Blurr Background

[nimitzbenedicto]

+1
ww

Really? Against who. Don't see/hear anyone on the other side.

Stagecoach.

To me it has become obvious that continuing any dialogue with you on this subject is pointless as whatever is said you clearly attempt to twist and alter so obviously outside of its context.

WW:

it is becoming more apparently obvious that it is purposely wasting a lot of people's time acting for so long that this "No Brainer" wasn't understood and continuing to argue against these "No Brainer" facts.

Hehehe..... kiddin, jz kiddin......

[RobertsMx]

Manu,

Again you have attempted to read something totally different into what had been originally stated;

My post No 51 states "" My reference to 'achieve the same image frame' means that at both focal lengths (129mm and smaller say 40mm) I am filling the frame with the same subject composition height and to achieve this I had to move in closer to my subject. """

There was simply no assumption or specific calculation made using the figure of 40mm FL. It clearly states 'say 40mm' The reason for giving a numerical figure was to assist you in understanding that the FL was being reduced (widened). I also suspect that you fully understand that this example figure could have been 40,50,60,70 or 80mm which would all have been applicable to supporting the facts.


To me it has become obvious that continuing any dialogue with you on this subject is pointless as whatever is said you clearly attempt to twist and alter so obviously outside of its context.

Again, are you sure you can have f/3.4 at 40mm in that specific camera? If you're, then yes, you CAN get a shallower DoF by getting closer. If not, then re-think and re-calculate.

And there is no twist in the argument. It is as straightforward as it can be. I trust you to not be able to provide any sample that would debunk my points, like one I made on difference in background blur between a wide angle lens and telephoto. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, you're right... it would be pointless to further this discussion.

[RobertsMx]

NO.

Again that is a complete nonsense and simply another made up story.

There was a difference in the BACKGROUND noted between image #2 and image #3 and they should have been the SAME FIELD of VIEW.

Having a belief is one thing. Having a logical argument is another. And this is where you miss the point:

And the difference noted between image #1 and image #3 was the Camera elevation and referenced the Tiles Pattern - not about the background.

One way to prove me wrong would be for you to post two images, one taken at telephoto FL and another at wide angle, keeping subject size and DoF constant. Can you do that? Let me see it.

If that is so:
then it is becoming more apparently obvious that it is purposely wasting a lot of people's time acting for so long that this "No Brainer" wasn't understood and continuing to argue against these "No Brainer" facts.

It does require "no brainer" to make assumption that 40mm f/3.4 is possible in the camera. Is it?

[William W]

Manu,

The Logic; Knowledge of Photographic Theory and Practice; the Expression and Articulation of the written word used to impart the aforementioned Logic and Knowledge, which have been expressed by you on this thread: exceed both my Capacities and also my Understandings.

Accordingly, as others have also chosen so to do, I withdraw from this conversation with you.

[RobertsMx]

Manu,

The Logic; Knowledge of Photographic Theory and Practice; the Expression and Articulation of the written word used to impart the aforementioned Logic and Knowledge, which have been expressed by you on this thread: exceed both my Capacities and also my Understandings.

Accordingly, as others have also chosen so to do, I withdraw from this conversation with you.

Conversation? Unfortunately, your beliefs on the subject is also maintained by many others here. Keep those calculators aside and take images, post, and study them. Hint: macro lenses will come in handy here, especially since you can't grasp the idea that magnification (subject size) is not tied to FoV which is tied to focal length.

You can get a 1:1 magnification of a subject on a 50mm macro lens, as you can on a 200mm macro lens. When you start believing that you are now getting the same field of view, it is time to rethink. Its not magic that you will end up concluding that now a 200mm lens has the same field of view as a 50mm lens.