Depth of Field on the M43 is in fact better not worse.....

Started May 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
ChrisDM
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,095
Like?
The intended...
In reply to Ron Parr, May 28, 2012

Because in practical terms, that information only confuses the subject for the average beginner. Being a great teacher means understanding the student as well as the subject. To prove you understand the topic beyond the scope of the intended's target only serves your ego, not the intended student.

Ron Parr wrote:

ChrisDM wrote:

Are you kidding? in the world ??? Did you miss the part where the OP states that he wrote this article for the beginner to begin to grasp these concepts as they relate to photography? And you want to nitpick the definition of DOF to that level? He's not writing an scientific optics textbook. Once again it is for the beginner to grasp the concept. And his definition does that just fine, in fact better than yours.

I wasn't kidding when I offered the correct definition of DOF.

His definition is totally wrong in ways that are obvious and could certainly confuse a novice:

  • It states that DOF is a part of the image (area) instead of a depth (linear dimension) despite the fact that the D in DOF means depth.

  • If DOF is an area measured in the image, then DOF is never larger than the size of the image. If you print an image a 4x6 inches, then DOF can be at most 24 square inches no matter what the photograph is of.

What could be more confusing to a beginner than a definition that both refers both to wrong place and to the wrong units? How could a beginner reconcile common statements about DOF extending to infinity with this definition - an infinite sized print?

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
:-)New
:-)New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow