Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10258352 « Oly 24/2.8 vs. Canon 24L TS-E II »

  

RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
N/A


Toothwalker wrote:Uuhhm ....

Perspective is determined by the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. The subject distance is the distance from the subject to the front principal plane of the lens. A change of lens can alter both, regardless of possible changes of the focal length.



Thank you ... someone who actually knows what they are talking about ... yet more importantly, actually READS and THINKS about what was written before casting boulders of superiority and ineptness.

The build of a TS-E with its additional movements of T&S between the film plane and the entrance pupil (and the front principal plane) places them both closer to the subject than that of a 'conventional' similar focal length lens, although the film plane/camera position remained exactly the same (not simply "claimed"). Despite the rhetoric suggesting of my inept understanding of optical theory, the gross insistence that perspective is dependent upon the film plane position and independent of the optics involved suggests otherwise.

When I get "untorqued", I'll do a re-shoot. If any one would like to objectively suggest how I construct the re-shoot in such a way that my "ineptness" doesn't impede the value of such a comparison ... owing to the PHYSICAL AND OPTICAL differences of a T&S vs. conventional, I'll try to accommodate such objectivity into the re-shoot, i.e. should I align the entrance pupil, front plane, or AOV as the methodology for constructing an 'equitable' comparison. We've obviously seen that the 'film plane' is NOT (although typical) the appropriate methodology for constructing such an equitable comp between the T&S vs. conventional ... so what is?

Thanks for your input regarding this matter.






Jan 18, 2012 at 02:04 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
N/A


Toothwalker wrote:Uuhhm ....

Perspective is determined by the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. The subject distance is the distance from the subject to the front principal plane of the lens. A change of lens can alter both, regardless of possible changes of the focal length.



Thank you ... someone who actually knows what they are talking about ... yet more importantly, actually READS and THINKS about what was written before casting boulders of superiority and ineptness.

The build of a TS-E with its additional movements of T&S between the film plane and the entrance pupil (and the front principal plane) places them both closer to the subject than that of a 'conventional' similar focal length lens, although the film plane/camera position remained exactly the same (not simply "claimed"). Despite the rhetoric suggesting of my inept understanding of optical theory, the inistence that perspective is dependent upon the film plane position and independent of the optics involved suggests otherwise.

When I get "untorqued", I'll do a re-shoot. If any one would like to objectively suggest how I construct the re-shoot in such a way that my "ineptness" doesn't impede the value of such a comparison ... owing to the PHYSICAL AND OPTICAL differences of a T&S vs. conventional, I'll try to accommodate such objectivity into the re-shoot, i.e. should I align the entrance pupil, front plane, or AOV as the methodology for constructing an 'equitable' comparison. We've obviously seen that the 'film plane' is NOT (although typical) the appropriate methodology for constructing such an equitable comp between the T&S vs. conventional ... so what is?

Thanks for your input regarding this matter.






Jan 18, 2012 at 02:03 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
N/A


Toothwalker wrote:Uuhhm ....

Perspective is determined by the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. The subject distance is the distance from the subject to the front principal plane of the lens. A change of lens can alter both, regardless of possible changes of the focal length.



Thank you ... someone who actually knows what they are talking about ... yet more importantly, actually READS and THINKS about what was written before casting boulders of superiority and ineptness.

The build of a TS-E with its additional movements of T&S between the film plane and the entrance pupil (and the front principal plane) places them both closer to the subject than that of a 'conventional' similar focal length lens, although the film plane/camera position remained exactly the same (not simply "claimed"). Despite the rhetoric suggesting of my inept understanding of optical theory, the inistence that perspective is dependent upon the film plane position and independent of the optics involved suggests otherwise.

When I get "untorqued", I'll do a re-shoot. If any one would like to objectively suggest how I construct the re-shoot in such a way that my "ineptness" doesn't impede the value of such a comparison ... owing to the PHYSICAL AND OPTICAL differences of a T&S vs. conventional, I'll try to accommodate such objectivity into the re-shoot, i.e. should I align the entrance pupil, front plane, or AOV as the methodology for constructing an 'equitable' comparison. We've obviously seen that the 'film plane' is NOT (although typical) the appropriate methodology for constructing such an equitable comp between the T&S vs. conventional, so what is?

Thanks for your input regarding this matter.






Jan 18, 2012 at 02:01 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: N/A


Toothwalker wrote:
wickerprints wrote:
And what I tried to explain to you is that the physical length of the lens does not affect the perspective. It is the distance from the object to the plane of focus (i.e., the sensor) that affects the perspective.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the difference in the field of view between the two images is due to the larger size of one lens. And what I am telling you is that this belief is entirely false.

The question was asked why it showed two different position/perspectives. The answer is simply that one lens is three inches longer than the other and thereby, while shot from the exact same film plane/camera position, the working distances are different and have yielded a different perspective.

NO. This is incorrect, as I explained in my previous post. The working distance does not relate to perspective; it is the SUBJECT distance--the distance from the focal plane to the object in focus--that relates to the perspective. Because, as you claim, the camera body was not moved between lens changes, the conclusion is that the focal length of the system could not be the same if the resultant framing from each lens is different. The difference in framing has nothing to do with one lens being larger than the other. I cannot stress this enough.


Uuhhm ....

Perspective is determined by the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. The subject distance is the distance from the subject to the front principal plane of the lens. A change of lens can alter both, regardless of possible changes of the focal length.



Thank you ... someone who actually knows what they are talking about ... yet more important actually READS and THINKS about what was written before casting stones of superiority and ineptness.

The build of a TS-E with its additional movements of T&S between the film plane and the entrance pupil (and the front principal plane) places them both closer to the subject than that of a 'conventional' similar focal length lens, although the film plane/camera position remained exactly the same (not simply "claimed"). Despite the rhetoric suggesting of my inept understanding of optical theory, the inistence that perspective is dependent upon the film plane independent of the optics involved suggests otherwise.




Jan 18, 2012 at 01:49 PM



  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10258352 « Oly 24/2.8 vs. Canon 24L TS-E II »