Peiasdf: About time 10 years after 64-bit replaced 32-bit on most PC. I also wonder if this is related to most smartphone running on 64-bit SoC now so Adobe can consolidate coding to 64-bit only.
Now if only the next Civilization game is 64-bit and supports multi-core.
I'm pretty certain windows 10 will be 64 bit only as well. Server 2012 only came as 64bit, but desktops always lag due to many consumers not upgrading as often. Personally i'm looking forward to a 64 bit only lightroom. It should run much better, not that I have an issue with performance which in my case is usually hindered due to my storage being a tad slow some times.
I used 64 bit XP, which was rubbish because of compatibility issues, but since then 64bit OS has been the way to go IMO.I find it hard to believe people can still be using 32 bit OSes and are happy with performance. 4GB of ram is the minimum for anything decent to run and the maximum that a 32bit OS can address.
Simon97: Most important to me is the loss of telephoto reach you incur going to full frame. My largest lens was a 300mm f/4 which has the same reach of a 450mm on FF.
The later APS-C sensors shows that the cropped format has adequate image quality for most work.
There is a practical example to this. Say you have a 300mm f2.8 lens and a APS-C body at 24MP and a FF at 36MP.
If you were photographing a bird and on the APS-C camera it filled the frame then all is good. But if you were using a FF camera, you'd need to crop it to fill the frame. The resulting crop means you'd have a 16 MP image taken from a FF camera with the same FOV and DOF as the APS-C camera, except it has a lower resolution. Whether this matters, whether the noise is different or whether the FF image is better or not are unknowns. This is why more pixels can provide that extra reach, but of course there are limits to quality of the produced image when you crop from smaller sensors.
attomole: So what you need is two systems, As a Travel and compact system camera go MFT with few preferred dedicated small lenses, it will always be a keeper for that situationANDFull frame DSLR or Sony A7 when IQ is critical and kit size no issue
Don't Bother with APSC its the worst of both worlds, don't bother with compact Zoom either. carry a small MFT rig or use your Phone as an EDC option.Funds allowing of course :-)
Or just buy 1 system, because in practise and real world use, APS-C is capable of taking great photos, that are regularly published as much as FF photos are. APS-C is perfectly fins format for so many people much more than FF users, so it must do something right. just the naive who think it has no value.
Yes but a low pixel density FF sensor is not great for cropping with. It may be brilliant noise wise though.
Rick Knepper: The struggle with this decision has generated years of mind-numbing posts regarding format equivalence. Hopefully, 'affordable' FF cameras will put those still in the throes of FFAS out of their misery once and for all. FF is a general purpose format. APS-C is either for the budget conscious or the reach-restricted (another way of saying budget conscious).
That makes no sense at all. APS-C is a format many find does a job better than using FF for their chosen profession. Ridiculous comments like this show you don't understand photography and different formats!
MPA1: If it had been possible to make FF sensors at reasonable cost when the first DSLR's came out, APS-c etc would not even exist. They were only made for that reason - full frame cost too much and/or wasn't possible in the quantity required.
Personally I would like to see all non-FX DSLR lines discontinued and the removal of huge amounts of confusion and duplication as a result.
Over 90% of the market disagree with you. the confusion only exists with people who think FF is the only format that should exist. I see plenty of photos in magazines taken with APS-C or smaller camera. In fact as technology improves, the need to have FF cameras is not as strong. There are different formats, they all take great photographs. If you feel insecure shooting with a non-FF camera, that is your problem, not everyone elses.
Foxshade: Quoting from your article:The result is that, if you start buying full frame lenses while you're still shooting APS-C, you're either buying a lens that's not very useful now, or you're buying a lens that won't be as useful once you've made the switch.
Now, as a Nikon APS-C user, can you name ONE APSC zoom lens with fix aperture 2.8 besides that 17-55mm. So, don't give this kind of BS of APS-C users buying full frame lens that's NOT VERY USEFUL on APS-C.
FF lens on APS-C would give me a 1.5x zoom factor. So, if I were to use my 70-200 FULL FRAME lens, I'd be like using a 105-300 mm. It's a useful kick if I were going for airshow or birding.
Some lenses are useful. Its usually the wide end that suffers though, but its more against the line of thinking. There are some strange people that think if they bought APS-C lenses now, they'll somehow be worth nothing in the future, but FF lenses will always keep their value. People don't necessarily think the same!
SirSeth: No full frame! Well I'm going to be avoiding the Pentax forum for a while. I don't want to chewed on by all the gnashing of teeth.
Really, I'm sure a search of the forums would show otherwise. I've owned Pentax cameras since the *istDL, and they've always used vague language when asked about FF. The latest solid rumour came from Europe, a few years ago one came from Russia. Japan has always used vague language. Come the end of the year when everyone threatens to leave Pentax because their is no FF, we can dig up all these posts from me and many others who look at the facts, rather than read too much into vague baseless rumours.I'm not anti FF, I'll buy one, but I can't see it happening this year.
They've used similar words for years that a FF is under development. If we see a FF this year I'll be stunned. If we see a FF at Photokina in 2016, I'll still be surprised.
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.