> 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 think the real question refers to the position of the entrance pupil (?). OK, for landscapes the difference is small but finite. The question is always phrased as absolute though ;o) Questions like this always bugged me because I felt you had to second guess the examiner: were they checking if you understood or really understood. > 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. I fully agree with you on that one. Indeed, actually (in finite terms) less information is recorded. Because film/digital capture devices are not perfect, the shorter the focal length / further away you move the less well you record the part of the scene you are interested in. The best thing is to be moving at the same speed as the object: difficult for photographing jet planes from the ground ;o) > 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! You just posted a link I seem to remember. I guess someone has read it. Bob
