I don't disagree with what you have said, Moose, but the conditions under
which it holds true need to be emphasized. I think John Lind summarised it
pretty well (and subtly differently) at the beginning of April:
Quote
[...] you must [...] consider:
(a) how much you will enlarge the images
(b) the distance at which you will view them
Apparent depth of field is dependent on both of the above . . . along with
focal length, critical focus distance and lens aperture. Depth of field is
a phenomenon of human vision and its acuity limits.
End quote
--
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Moose
Sent: 08 June 2005 11:20
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Apertures, where is f22 ?
swisspace wrote:
>This is where I hope my investment in the 180f2 comes into it's own,
>the
> 180F2 is also a macro lens well it goes to 1:2 . now on the E-1 it
>becomes a 360f2 macro and with the 1.4x teleconvertor a 500f2.8 macro.
>
>So if my theory is correct you should get a deeper depth of field for a
>given subject, although after just writing this down I am not so
>convinced this will be the case, First thing I will be trying though,
>when my adapter arrives.
>
>
Sorry, the same subject area, shot with the same actual focal length and
aperture and displayed and viewed at the same size, will have the same DOF.
--snip
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|