mickcivic: These comments bring to mind my favorite photography joke: "How many photographers does it take to shoot a picture? A thousand: One to shoot the picture, 999 to say 'I could have done it better.'"
And they all have taken the same photo! Google isn't finding them though.
Adam Palmer: Has any photographer been to Antelope Canyon and not taken that shot? ;) Congrats to the salesman who sold that print though. Nice commission for him/her. My first instinct was to think that Mr Lik must have paid someone to buy if for that much to jack up the perceived value. I think I remember reading somewhere that Rembrant employed that technique.
Yes I'm trawling the internet trying to find a similar photo. Just going to antelope canyon and taking a photo there is NOT the same photo. It doesn't have the same mood this photo has.
DeepM: Me and many others have very similar shot at the same location.
If only I had a ghost in my photo :-) Also, mine is in color. That's probably a deal breaker. lol
So what you are saying is if only your photo had the key element that this photo had. Thing is your photo is not the same. Neither are anybody else's photo. I see many trying to replicate it but failing.
daddyo: I think it's a very unique photograph, and is very visually compelling.
I also think there is a moral question regarding anyone paying $6.5 million for a photograph when there are untold aids orphans in Africa dying for want of food, water, and basic medical care.
That said, the photographer and the buyer may both be very charitable people -- they won't have to answer to me. :-)
None of those are even close to this photo? black and white conversions of the same canyon doesn't meant its the same photo!
WalPhoto: You see, in the time we discuss MFT vs FF IQ, smart photogs find out how to sell a BW canyon for 10 mega :-D..
Exactly, too many people think theideal photograph comes from a FF camera with a f1.4 lens on it and its tack sharp corner to corner and technically perfect. Photography is still art and even google fails to find me any images close to this one. Plenty of the same place in black and white, but none captured with the same ethereal spirit feel. I don't think its worth $6.5 mil but i can see why someone paid a lot for it.
Almeida: What is the equivalent aperture godmanit?!
I've read the equivalence, but it's just convoluted what actually happens. I'm not arguing about the facts in there. But a 50mm f1.4 lens behaves the same on both formats. One however crops the middle and thus the Angle of view and the DOF is different, which can easily be repeated as soon as you crop your FF photo.
If I'm shooting sports and I use f2.8 on a FF camera, that same lens will be fast enough on a aps-c body and give me the same shutter speed. In this instance DOF equivalence is less important but shutter speed is important.
I'm not arguing the equivalence numbers, just they are very convoluted and everyone quotes them incorrectly for what they actually mean and what the actual practical differences are. The fact you can replicate the look of one format with a different lens and body on another format doesn't make it practical to do especially when the shutter speed or the angle of view are beneficial towards the smaller format sensor for the photo you are taking.
Just another Canon shooter, explain then why a cropped FF image from the exact same spot with the exact same lens has the same DOF as an APS-C body with the same lens. The crop changes the apparent DOF, but its not different between cameras bodies. The same image is projected onto the same focal plane. The only actual difference is it is cropped.
Equivalence is a convoluted idea, that has minimal practical application and mostly used in silly FF vs APS-C debates.
Agree with Voff, the sooner people stop this useless comparison of aperture and DOF the better. It serves as very little use in any kind of practical photographic sense. You can get thin enough DOF on APS-C, FF and MF for 99.9% of all photos you are likely to ever think you will want to take.
Polytropia: This is a crock. There is no equivalence in apertures. F/2.8 is always F/2.8 no matter what the sensor size is. It projects the same brightness of light in all cases.
Point is: a speedlight (flash) that has a guide number of 100 feet will illuminate a subject 35.71 feet away at ISO 100 and F/2.8. No matter what your sensor size is, this will not change.
You cannot say that just because the sensor is bigger that changes anything because if you make the lens F/5.6 and do not change the flash guide number or ISO, then your exposure will be off.
Further, the amount of image noise generated is not exactly two stops "better" between, say, Four Thirds and 135-format. Neither is dynamic range. It varies based on the year the camera came out, how many pixels it has, etc.
DOF is also not exactly two stops different because DOF is affected by pixel density as well.
So stop LYING to people, DPReview.
Nope resizing alone doesn't change DOF. If you view a 16 MP image and a 36 MP image from the same distance, that are of the same subject, and same crop, they'll have the same DOF.
If you crop a 36 MP image to 16MP image the DOF will change. This is why in a 50mm f1.4 lens is always a 50mm f1.4 lens. People get equivalence mixed up to mean the lens is not the same, but it is. Just the resulting image has a DOF and FOV equivalent to another lens on another format.
Actually if you use the same lens on different bodies then cropping and magnifying the images to be the same will give the same DOF.
That is where equivalence is a bit tricky, because any lens behaves the same on different size sensors. So other than being used as a tool to compare things it has very little relevance to how you'd take a photo. Yeah some people complain they don't have a 85mm f1.4 equivalent lens on their current system, but often there is no need for an equivalent lens as another lens is available to do the job.
justin23: Actually the article explained equivalence quite well, but does not in the slightest say why anyone should care about equivalence. For people who never shot a 35mm film camera equivalence is not that important, except those who want to talk the talk with regards to FF digital cameras.
