Focal length, focus distance, and depth of field

[SoonerBJJ]

If you don't know the correct terminology then perhaps your assertions also bear closer scrutiny.

I have to acknowledge the irony of someone making a thread professing to bring light to the forum's "confusion" on a certain subject when it seems the OP is just as confused.

I, for one, am grateful for those who stepped in to give some clarification to an obviously complex subject.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

BTW I think rigorous peer review is good for the forum.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Of course it is good. That's why I made the thread. There aren't enough people in the world who questions commonly held beliefs. I found out what I expected. If you guys don't like the results, I just won't share next time.

 

[inTempus]

Robert, you're not only wrong but your insistence that you're right despite ample evidence debunking your false premises is somewhat aggravating to others (or so it would seem).

I know Derrel is a pain in the rear end, and he's often times flat out wrong or makes up "facts" out of thin air... but in this instance he's actually right.

Why don't you do some of your own more exhaustive testing vs. waiting on someone else to prove you wrong? You seem to have the time and interest in doing it. I think you might be surprised by what you find. If someone else shows you to be wrong, given your attitude in the thread thus far, you'll probably just dismiss their post.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Robert, you're not only wrong but your insistence that you're right despite ample evidence debunking your false premises is somewhat aggravating to others (or so it would seem).

I know Derrel is a pain in the rear end, and he's often times flat out wrong or makes up "facts" out of thin air... but in this instance he's actually right.

Why don't you do some of your own more exhaustive testing vs. waiting on someone else to prove you wrong? You seem to have the time and interest in doing it. I think you might be surprised by what you find. If someone else shows you to be wrong, given your attitude in the thread thus far, you'll probably just dismiss their post.

I'm confused. Can you give me an instance of where I was wrong? I tested something and came out with the result that I expected. Darrel things I am wrong because he is missing my point completely. I am sure that is due in part to my inability to communicate my point clearly, and also to his misreading what I am saying. I am losing interest in trying to tell him that we're both saying the same thing in different ways.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

I tested something IN ORDER TO COME out with the result that I expected.

I corrected this statement for you.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I tested something IN ORDER TO COME out with the result that I expected.

I corrected this statement for you.

Hey, if it weren't true, I wouldn't have been able to do it.

 

[inTempus]

Robert, therein lies the problem. Your mistakes have been explained ad nauseum by several other posters but you don't seem to register what they have tried to explain. I'm sure my jumping in and repeating what they've said will be of little benefit.

Just trust that you're assumptions and conclusions are wrong.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Robert, therein lies the problem. Your mistakes have been explained ad nauseum by several other posters but you don't seem to register what they have tried to explain. I'm sure my jumping in and repeating what they've said will be of little benefit.

Just trust that you're assumptions and conclusions are wrong.

Sorry, but I'll trust my actual data long before I'll trust anyone on the internet.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Sorry, but I'll trust my actual data long before I'll trust anyone on the internet.

:lmao:

Dude, you are on the internets, and therefore, you shouldn't trust yourself.

:lmao:

 

[robertwsimpson]

Sorry, but I'll trust my actual data long before I'll trust anyone on the internet.

:lmao:

Dude, you are on the internets, and therefore, you shouldn't trust yourself.

:lmao:

oh crap, you're right

 

[inTempus]

Robert, therein lies the problem. Your mistakes have been explained ad nauseum by several other posters but you don't seem to register what they have tried to explain. I'm sure my jumping in and repeating what they've said will be of little benefit.

Just trust that you're assumptions and conclusions are wrong.

Sorry, but I'll trust my actual data long before I'll trust anyone on the internet.

And it's exactly that attitude that makes trying to help you an utterly futile endeavor.

So, continue to be wrong. Just do yourself (and the other noobs out there) a favor and not preach to them about what you think you know about DoF and get them all twisted around with their understanding of such important concepts.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Robert, therein lies the problem. Your mistakes have been explained ad nauseum by several other posters but you don't seem to register what they have tried to explain. I'm sure my jumping in and repeating what they've said will be of little benefit.

Just trust that you're assumptions and conclusions are wrong.

Sorry, but I'll trust my actual data long before I'll trust anyone on the internet.

And it's exactly that attitude that makes trying to help you an utterly futile endeavor.

So, continue to be wrong. Just do yourself (and the other noobs out there) a favor and not preach to them about what you think you know about DoF and get them all twisted around with their understanding of such important concepts.

You should probably just put me on your ignore list

 

[Overread]

I wish you lot would learn to debate rather than just keep sniping at each other. It gets very wearing reading though threads where its only sniping at each other rather than a proper healthy debate (as such its taking me a while to get through this thread)

A quick observation though is could you repeat the test where this time you shoot a subject away from the minimum focusing distance of the lens and keep the camera to subject distance and the aperture but vary the focal length.

 

[kundalini]

A little humility goes a l-o-n-g way