Bill Ferris

Bill Ferris

Lives in United States Flagstaff, AZ, United States
Has a website at billferris.photoshelter.com
Joined on Oct 12, 2013
About me:

Photographer capturing decisive moments in landscape, portraiture, wildlife, sports and events

Comments

Total: 265, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Making sensor sizes less misleading (659 comments in total)

In typical DPR forum fashion, no good idea goes unpunished.

The traditional labels include dimensions that do not accurately describe sensor dimensions or areas. As such, they function only as names.

The names aren't just going away. There's no Thanos snap to make that happen. DPR's decision is a step in the right direction. Whatever their faults, the new format labels will not, at least, convey wrong info about sensor sizes or dimensions.

And who knows, over time as the actual dimensions and areas gain traction, we might be able to drop the silly traditional labels altogether.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 17:33 UTC as 121st comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview TV: Leica - the good and the bad (333 comments in total)
In reply to:

dstate1: For a little price perspective:
Smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in Wisconsin will cost you nearly $4000 per year. I don’t see anyone calling cigarettes a posh play toy of the wealthy.

When Leica starts shipping M11s with 50mm f/2 Sumicron-M ASPHs in return for payments on an installment plan of $8 a day over 7 years, let me know.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2022 at 21:55 UTC
On article DPReview TV: The most expensive camera in the world (140 comments in total)

Climbing, Sitting or Leaning on the wall is verboten, Chris. Sheesh! :)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2022 at 20:11 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

It's obvious how they'll be distributed. If you find a golden ticket in your Wonka Bar, you get a gold Leica :)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2022 at 05:16 UTC as 37th comment
On article OM System OM-1 review (1783 comments in total)
In reply to:

ModelA1: When I think that the vast majority of people on this forum take pictures with their smartphones and that they are fine with the image quality delivered and then these same people come to quibble about the image quality with this Olympus body. It's disappointing.

@Gourownway - my comment was in response to ModelA1; not you.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2022 at 19:42 UTC
On article OM System OM-1 review (1783 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobT3218: It is stated, "* You only get the low-light benefit if your shot also allows that shallower depth of field."
I accept this a correct. I know it's a can of worms which has been argued ad nausium. I don't want to rekindle that but is there a way of restating it so that I can get my little head around it?

Assuming two cameras are the same distance from the subject and capturing the same angle of view (AOV), one lens would need to be using a larger entrance pupil diameter for its camera to capture a shallower depth of field (DOF) than the other. Taking the 2x crop factor into account, an f/8 lens has the same entrance pupil diameter and delivers the same DOF to a full-frame (FF) sensor as an f/4 lens delivering the same AOV to a M43 body. The FF system only realizes a light-gathering advantage when using an f-number smaller than 2x the equivalent focal length M43 system.

In real world scenarios, it's not uncommon that the potential light-gathering advantage of a larger sensor system is not realized - or at least, not fully so - due to DOF constraints or challenges with filling the frame. In short, larger sensor systems have a potential light-gathering advantage but it's not carved in stone.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2022 at 13:53 UTC
On article OM System OM-1 review (1783 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: With all due respect, depth-of-field is a function of focal length and aperture used. The size of the sensor that you screw on to the back of the lens does not affect dof, but it does affect field of view. So of course sensor size plays a role. I'm all foor explaining complicated phenomena in a simple way, but this explanation starts at the wrong end. And then it says "shallower" which, again with all due respect, should be "less shallow" or "deeper".

@Kerensky97 - With equivalence being a method of determining how different format cameras make the same photos, how is bringing it up as a subject a bias against the smaller format body? It's literally telling readers, "At these settings, the smaller sensor camera matches the larger."

Link | Posted on May 18, 2022 at 13:10 UTC
On article OM System OM-1 review (1783 comments in total)
In reply to:

ModelA1: When I think that the vast majority of people on this forum take pictures with their smartphones and that they are fine with the image quality delivered and then these same people come to quibble about the image quality with this Olympus body. It's disappointing.

How convenient to be able to disregard a comment based solely on the imaginary person making it as opposed to the quality of the actual content.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2022 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Olifaunt: Strange choice. Why don't they compare with the state of the art, which is Hubble?

HST observes in visible light and the near infrared. Spitzer Space Telescope was a dedicated infrared observatory, like JWST.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2022 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Zenodroid: Why does the stars look like snowflakes?

The surface of Earth is warm because oceans and the atmosphere retain energy from the Sun and transfer that energy around the globe. Space is a vacuum. There is no atmosphere or other medium capable of storing energy.

We know there are stars larger than the Sun because we can directly measure the mass of stars orbiting in binary systems. We can also resolve some stars to measure their apparent diameters and, by virtue of having directly determined the distances to these stars, know their size. A star's brightness from a known distance can also be used to determine its mass. We can use spectroscopy to directly determine the chemical composition of stars and, knowing the mass needed to fuse elements, determine stellar masses that way.

In short, we know these things because...science.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2022 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

Janoch: Meh... I see disturbing diffractions!

In center of star two (?) horizontals, three above and three below.
That's 8 or 10 diffration spikes, but how does that add up, when the secondary mirror is hold into place with a three-legged spider?

Years ago I got the very large and thick mind-blowing "Best of Hubble"... still highly recommended! but if Nasa runs out of ideas, then perhaps update that book! I'll buy at least two!

Stunning!

