shauravraj: Its amazing how people can get unreasonably critical. I am a beginner with no knowledge of photography at all. The grand prize winning picture is informative interesting and only two things jumped out at me "lions on a single rock" and "light rays coming through the cloud." Why are people so concerned about horizon ... what's happening in the cloud, etc. distractions when the main message of the picture is clear.Here is why some people are so critical of the picture:1. Because people are putting on the critical lens that can only see the weakness and not appreciate what is good.2. Because people are driven by conventional knowledge that says "horizon should be straight". And we conceive that the horizon should be precisely straight.3. Because people are unable to produce quality picture despite their "senior photographer" status.I think we should elevate above our subjective interpretations and appreciate the work and focus on creative criticism. I apologize if I offended anyone
You are 100%. This was a photography contest. It's about the art of the image. Images are rated on content, not on how close to perfect technically they were executed.
This forum is chock full of IT professionals with cameras. Specs and technical precision are worshipped, content is secondary. Hell, we should just shoot black squares in low light and raise the exposure. Cleanest image with correct focus and level horizon wins. Now THAT'S photography.
Hasa: Got the album. Fabulous.I just shot my entire vacation in Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Craters of the Moon, Mount Rainier, Mount Saint Helens, Mount Olympic National Park - and shot everything that did not move on Iceland -I shot everything as 14Bit, 40 MB'ish RAW files, some as Panos amounting to a workflow of 1,5GB per image counting the required intermdiate 16Bit TIFF files. The largest are 60 - 100 Mpixel and the dynamic range beats anything out there except perhaps phase 1. The ability to recover highlights and shadows in LR "with a little work" is astounding. Say when photographing a waterfall in a dark forest with some sky.I am aware about numerous discussions about 12 vs 14 bit - so I thought: the price of storage media has made disk space a moot point - it is all about quality now.Now 'hit me with your rhytm stick' !
(oh and I took the trouble to shoot w. some primes: 14mm Samyang, 15mm Sigma, 35mm Zeiss and the Nikon 70-200mm F4 that is "prime'ish" in quality. On the D800)
One line about the Beatles and then a diary of your photography. I only hope you have the best glass. Please regale us with the details. You probably don't even print. BTW, ANY digital medium format less than 5 years old looks better than any FF today.
ryanshoots: It's a way for full framers to feel superior because their sensor is larger than yours while simultaneously forgetting that larger formats than 135 exist and not insisting that we be told what 50mm f1/8 on 135 is on 8x10.
I'd rather see another interesting drone article.
Some of my questions were largely rhetorical. I realize you can use any format and figure out equivalence in terms of the one you choose. I'm suggesting that in addition to being a common film format, Full Frame is chosen because it's the largest commonly sold digital sensor size commonly in use. I think it's also being chosen more recently because it has a high profit margin. Using equivalence to help build desire for that format amongst the populace is a good way to make money. Manufacturers like it, the owners of this site like it, bloggers with affiliate links like it, even Mikey likes it.
I was making a passing reference to the Tony Northrup video wherein he talks about some of the smaller sensor camera makers not telling you the whole story with respect to aperture as it relates to DOF. By the same token, the full frame makers are also selling smaller sensors and aren't telling the whole story either as they leave out the 8X10 equivalent.
Where does equivalence stop and who deemed 135 format some "standard" that everything else should be compared against? There is a lot more profit in $3000 cameras than $500 cameras and while the math is the math, when does it matter for people? I would bet most don't know and simply decide they need the $3000 dollar camera so not as to be missing out. Salesmanship cloaked in science. You can't beat it as far as a tool to upsell the masses.
Note, I do believe FF has better image quality than every sensor smaller than FF. There are perfectly valid reasons to go FF or better yet, larger.
Polytropia: Lets be honest about what this, in fact, is: a marketing ploy only. If the purpose of thinking about "equivalence" is to help you make a buying decision about what sort of camera to get, and all the terminology of the approach is written such that it relates everything to one particular format (24x36mm, 135F), then clearly the not-so-subliminal message here is that the one format that is called "full-frame" is "better". This is supported by lies such as "you can't try to flood a small sensor with extra light in order to get better images, because it'll just overexpose" (page 4, near the bottom). Small compared to what? Why, the better format of course!
