Algi, stop drawing sketches and

Do the bloomin' experiment.

All you need to do is what Tony did.

Stick the camera on a tripod, take two images at different focal lengths, crop a chunk out of the middle of the WA one to match the narrower angle of view of the tele one, and then compare the two.

And then come back and eat humble pie. It tastes better than you imagine.

I know it says that. But at the very beginning of the article it says:

[quote="complete berk"]The following slide show illustrates the effect of different focal length on the perspective.[/quote]Which it very much does not.

It illustrates how the perspective changes when you walk around.

Cobblers.

The perspective lines are nearly parallel because the horse is a long way away.

Take a 100mm macro lens, for instance. It has the same focal length (and hence magnification) as a 100mm non-macro lens. But its mechanism allows it to focus a lot closer, in which case, once you get closer (and not otherwise), your perspective lines are less parallel.

I shall say no more. Hopefully the rest of the forum won't fall for all this claptrap.

Why don't you do the experiment that Tony did?

Yes.

But magnification does not change perspective, because everything in the image is magnified by the same amount.

Algy, at risk of getting my wrists slapped by JR, you're a numpty (and/or a dreadful stirrer!)

The problem with that article is that it's shockingly misleading. The reason the author got the different perspectives is that he moved between shots.

At 17mm he was close to the lamp, so it looked bigger relative to the background than at 100mm, when he would have had to move back to get the lamp to be the same size on his image.

If he had stood in the same place, taken images at different focal lengths, and then cropped out appropriate bits to compare the perspectives, he would have found that the perspective was exactly the same in each one.

Don't take my word for it, try it!!

I don't know why you bring up the subject of magnifying lenses (I assume you mean, as in magnifying glasses) - they create virtual images not real ones like in a camera.

Whoever wrote that PhotoZone article needs a good slapping, and his computer confiscating.

I know I sometimes cross swords with JR, but on this occasion he's bang on.

Don't blindly believe everything you read on the internet (including this).

Be grateful, it could have been a poppy.

Hi and welcome.

Just out of curiosity, why did you buy a K-5 and then a K10D?

Following on from the recent thread examining why people often don't comment on images, this thread is a perfect answer to why not.

Fortunately, in this case, there were some amusing puns that were provided instead.

I'll leaf it at that, I think.

Plenty of excellent reasons for sticking to Plan A then, if it floats your boat. As I said earlier, if you have the time, it should all be very enjoyable.

And you could keep an eye out for a cheap second hand dSLR body such as this - which will be perfectly usable with your current lenses. It would even let you experiment a bit digitally and then expose one film frame instead of many, although you'd need to be a bit careful with exposure - although the principles are the same, there are differences to consider between getting exposure right on film and on digital.

Please do report back and let us know how you're getting on - best of luck!