CN writes:
>>If relative to the exit pupil focal length will disappear
>>from the calculation and leave only magnification.
Well I agree that the exit pupil motion is important and amplified by
the magnification but at the end of the day the
only motion that matters is the image on the sensor that induces
blurring by camera shake, lateral or rotational.
Angular shake must cause proportionally more blurring as mag increases.
However FL never drops out, IMO. Don't think of FL but working distance
instead. Unless I fell into a rabbit hole and a non-Euclidean world a
displacement resulting in angle of displacement theta (angle between
original position of the object to sensor to displaced location by
shake)
will result in the image moving on the sensor by d *(tan(theta) where d
is the object distance to the sensor. So the further away the object is
the more image movement on the sensor for the same mag and MORE
blurring. It is fortunate I am not a tort lawyer as I can't convince
anyone.
Look at the Canyon link again too.
Where is our own recovering physicist from Berkeley? Mooooooooooose,
weigh in here please . I also have it on good authority that one of
your in house but very reclusive consultants, Dr. Shake, (3rd cousin
once removed of Dr. Diffraction) made the move to NY. I am moving this
issue to the Court of Appeals with Dr. Shake and Moose to adjudicate. I
don't mind being incorrect if it clarifies a burning issue, but this is
not the case here.
I have revisited this issue and am not on shaky ground, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|