DPReview (owned by Amazon) prefers that you purchase more expensive, 135F gear from them because they make more profit when you do so. They have a conflict of interest. They are motivated to perpetuate the myth that the only "full-frame" format is 135F even though all the other ones have full lines of native lenses available.
There is science to back it up, but it's largely used to the benefit of FF leaving out the benefit of even larger sensors, but you are correct in that it's important for many to beat the drum and play the tune again and again whether it's to boost sales or simply to be in the bigger is better club. If and when medium format digital is commonly available for less than 5k, we will see a whole new round of equivalence talk with the medium format being the holy grail. The more things change the more they stay the same.
And the equivalent calculation which many FF'ers tout as disingenuous to leave out is 376mm f13.5
It's a way for full framers to feel superior because their sensor is larger than yours while simultaneously forgetting that larger formats than 135 exist and not insisting that we be told what 50mm f1/8 on 135 is on 8x10.
bford: How can people online get access to your full resolution image if you don't post it online? Anyone with an obviously desirable image that posts the full resolution version online is a fool.
I would have to agree. Don't depend on f'ing Flickr to only make the small ones available. Also, funny how 36mp is not enough for some, but 3.5mp seems plenty for others.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I'm still very skeptical about drones in general, but I have co concede it expands photographic possibilities. What this needs is better image quality, though.
What you and Marty say is correct. Drones are new and interesting to some folks. The word drone conjours up lots of bad feeling in some as well because they are used to smoke people from time to time. One general word that covers a whole category of craft. It seems Drone stories on DP review maybe the new iPhone camera stories we were inundated with previously.
Drone lightingDrone portraitsDrone contestDrone fashionDrone sportsDrone weddingsDrone landscapeDrone whatever
All coming to an article near you.
OBI656: I am asking my self a question, is DPREVIEW really about photography, really ...
Very minimally. Mostly it's about gear or technology used in the making of photos. Witness the ad nauseum discussions of m4/3 vs full frame, equivalence, ultimate sharpness and so on.
RichRMA: Did a liberal ever live who didn't want to ban, regulate, prohibit, control, oversee, observe, meddle with EVERYTHING IN SIGHT?
I don't think so. It's an ideology that some central group of smart thinkers need to decide what we can and cannot do. We're not smart enough on our own.
Like that blowhard relative that DRONES on and on and on.
What better time to learn to get it right in camera and quit creating phart.
TheDevil: Wonder if they will have a setting that will separate photographers from phone-tographers. You hire some dude and he shows up at your wedding armed with an iPhone.
@Yishay, correct that is the target photographer. I'll bet the the photography consumer using this app to find a photographer will use this because it's a richer experience than reading craigslist. Richer meaning more pretty pictures.
In the app world, it's like the 1990's were for the desktop. Wild wild west as far as little players making all sorts of applications. Hoping to make it big or hope somebody big buys their app.
Jogger: The real business case here (i.e. how they make money) is by uploading all of your contacts and tracking your location and other meta data for sale to advertising and firms that reconcile disparate personal information. Have you ever wondered why a simple clock app requires your contact list and calendar information?
No I've never wondered that. When you can't figure out what they are selling. They are selling you. Spot on, Jogger.
Someday we'll wish we all had dumb phones.
A ride in a car is a ride in a car, so let's choose photographers the same way. Another platform to race to the bottom with.
Sadly most that have commented probably know more about the TRS-80 than making a good photograph and are apparently jealously vitriolic toward those that may own a T series camera.
For those of you to which this description applies. Seek comfort in your brick of technology and the test charts you shoot and the specs you recite daily, you shall endure.
SKPhoto12: Frankly a little overdone. I much prefer the Russian mum! Power to him if he gets the price, but it is not for me!
Overdone? Compared to the photoshop computer art the Russian "mum" created? Overdone? Really?
Martin Parr "The Last Resort"