Bob, I think that at the extreme you mention things very well will not follow thin-lens image relationships. However, just for the sake of also proving this to myself I photographed a scene looking down a long corridor both at a wide angle setting and a telephoto setting on a Nikon 990. Then I cropped the image made with the wide angle setting in PS to match the edge features of the scene around the periphery of the image made with the telephoto setting. Then I reduced the file size of the image made at this setting to match that of the one at the wideangle setting and on lookng and measuring the doorframes and fluorescent fixtures as they diminished in size into the distance the measurements of near and far objects (and thus their ratios) in the two photographes matched. The lens in the Nikon is not a thin lens but in the context of the distance to the objects in this case it might as well be. So I guess we don't disagree. But then I am not so sure if we see eye to eye on this matter! :) I also have a "pet" situation BTW. This one relates to the ratio of blur size to subject size being fixed at the time of exposure and standing behind the fact that no more detail can be secured out of a image taken at the same shutter speed of objects in motion by decreasing the focal length or increasing the subject distance. Blur being fixed by exposure time. oh, well ... c'est la vie! Andy BTW - for some reason my website has been visited by many in the last few minutes. I wonder why that might be and by who!
