Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 363609" data-attributes="member: 12496">Yes, the context (about a formula) was closeup.&nbsp; The need for more DOF is obviously true&nbsp; of macro specifically, and close up in general.&nbsp; Landscapes or&nbsp; portraits (where DOF actually exists), we might debate it.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> 
I might point out that this was exactly the original thread context.&nbsp;&nbsp; When stopped down DOF helps more than diffraction hurts, we are dumb not to go with it.&nbsp; It is part of &quot;knowing how&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Longer lenses (50mm and more) can handle it rather well (this author is discussing 4x5 large format, a &quot;normal&quot; lens is around 160mm).&nbsp;&nbsp; Macro however is a different subject, about reproduction ratio instead of focal length. 

</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 363609, member: 12496"] Yes, the context (about a formula) was closeup. The need for more DOF is obviously true of macro specifically, and close up in general. Landscapes or portraits (where DOF actually exists), we might debate it. :) [LEFT][COLOR=#000000] I might point out that this was exactly the original thread context. When stopped down DOF helps more than diffraction hurts, we are dumb not to go with it. It is part of "knowing how". Longer lenses (50mm and more) can handle it rather well (this author is discussing 4x5 large format, a "normal" lens is around 160mm). Macro however is a different subject, about reproduction ratio instead of focal length. [/COLOR][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]

Verification