Or how about equivalence thought of as this. The lens is the same on both APS-C and FF cameras. If you crop the FF camera to match the APS-C camera everything will be more or less the same. APS-C is just a centre crop of a FF camera, nothing changes other than to crop an image to the centre. Talk of focal lengths and equivalent apertures is only valid if you stand in the same spot to take the photo, but that is not how people work. If you shoot with multiple formats you don't try and copy each format!
Thats the point, the only people who worry about equivalence is just to compare, but in practical sense, no body will shoot photos with equivalence in mind, they shoot to their system. I've never taken a photo on APS-C or MF and thought gee I needed another system to get that photo. I took the photo the way i wanted to with the camera I had.
Actually the article explained equivalence quite well, but does not in the slightest say why anyone should care about equivalence. For people who never shot a 35mm film camera equivalence is not that important, except those who want to talk the talk with regards to FF digital cameras.
Didn't really cover a few things that break equivalence or make it complicated.
The example I like to use is say you use a 300mm f2.8 on an APS-C camera. So it gives you a FOV equal to 450mm. Use the same 300 f2.8 lens on a FF camera, because it has the narrow DOF you crave, yet unfortunately you need to crop it a little. Guess what, crop a FF image to match a APS-C image and suddenly the DOF also matches. People never believe me or don't realise this, but cropping is what affects DOF, but this is in agreement with what was stated in this article. This is why at the same time a 300mm f2.8 lens is the same on all sensors and thus why equivalence is often only a tool for those who care.
justin23: Lightroom as "rentalware" is less of an issue than photoshop, on the basis that your RAW files and any jpegs or other files created and exported are at least useable after the license expires. Yes you lose the non destructive changes made to any RAW files which is less of an issue.
I'll subscribe when there is a read and save/export only option if software has expired. Maybe this feature can be enabled for anyone who has had at least 12 months of subscriptions paid and decided to stop. Microsoft has done it for years with office viewers. Though part of the subscription model is clearly based on locking people in. It has worked for years with Banks and insurance. People rarely ever do the sums on those to see if they are being ripped off or not. Microsoft with office 365 and Adobe are relying on the same strategy that people are less inclined to change once they have subscribed.
True although I think people would be less against CC if there was a way to at least open your PSD files and save them to another format. I can see why Adobe don't want you to do this, because it makes leaving CC much easier. there is no doubt they have a strategy of locking people into CC, but for many there is too much doubt over the T&C's and prices changing once they've got a significant number of subscribers. If they could say off lifetime access for say $500 that may make people happier also. They do need to look outside the box though, if it they were politicians they'd probably lose the next election!
Lightroom as "rentalware" is less of an issue than photoshop, on the basis that your RAW files and any jpegs or other files created and exported are at least useable after the license expires. Yes you lose the non destructive changes made to any RAW files which is less of an issue.
I think the best use for this technology is rather than for refocussing an image but to adjust your depth of field, especially when you want a narrow DOF. You can shoot using a nice aperture like f5.6-f8 then narrow the DOF to f1.4 that would be brilliant! But I'd probably want the technology licensed to actual dSLR makers with all the camera features i have now.
Albino_BlacMan: Silver awards don't mean anything if everyone gets one...
Maybe , but its not a gold award either, and most dSLRs are good cameras and only start to look deficient when compared to another camera. Reality is any beginner buying a beginners dSLR is going to be overwhelmed initially and not use half the features anyway.
Rawmeister: Hard to believe anybody would shoot anything with film.Oh well - some people still listen to vinyl on turntables too.People will be people.
Possibly because they like taking photos and appreciate the beauty in such a photo, rather than pixel peeping and arguing about the tech specs of digital cameras. A lot of digital photography has become, is looking for differences to nit pick on, when 99% of the dSLRs and ILCs produced will do the job they are purchased for.
bossa: DA*300mm is a FF lens as is the DA*200, DA*55 and a number of other DA lenses. The fact this converter is listed as 35mm FF may auger well for a Pentax FF camera in the near future.
aaah no where does it mention FF. In fact none of the compatible lenses are FF except the two DFA macros. Yes some lenses cover an FF image circle, it doesn't make the lens an FF lens.You are twisting what is said to confirm your belief a FF is coming soon.
Holger Drallmeyer: Am I missing something? LR runs on Surface tablets for a long while already. And what about $99 a year? Isn't that a huge rip off? I probably just don't get it.
Actually a surface pro with keyboard does not weigh a lot less than a mac air and also costs around the same. with the same sized storage. Surface pro without keyboard is 0.9 kgMacbook air 11" is 1.08 KgSo bigger screen and a keyboard for an extra 180grams. I'd argue if weight was a big factor you'd be getting an android/apple tablet or smartphoine anyway.