Thread: The Easy View
View Single Post
Old Tuesday 4th June 2019, 17:46   #56
Registered User
WJC's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls, Idaho
Posts: 2,276
Originally Posted by eronald View Post
In telephotos, mathematical depth of field depends on objective lens aperture and focal length. Subjective front and back depth of field, bokeh, and subjective separation depend on the actual lens design. This every photographer knows.

For binoculars, one could assume that dof will diminish with magnification and increase with smaller objective sizes. Thus an 8x20 could be expected to have much more dof than a 10x50 and won't demand much focusing near infinity, but also the 10x50 will pick a bird better out of the clutter of a tree-line :)

Also both sides of a bino can probably be focused slighly apart, the faulty setting actually increasing the subjective dof :) It might make sense to voluntarily mis-set the diopter slightly.


The brain rarely works on mathematical principles and the workings of the physiological principles differ from person to person. I know people get tired of me talking about the physiological. However, as long as people try to skirt its realities, I will keep bringing it up. I thought that scientific/medical abstract would do the trick. Apparently not.

I know most want concrete—one size fits all—answers. Yet, those of us destined to live in the real world know that’s not a happening thing and it is never going to be.

The optical submarine periscope is being replaced by the electronic “photon mast.” Perhaps we could have eyes replaced by photonic sensors. That way things could be a LITTLE more quantifiable. But then, people would argue about who had the latest “Alpha” sensors.

Funny? Perhaps. Off the wall? Oh, yeah. Accurate? The track record says undoubtedly so.

“Socialism only works in two places ... Heaven, where they don't need it and Hell, where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan

Last edited by WJC : Tuesday 4th June 2019 at 19:31.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote