I should have been more clear. I'm basically agreeing with you. It feels like the article is constantly about to say something like "Here's an example where I u

I should have been more clear. I'm basically agreeing with you. It feels like the article is constantly about to say something like "Here's an example where I used a 50mm and you can see how much more closely it matches the painting and my recollection" or something like that before then going on to talk about how perspective in photography is essentially a tradeoff with field-of-view. But it... just doesn't do that and so ends up with this awkward feeling mismatch with reader expectation (for me, at least). I don't necessarily begrudge the article for it but I do share your frustration.