Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Oh god please no! Not DOF again
From: John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:23:41 -0700
References: <47A5E9D4-60DD-11D8-AAF0-0050E42E6E0B@shaw.ca> <005801c3f508$c6f38f20$6501a8c0@jbilinsk>

I by and large can see no disagreement between him and myself. Can you 
be a bit more direct. He does go to great length to discuss the 
perceived DOF differences between focal lengths but is often found to 
be simply comparing objects at different magnifications. As I stated, 
if you change the magnification, you change the perceived DOF.

John Collier

On Feb 16, 2004, at 8:47 PM, Jacques Bilinski & Barbara Bradbury wrote:

>>
>> 2) actual object magnification
>
>>
>> 2) This takes into account focal length, focused distance, enlargement
>> and viewing distance.
>>
>
>>
>> Oh how I dread the inevitable rebuttals. Please, please, please do 
>> your
>> research before you open your mouth and prove yourself an...
>>
>
> You were right about the rebuttals.
>  http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html
> The website states: "To a first approximation, on the assumption that 
> the
> F-number is kept the same, the DOF will not depend on the focal length.
> However, a closer examination reveals that this is too simple a 
> statement
> which does not always hold."
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Jacques Bilinski & Barbara Bradbury" <jbilin@axionet.com> (Re: [Leica] Oh god please no! Not DOF again)
In reply to: Message from John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca> ([Leica] Oh god please no! Not DOF again)
Message from "Jacques Bilinski & Barbara Bradbury" <jbilin@axionet.com> (Re: [Leica] Oh god please no! Not DOF again)