The horizontal diffraction spike is produced by the secondary mirror strut assembly. The other, brighter spikes are from the edges of the hexagonal primary mirror segments.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2022 at 02:14 UTC
In reply to:

Parker Claude: Really not a fan of those artificial "star lines" radiating from the point source of light. Just show it as a plain point, it will be more authentic that way.

The horizontal diffraction spike is produced by the secondary mirror strut assembly. The other, brighter spikes are from the edges of the hexagonal primary mirror segments.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2022 at 02:12 UTC

There are Centaurs larger than this object. 95P/Chiron is even designated as a comet. This object is still interesting and merits study but it's not the largest-known comet.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2022 at 03:17 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

John Koch: Solar eclipses aren't easy to photograph. The events are short and don't repeat often. The location may be remote. The skies might be cloudy. The light levels change drastically. The contrasts are extreme. In 2017, using a multi-stop NDF, I obtained quite unimpressive images of a partial eclipse. To get fine details of the corona of a full eclipse must be very tricky. The optimum settings must vary between various cameras or lenses, and there is not any good way to simulate an eclipse in order to practice. Perhaps a ball in front of a flashlight beam at night?

@BackToNature1 totally is unmistakably different from any partial phase of a total solar eclipse. I'm not advocating that a person remove eye protection before totality begins or continue looking at the sun naked eye until after that phase ends. It's essential to give yourself a reasonable buffer.

But a person who's invested their time and effort to be on the center line of a total solar eclipse and who chooses not to remove their eclipse glasses - not even for a couple of minutes during the four minutes of totally - for safety reasons is unnecessarily denying themselves an opportunity to fully experience one of the truly awe-inspiring, magnificent phenomena of the natural world.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2022 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Solar eclipses aren't easy to photograph. The events are short and don't repeat often. The location may be remote. The skies might be cloudy. The light levels change drastically. The contrasts are extreme. In 2017, using a multi-stop NDF, I obtained quite unimpressive images of a partial eclipse. To get fine details of the corona of a full eclipse must be very tricky. The optimum settings must vary between various cameras or lenses, and there is not any good way to simulate an eclipse in order to practice. Perhaps a ball in front of a flashlight beam at night?

@BackToNature1 Yes, what I said: totality

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2022 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Solar eclipses aren't easy to photograph. The events are short and don't repeat often. The location may be remote. The skies might be cloudy. The light levels change drastically. The contrasts are extreme. In 2017, using a multi-stop NDF, I obtained quite unimpressive images of a partial eclipse. To get fine details of the corona of a full eclipse must be very tricky. The optimum settings must vary between various cameras or lenses, and there is not any good way to simulate an eclipse in order to practice. Perhaps a ball in front of a flashlight beam at night?

@BackToNature1 During totality, it is 100%"safe to look at the Sun with the naked eye. Every reputable source not only agrees with this but probably recommends this. It's the only way to truly, fully experience the event.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2022 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Solar eclipses aren't easy to photograph. The events are short and don't repeat often. The location may be remote. The skies might be cloudy. The light levels change drastically. The contrasts are extreme. In 2017, using a multi-stop NDF, I obtained quite unimpressive images of a partial eclipse. To get fine details of the corona of a full eclipse must be very tricky. The optimum settings must vary between various cameras or lenses, and there is not any good way to simulate an eclipse in order to practice. Perhaps a ball in front of a flashlight beam at night?

It's not an either or proposition; one can do both. As for the notion that a person shouldn't make a photograph because others already have or will make the same photograph, to paraphrase photographic artist Guy Tal, is only true to the degree that one believes that statement to be true, or simply fails to question its truthfulness. If a photographer is inspired to capture a magnificent natural event, they should do so with as much creatively as they're able to muster.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2022 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

MN13: There will be also an annular solar eclipse on October 14, 2023 visible in a path from Oregon to Texas.

@goodgeorge just because totality is better doesn't mean an annular eclipse isn't worth seeing. I've observed several and my favorite was with the eclipse visible from the Horseshoe Bend overlook in Arizona. It was an awesome setting for a very cool natural event.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2022 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

DanRN: I’m about a 30-40 minute drive from the centerline of the totality path. I watched the 2017 event from my backyard. Looking forward doing the same for this next one.

You must be in or near Carbondale, I'm guessing?

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2022 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Solar eclipses aren't easy to photograph. The events are short and don't repeat often. The location may be remote. The skies might be cloudy. The light levels change drastically. The contrasts are extreme. In 2017, using a multi-stop NDF, I obtained quite unimpressive images of a partial eclipse. To get fine details of the corona of a full eclipse must be very tricky. The optimum settings must vary between various cameras or lenses, and there is not any good way to simulate an eclipse in order to practice. Perhaps a ball in front of a flashlight beam at night?

With a proper solar filter, it's possible to rehearse for an eclipse. Setup your rig on any clear day, fine-tune how the telescope or telephoto lens will be set up, practice getting and maintaining focus, practice finding and framing the Sun between exposures, refine your imaging workflow.

On the day of the eclipse, begin photographing the event well before totality. That will allow plenty of time and opportunity to make sure everything is set when those critical few minutes arrive. During the 2017 solar eclipse, I used f/10, ISO 400, and shutter speeds from 1/15 to 1/250 with good results.

Also and arguably most important, take the time to look up from the gear to soak in the view of the eclipsed sun with the naked eye. It is otherworldly and genuinely mesmerizing.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2022 at 23:09 UTC
Total: 265, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »