> From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I guess it is impossible for me to prove
> my point because no matter what I do to present it you aren't going to
> buy it.
As a lurker in this discussion, perhaps I missed it, but I've seen a
lot of passionate arguments why individuals *think* the DoF for lenses
of identical focal ratio and reproduction ratio should or should not
be the same, but what I would like to see is some research and
literature citations as to why the DoF should differ.
Having studied -- and taught -- this stuff for a long time, all my
research indicates the DoF depends *solely* upon the focal ratio and
reproduction ratio. Period. That leads me to agree that any other
perceived difference in DoF is an aberration -- in other words, the
lens that appears to have less DoF is simply softer, or has different
bokeh, or has some other distortion coming into play.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but having a reference citation
in the optics literature would go a long way toward convincing me!
----------------
If you don't have confidence in the diagnosis, you won't have
confidence in the prescription. -- Stephen R. Covey
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|