Confused about the Circle of Confusion ... It's one of those things you either get, or you don't ... and, I guess, I don't ... can anyone shed some light on it for those of us who may...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

It's one of those things you either get, or you don't ... and, I guess, I don't ... can anyone shed some light on it for those of us who may be confused on the issue?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Too deep for me to worry about. I'll just rely on the lens reviews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

DTran

If you ever find out let me know Chris. I think the circle of confusion was invented to confuse you?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DTran wrote:

If you ever find out let me know Chris. I think the circle of confusion was invented to confuse you?

Oh, I don't think so, D ... it's been around a lot longer than I have ... (and that's saying a lot!)

Some things do confuse me, I must admit ....

I guess I get comfuwzd far too easily ....

What can I say, D?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Longshadow wrote:

Too deep for me to worry about. I'll just rely on the lens reviews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Thanks for the link, Bill ...

Had a feeling Wiki may've covered it ...

Hopefully, they explained it in a way I can understand ...

Math was never my strong suit ... I put 4 and 4 together, and I get 44 ... oh, well!!! ....

DTran

Chris T wrote:

Oh, I don't think so, D ... it's been around a lot longer than I have ... (and that's saying a lot!)

Some things do confuse me, I must admit ....

I guess I get comfuwzd far too easily ....

What can I say, D?

Oh I didn't mean to confuse just you but I thought it was invented to confuse all.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Chris T wrote:

Had a feeling Wiki may've covered it ...

Hopefully, they explained it in a way I can understand ...

All you had to do was Google "circle of confusion" You are not getting much feedback here because nearly everyone knows to do that first.

Your second option is to use the UHH search link.

Starting a new thread should be your third choice.

If you do your research in that order you are less likely to tick off so many members.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DTran wrote:

Oh I didn't mean to confuse just you but I thought it was invented to confuse all.

Invented, huh, D?

C of C - I see here - was first stipulated by Henry Coddington in 1829 ... that beats me by a hundred plus years!!!

And, since, that date goes back to right about the time the first real camera came to light ... I'm not really surprised ....

There had to be someone around to explain DoF and maximum sharpness, and all that, huh?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

selmslie wrote:

All you had to do was Google "circle of confusion" You are not getting much feedback here because nearly everyone knows to do that first.

Your second option is to use the UHH search link.

Starting a new thread should be your third choice.

If you do your research in that order you are less likely to tick off so many members.

Scotty ... a) I had already looked at the Wiki page ... all I came away with so far, is that the C of C on a Nikon 1 series dig cam is .011mm and an 8x10 is .22mm ....

Actually, I kinda had the suspicion it was something like that. But, here's the kicker - the C of C on a 6x17 MF camera is even greater than a 4x5 .... Go Figure!!!

b) Those search links here at UHH always drop out, for me (dial-up) ... and, anyway ... I am being prevented from answering on other people's threads ....

c) If I am "ticking off" so many members, as you put it ... surely, that's THEIR problem, and not mine, Scotty ....

d) I am committed to posting two new Topic Posts a day ... if I sometimes cover "old ground" - so be it. Let me remind you - there are new members, daily ....

DTran

You're a well disciplined person Chris to commit to 2 new threads a day. I thought you just post a new thread whenever you had an idea regardless of how many. Sticking to a specific number of threads requires tremendous discipline on your part.

JosephSF Loc: Sonoma County CA

This should clear it up for you.

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/dof/dof.htm#DoF_with_Macro_Photography

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DTran wrote:

You're a well disciplined person Chris to commit to 2 new threads a day. I thought you just post a new thread whenever you had an idea regardless of how many. Sticking to a specific number of threads requires tremendous discipline on your part.

Well, thank you, D ... how very kind of you to say/write that ... I get so few complimentary comments ... so many commenters are so disparaging ....

After a while, I have all I can deal with from those members, and add them to Ignore ....

In the beginning ... I did do it that way - just do a new one every time I thought of something ... but then I looked at those early ones (September) and realized there were far too many. After my two-week suspension (late October) I promised everyone I'd only post two new threads a day, and so far, I've kept to that. Some have value ... some are throwaways ... all I could think of, in the wee small - you know? ... I try and do them overnight, so there's not immediate responses to deal with.

To make sense, on my return responses, I need to be wide awake!!! ... Thanks again for the kind words, D ....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

"I had already looked at the Wiki page ... all I came away with so far, is that the C of C on a Nikon 1 series dig cam is .011mm and an 8x10 is .22mm ....
Actually, I kinda had the suspicion it was something like that. But, here's the kicker - the C of C on a 6x17 MF camera is even greater than a 4x5 .... Go Figure!!!"

If that's all you learned from it, read it again. Many of us understand how it works. We can't understand it for you.

"Those search links here at UHH always drop out, for me (dial-up) ... and, anyway ... I am being prevented from answering on other people's threads .... If I am "ticking off" so many members, as you put it ... surely, that's THEIR problem, and not mine, Scotty .... "

Prevented? Why? Because you are on their Ignore list? That sounds like a problem you created, not them.

"I am committed to posting two new Topic Posts a day ... if I sometimes cover "old ground" - so be it. Let me remind you - there are new members, daily ...."

Two new threads a day is a pretty frivolous goal. You are not being considerate to those of us who are already here.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

JosephSF wrote:

This should clear it up for you.

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/dof/dof.htm#DoF_with_Macro_Photography

Why, thanks, Joseph ... will take a look ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

selmslie wrote:

" i I had already looked at the Wiki page ...... (show quote)

I will, Scotty ... I still have it up ... it'll take me a while to ingest it all ... charts are easy to follow ... text - heavily laden with algebraic formulas - not so much ....

Nothing to do with Ignore Lists ... Admin has put a bar on me responding on threads which aren't mine ... to keep the infighting down ....

Why frivolous, Scotty? ... I don't agree with that, in the least ... and me - inconsiderate? ... I'm one of the most considerate people on the face of the earth!

Why should I be concerned about the threads other people start? ... You're not making any sense, Scotty ... I'll tell you this ... I never write the same Topic Posts!