No way.. Just think about.it.… Who in there right mind would pay $150 for 4 x 6 inch images… yea-right- Hey - if you believe that- I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $150..00.
Bart Hickman: I don't get all the sour grapes about this. Yes, the lens blur filter has done it for eons (although this gives a more productive and interactive workflow). Yes, it doesn't look quite the same as shooting with a wide aperture lens. But it does successfully emphasize the subject. Isn't that what matters?
Tilt-shift lenses (which this tool clearly obsoletes) also look "fake" but people still use them for the same reason--subject isolation.
Looks more like gaussian blur (something I try to avoid) than a natural l shallow depth of field. Lens blur is more natural looking. Buzz
A 45 mm lens is not a portrait lens. A 45 mm lens is just a cropped 45mm image-nothing more The reason Longer lenses are used in portraiture, are flatten out facial features.- a 45mm on any small sensor won't do that. So- if it was produced only to emulate a portrait lens-- it is a complete failure. Max headroom- you shouldn't tell others they don 't know what they are talking about,, when obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. .Believing 45 mm lens is the same as 90- on that small sensor is is just flat out wrong... This is one of the most misunderstood terms in Digital Photography. Hey- i believed a 50 mm lens on my Nikon DSLR was equivalent to a 75m (1.5x)for several years, before I realized I was wrong... If you don't believe me -just google "crop factor. Buzz
Has the "wow" factor!!!! buzz