Previous discussions http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/63697/
in response to Dean Allchin's 4X5 view camera work in A.net were very interesting. As Ckw pointed out, in addition to the great detail found in Dean's images, perspective control (PC) made possible with this type of camera made a huge difference in viewing quality. In 35mm photography, this capability can be obtained through the use of the "shift lens" to which Colin alluded.
Shift lenses (shift-tilt, in some cases) were produced by most of the major manufacturers in the mid-1970s. Even Minolta, the marque I use, produced a 35mm f2.8 shift lens. In the case of the Minolta Rokkor lens, it also had VFC, which was a corrective feature that you could employ when photographing curved objects, similar, I suspect, to the way that high-end slide projectors use curved-field lenses to correct for curvature of a slide in a non-glass mount.
As we have seen with recent queries about non-aviation photography, most of us do indeed press the shutter release when the lens is occasionally oriented away from the boundary fence. What I am getting at here is I know for certain now that I would have taken many more images over the years if I had purchased one of those (expensive) shift lenses a long time ago.
Among the reasons I took fewer of these other images is the distorted look of buildings through non-shift lenses. The diminishing point (remember that from art class?) appears to be about 20 meters above the building. The same is true of photography in forested areas, where the trees appear to be leaning away from the photographer at an exaggerated angle. There is an entire generation of locomotive photographers that grew up on perspective-distorted 3/4 front images of their chunky subject matter.
Photographers today are on the cusp of the digital photography age, and represent the market for future digital photography products. We are in a position to influence the manufacturers while preventing the errors of the previous generation. Digital photography manufacturers should privide products that integrate perspective correction. Electronic image manipulation in the camera is undoubtedly the way to go because all of the camera's resolution can be dovoted to a "corrected" image. I do not think a "photoshop-corrected" image is produced in this manner, and besides, it would take less time to set the camera up prior to exposure to get the desired end result than it would by sitting in front of the monitor doing it post-exposure.
I see this as a great time for the photographer, who can make his/her product requirements known now, and spend less time in the future making statements like mine that start with, "I wish I had......"