This is kind of stupid but..I just "Got it"!

[Leigh]

If we must be pedantic then let's call one of them "angle of view" and the other "field of view".

Yes, I agree with that. In fact I've posted such a distinction previously.

Schneider uses Angle of View as the design-dependent parameter.

I think Field of View is a reasonable designation for the portion of the subject being recorded on the film [personal opinion].

- Leigh

[rdenney]

We should remember that definitions are descriptive. When a term is generally confusing, doing battle over our preferred definition means we'll be doing a lot of battle. Let me show you my scars. But it does get tiresome, and that approach does little to advance real understanding.

Angle of view in lieu of coverage is senseless to me, Schneider's use of it notwithstanding. If it's not in the picture, there is nothing to view. I know what all these principles mean, of course. But there is the matter of using plain English.

Rick "nomenclature battles are the bloodiest and the least worth the pain" Denney

[Leigh]

It's really an academic exercise, at best. I see no particular relevance to the terms.

I've never seen a photographer pull out a protractor, measure the desired optical angle, then consult a lens catalog to select the proper optic.

The only practical application relates to light fall-off approaching the IC perimeter, which gets worse as the angle increases.

- Leigh

[Mark Stahlke]

It's really an academic exercise, at best. I see no particular relevance to the terms.

What's relevant to this thread is using the terminology consistently to avoid confusion.

I've never seen a photographer pull out a protractor, measure the desired optical angle, then consult a lens catalog to select the proper optic.

I've used a protractor on a map to measure angles of view (or fields of view, if you insist) as an aid to selecting a lens kit for a given trip.

[Leigh]

I've used a protractor on a map to measure angles of view (or fields of view, if you insist) as an aid to selecting a lens kit for a given trip.

That makes sense. I've never had occasion to do that type of planning.

I always carry all 16 lenses with me, but then I'm never far from the van. I don't do hiking or backpacking.

- Leigh

[BrianShaw]

That makes sense. I've never had occasion to do that type of planning.

Me either, but I've sometimes been disappointed when I forgot to bring the "right" lens. Great idea... I'll be adding a protractor to my LF accessory bag (or learning how to "fake" a protractor using a compass, which is essential LF gear to me). Or, I can just buy 10 more lenses to keep up with Leigh!

[E. von Hoegh]

Understand and use.

Imagine if these rabid twits objected, argued, and insulted when someone discussed using a 150 lens for enlarging(or making) 4x5 negatives compared to using a 300mm for 8x10.

One of the Rollei lenses I've bought even had a little lens equivalence chart in it. Made long before digital cameras became prevalent enough to discuss equivalence. Equivelence charts are myriad on the web from many respectable sources.

This irrational objection to lens equivalence is about as absurd as the analogy of a stone house being built on styrofoam. What houses are built of stone, even?

Castles?

You know, I've yet to see you add anything other than contention to a thread. Your posts in this and the reciprocity thread are deliberately obtuse, misinformed, argumentative, and unproductive. Why don't you just stick to the image threads, enjoy the pretty pictures, and stop bothering the rest of us with your shenanigans? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is uninterested in being a bit player in your little psychodrama.....

[E. von Hoegh]

... When a term is generally confusing, ...

When a term is generally confusing, it's best not to use it - or the concept which gave rise to the term, in this case.