Try not to put words in other peoples mouths, because you were interpreting me incorrectly. I was actually acknowledging the limitations of the data I was referring to. The comment I made on the interpretation of depth of field being a "practical" one was meant to say that the assessment was not a circle of confusion calculation, but a assessment of where we could no longer track a pattern. It could be that the our algorithms themselves fell apart for other reasons, leading to the difference in assessed depth of field. Therefore, it is not going against the accepted theory, but is due to the practical limitations of the evaluations. In the end it was something else.

If macro is defined as 1:2 or higher mag, I fully agree with the accepted theory. If you were lower mag, then the equations would predict something different. Looking back at the results I was referring to, we were not in the magnification range where the depth of field would have been equivalent. Therein the result. If I mistakenly misrepresented that earlier, I am sorry.

So we can agree that depth of field is a wash at 1:1. However as your equations would show, there are lower magnification levels where DOF differences would come into play. Not everyone goes right to the magnifications where the DOF is a wash.

Cliff

some casual shots taken with 45mm.

Attached Thumbnails

 

 

 

 

This is an excellent lens.

Here's mine at f2.8. No processing except resized.

Attached Images

 

__________________
E-PM2, PL45/2.8, 14/2.5, 45-175x, FL360, Nikon bodies & lenses.

__________________

Here's my favorite closeup of the day from a recent visit to the botanical gardens. GH1 and 45/2.8 at f/8 with an off-shoe, diffused FL-36.