In this study, we compared the alteration of test positions according to various test equipments when testing shoulder joint superoinferior axial to estimate the clinical usefulness of tiltable standing detector. Our objectives were patients who visited our hospital. Among them we chose patients who were prescribed to get a shoulder axial test, again we selected 30 patients whose abduction is more than 90 degree.(2008. Nov.$sim$2009 Jan.) With the patients cooperation, we used CR(Agfa, Belgium), fixed-detector(Canon, japan), Tiltable-detector(Philips, Netherlands). Tested with only one equipment(tiltable detector), and posed with the other two. We surveyed 5 inspectors and 30 patients, asking them to rate the convenience of test position. Also, we checked how long it takes to have the image appear on screen after testing with the equipment We provided a standard for an assessment of the image to an expert in bone radiology, an orthopedist and a radiologist with 5 years experience. When the patients were asked about the convenience of the equipments, 15 people(50%) answered CR is convenient and 14 people(46.7%) answered the Tilting detector is convenient, showing not much difference. However, when the inspectors were asked the same question, 4people(80%) out of 5 answered that the Tilting detector is more convenient The time test showed that CR takes 2 minutes and 50 seconds, the Fixed detector 1minute and 48 seconds andor had no distortion showing the shoulder joint space. However, even though the Fixed detector showed ac the Tilting detector takes 1 minute and 43 seconds to bring the image to the screen after the position. The results of the value of image taken by each equipment, CR and the Tilting detectromion, coracoid process, due to the unstable pose, they were quite distorted and scored poor in observing glenoid fossa. By this study, we can see that testing the shoulder joint superoinferior axial projection with a detector that has a tilting device would be more convenient than testing it with a CR.