>>3311628Your comment was:
>Also, a telephoto would NOT work as pictured. The aperture must be enormousThat is completely wrong, as it is the opposite of how DOF works; the larger the aperture, the shallower your depth of field, making getting both in focus harder. You are claiming the opposite. I never said you couldn't do it with a large aperture either (which is relative to focal length, by the way). You were the only one dealing in absolutes, and ass-backwards too.
On top of that, I already said it can be done with extreme focal lengths and large subjects at a distance such as trees in the very same comment you're responding to:
>>3311560I said:
>It could also be done with both the leaves and the moon in focus using powerful optics from farther away. You'd need very stable air and some serious focal length to do it with a subject as small as a leaf, but it's done regularly with trees and buildings.>trees and buildingsThen you show me a photo of the exact thing I just said, with a tree. The aperture of f/2.8 is meaningless over that distance as well, as both the tree and the moon are at infinity focus, as I stated in this comment:
>>3311543I said:
>If you are far enough away from the leaves for them to be at infinity focus then you can do it no problem. Depends on the lens, that's all.Notice how I never mentioned aperture, only distance? That's because over such extreme distances, depth of field becomes a virtually flat plane. You were the only one to mention aperture, and you got it backwards.
Congrats on being the most retarded person in the history of /p/.
