical - depends where those points are

Sigh, I never said it WAS magical. OF COURSE it depends on where the points are, but there are a huge number of compositions that should be within reach.

> What is niche for you is routine for others.

I'm going to call bullshit on that, or at least your strong implication that they BENEFIT by working like that. Show me a guy whose ROUTINE output is stitching shift images together and I'll show you a guy who doesn't realize he could get the exact same shot by cropping a normal shot from the same position with 0.6x or so of the focal length.



And more importantly, you aren't qualifying how many such shooters there are vs. my counterexample of how many photos need 2 or 3 points in focus.

 

[LDS]

But you can also just take a single frame of autofocus 30mm instead of two frames of manually-focused shifted 50mm and skip the entire stitch step. Or a frame of 14mm instead of two 24mm,

You need to carry around more lenses, and if you're already using a 17mm going wider is not so easy, or inexpensive.

Or just swivel any lens on the camera and stitch those.

You get a different kind of panorama. Of course there are different ways to achieve that - one uses what found more comfortable. You don't like it? Don't use it yourself.

Hard to image many sales or prints or what have you just absolutely cannot tolerate a mere 22MP and yet, are fine with the lower IQ such an image will have outside of 22mm radius.

Of course it won't satisfy pixel peepers like you. Lower IQ doesn't always mean "unacceptable IQ". Still, you are free to crop a little to remove the very edges of the image, id you don't like them. One is still enlarging the area where the best part of the lens image is used. It's also a way to get a larger field of view avoiding the edge distortions of shorter lenses - especially useful for interiors.

I wonder if you uses or used such lenses, though.

You can't back off enough to use a trinity zoom at 0.6x the focal length of your shift lens?

What "trinity" zoom lens should I use to get a 10mm or 14mm focal length? I decided not to buy the 11-24mm and buy the 17mm T-S instead, it's much more useful for me. If the RF version is shorter it could be welcome.

I use them mostly for architectural photography, and some spaces don't allow a great freedom of movement. It might be a window at the 30 floor, or a small balcony. It might be an interior shot. And still a "trinity zoom" doesn't have the other T/S features for "normal shots". Sometimes I don't travel with too many lenses.

Not easier than a single image that doesn't need a stitch, no.

True - but a single image may not achieve what you're looking for.

he could get the exact same shot by cropping a normal shot from the same position with 0.6x or so of the focal length.

See above... there are times I cropped an image that way - it's just another tool among the many one can use. Ditching one just because you don't like it doesn't look clever to me.

Anyway once you have automatic control of lens movements it takes very little to implement whatever tricks you like in firmware - be it for calculating the plane passing for three or more points (if it exists), or shifting to make panoramic images - can't see why Canon should not implement both if users can take advantage of them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder if you uses or used such lenses, though.

@SwissFrank talks a lot about things with which he has no direct experience. For things with which he does have experience, he assumes his experience is universal.

For example, from comparing his posted lens tests to those of testing sites (and my own anecdotal experience), it’s apparent he has a very poor copy of one lens (RF 24-105/4L). But rather than acknowledge that and get it serviced, he continues to conclude the lens’ performance generally is worse (his repeated statements that the RF 50/1.8 is optically better than the RF 24-105/4L).

What "trinity" zoom lens should I use to get a 10mm or 14mm focal length? I decided not to buy the 11-24mm and buy the 17mm T-S instead, it's much more useful for me. If the RF version is shorter it could be welcome.

Indeed. The mark of someone speaking from a lack of experience.

I have both the 11-24/4 and the TS-E 17. I use the latter more, especially since getting the RF 14-35/4. That lens gets criticized for requiring distortion correction at the wide end, but in comparing it to the 11-24/4 that needs no distortion correction at 13-14mm, I find that with DxO corrections the 14-35 has an FoV equivalent to ~13.5mm and the corners are as sharp as the 11-24.

Anyway once you have automatic control of lens movements it takes very little to implement whatever tricks you like in firmware - be it for calculating the plane passing for three or more points (if it exists), or shifting to make panoramic images - can't see why Canon should not implement both if users can take advantage of them.

Unfortunately, Canon has a long history of not implementing firmware features that should ‘take very little’. An obvious example is that the R5 shoots 20 fps in electronic shutter, when it should be very easy to implement lower fps options as many here are asking for.

 

[Z-06]

The fragile TS lenses are not Canon's, but Samyangs, since their TS actuation-gears are (used to be?) made of "engineering plastics".
Of course, as you wrote, if you overtighten the controls with sheer bestiality...
PS: tell your friend I'm sorry for her, I dropped mine too and know what it costs.

I agree Samyang's mechanism is plastic-fantastic. If we are talking about Samyang's fragility in the original post, honestly, why would Canon solve Samyang's problem? Where we believe these lenses will go price-wise, if coming to fruition, Samyang customers will not buy them.

It's not just the beast mode to tighten, it's how people twist and torque (pitch/yaw) the knobs while adjusting. The screw looses its straightness and beyond the point of curvature, you cannot shift or tilt anymore as the adjustment knob cannot traverse beyond that point. I have seen it more for shift than tilt, given the smaller screws/knobs.

I think she ended up paying $50 as her part, she was/is a long-time CPS Platinum member from film era. When the lens came back, it was as good as new. Canon does take really good care of such customers.

On a side note, to me, looks-wise, TS-E 17 is the most beautiful lens, an "engineer's art work".

 

[Del Paso]

I agree Samyang's mechanism is plastic-fantastic. If we are talking about Samyang's fragility in the original post, honestly, why would Canon solve Samyang's problem? Where we believe these lenses will go price-wise, if coming to fruition, Samyang customers will not buy them.

It's not just the beast mode to tighten, it's how people twist and torque (pitch/yaw) the knobs while adjusting. The screw looses its straightness and beyond the point of curvature, you cannot shift or tilt anymore as the adjustment knob cannot traverse beyond that point. I have seen it more for shift than tilt, given the smaller screws/knobs.

I think she ended up paying $50 as her part, she was/is a long-time CPS Platinum member from film era. When the lens came back, it was as good as new. Canon does take really good care of such customers.

On a side note, to me, looks-wise, TS-E 17 is the most beautiful lens, an "engineer's art work".

I paid about $900... Gaasp!