You poo-pood my comment

That is quite simply NONSENSE.

My posted images prove your point to be WRONG.

The perspective of the model car is quite obviously DIFFERENT in each photo.

No cheers.
Philip

I've moved this into the Lenses section, a little late in the day maybe, but it's not a Your Photos thread!

Err, why? Because I don't agree with your physics defying premise? Did you review those posts showing how your premise is incorrect? How do you explain the perspective difference when you move closer or further away from a scene (as opposed to a flat or virtually flat object?)
Maybe no insult was intended but it did come across rude in the circumstances given I was trying to help you understand your misunderstanding. As a former CAD Operator I'm surprised you do not have a better understanding of the matter, or were you specifically meaning a flat 2D object as opposed to a normal 3D photographic scene, or even an object designed in CAD? How do you relate your theory to the differences between Isometric projection. Oblique projection, Perspective projection and Orthographic projection?

Hmmmm. Can you not see any difference between the shots of the model at different focal lengths? They are not all the same image by any stretch of the imagination?

When you introduce a background (or foreground) subject into the equation as demonstrated by the lighthouse/rocks pictures the difference is very clear.

As I have said, you cannot break the laws of physics!

You seem to have no problem breaking the laws of common sense, and basically seem to have an ingrained disbelief of what your eyes can see.
No one agreed with your statement the first time around, plenty of examples have shown that what you are stating as fact, is as per your thread title, poo poo.
I can't help but think that you already know this, as you haven't taken or posted any examples of the type that were suggested to you.
If you can't be bothered to try it, it's hard to see why we should be either.
Good luck.

All the helpful posts above show you that the LAWS OF PHYSICS produce DIFFERENT images in the setups of the type that you describe in the first post.

The only exception would be if each of the two images showed ONLY a single 2-dimensional plane, perfectly parallel to the image sensor surface, from the 3-dimensional scenes that most people would shoot most of the time.

Any pair of photos, representing anything in part or in whole that was 3-dimensional in the real scene, will show differences when they are the result of shooting from different distances, no matter which different focal lengths are used.

If you claim otherwise, then it is YOU breaking the laws of physics or, more likely in my view, you are trolling.

Philip

The OBJECT stays the same, A law of physics!!!!

What you said before is "if you move closer to an object, the image is the same if you use the correct lens." Now you're saying the object is the same so do you now agree the images taken from different viewpoints will be different? Even moving a bit to the left or right will end up with different images, that's the basis for stereoscopic photography which wouldn't be possible if the images are the same. Viewmaster must have got it all wrong!

Having studied Physics at Uni (although a KS2 understanding would suffice here) I can happily state that your objections are poo poo.

The object is a 3-D object therefore the perspective changes. Had it been a 2-D object (in other words an image), the perspective wouldn't change at all. This is not the same image and you'd do well to understand that.

The OBJECT would stay the same, probably correct as taking a photo of it wont change the object, only your photo would change its perspective.

I just stacked the two images (Poo1 and Poo2 respectively) and got this final image. Look at how the base is visibly different even though the badge lines up fairly well.

Had the badge been a large 3d object (and not something fairly flat) then it would also have been distorted.

You should know that objects are not what they seem to be. When taking a photo, the camera instantly removes the three spatial dimensions from the object while capturing the image. However, the object is constantly interacting with both the camera and photographer, and it restores its own three dimensional aspects at a speed so rapid that it is beyond human perception. In your world, it detects your presence and adjusts itself so that it always gives the same image under the changing conditions that you describe. However, in everyone else's world, when we move to a different distance from the object, it changes its own dimensions to cause us to see a different perspective in its image.

Philip

Seeing as the badge was the object, case proved!

But that isn't what you said, you stated "if you move closer to an object, the image is the same.." You don't need a degree to see they're not; you've poo-pood yourself there. One has to accept that the image is the whole photograph of course, not just part of it. The badge seen in 2D from a front on viewpoint will of course appear the same, obliquely it wouldn't, but the badge isn't the whole image.
Come on, admit it, you didn't say what you meant!