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: 153, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Thank you, Barney, for a fantastic story about a very interesting photographer. I love finding these little gems on the home page, now and again. David Burnett is definitely NOT a schmo ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2019 at 14:09 UTC as 56th comment

Outstanding photos. Inspiring work.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2019 at 15:23 UTC as 26th comment
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

chev3100: Medium Format is clearly superior to FF+, FF and APS. MF is here already and superior IQ.
A phone today is almost as good as the old formats in IQ and has better processing and connectivty.

For you this means paying good money for legacy systems is just prolonging the inevitable end and stiffling progress.

Send a clear message. You want better, state of the art tech. Not iterations of past tech like the Z50. A management coming up with a Z50...come on. Their Kodak moment has already arrived. 5 years ago.

I will skip FF+ and wait it out. I want MF that does still and 4k/8k 30/60. Till then my D7100 is fine and my Gopro does decent 4k and my phone does 4k/30 for 3 years now, is always with me.

My multicore PC handles 150mb files and 300mb streams with ease. New sensors are coming in soon. There is no reason buy old APS products like the z50. No thanks Nikon.

"When I wrote about a 'true photographer', I meant someone who makes money out of it. Like me. I do not intend to play with DX bodies or mediocre lenses either.
I buy decent equipment to work with."

So, no one who does photography just for the enjoyment of it, is a "true photographer" and professionals don't buy or use APS-C cameras because, in your words, they're nothing more than toys to "play with." They're "mediocre;" not "decent" equipment.

That tells us all we need to know.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2019 at 17:52 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"So you buy for example a 14-24 with Nikon D850; or a 11-24 with Canon 5D Mark IV. Would you then say those lenses works correctly in DX bodies too."

Yes, they absolutely work, correctly. Is this a possible language kerfuffle? If you are British, that may explain how - me being American - we're separated by a common language.

Any modern F-mount lens works correctly with Nikon FX and DX bodies. That lens will deliver a different angle of view on DX than on FX but it's not broken. It's autofocus and aperture functions work just as well on both cameras. To describe the lens as not working correctly implies, in American English, the lens is not fully functional, broken or inoperative. That is very different from knowing which crop factor to apply.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2019 at 17:47 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"...a true photographer buys a lens for certain specific use."

I must not be a true photographer. My 70-200 f/2.8 gets used for portrait photography, landscapes, sports and wildlife. My 24-70 and 16-35 zooms have been used for portrait, landscape, sports, travel, street, architecture and night sky. Even my 200-500 sees action photographing birds, wildlife, sports and landscapes.

Yup, I'm definitely not a true photographer. I gotta stop ignoring the 'certain specific use' rule.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 19:48 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"FX lenses are made for FX sensor and there is a reason for every focal length. That is why they do not work 'correctly' in a DX body."

Seriously?! FX lenses do not work "correctly" on DX bodies? You're joking, right? I mean, you are aware that photographers around the world routinely use full-frame lenses with crop sensor bodies to make fantastic images, right?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 19:37 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further."

If Nikon removes the EVF, adds a fixed collapsible zoom and adds even more social media friendly features, they'd have a product for smartphone photogs who want more control over the image-making process but don't want to give up too much of the smartphone UI.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 15:06 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter."

Whatever savings you enjoy from buying DX over FX, can be put toward your first, quality FX lens. Furthermore, when you decide to add an FX body to your kit, all your FX lenses will be fully compatible...you'll save hundreds - thousands - on lens purchases.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 15:01 UTC
On article What the Z50 tells us about Nikon's APS-C strategy (682 comments in total)
In reply to:

Harry33: Barnet Britton's writing contains some controversial thoughts:

1. "The difference is that with Nikon, if want to you go from DX to FX (or back the other way) you don't necessarily need to invest in a whole new set of lenses to do so."

2. "If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Nikon's next DX Z camera being a slimmed-down, cheaper version of the Z50."

3. "Nikon would like us to believe that one - really wide - mount can accommodate more than one kind of photographer."

1st point.
Actually no DX lens is suitable to be used with the FX system. Not even one of them.
If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides. Also FX lenses are much more expensive and bigger, so there you lose the advantage of the DX to be cheaper and lighter.

2nd point.
Actually Z50 is already technically as slimmed down as it can be to have a decent demand in the market. There is hardly anything left to slim further.

... continued ...

"If you use FX lenses already in the DX body you waste more than 50 % of the image area the lens provides."

No, you use the image area you knew you were getting when you bought the lens. You're not wasting anything. You're using a quality lens to make good photos. Should you ever decide to add an FX body to your kit, you've already got glass to use with it. That's called, a strong incentive to stay with Nikon.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: No words on optical/glass vs mirror? Seems bonkers they didn't go with mirrors. Would love to know why.

The primary optic is an 8.4-meter diameter mirror. The lens is the main component of the secondary and imaging system, which is centrally positioned in front of the primary. The video shows this configuration from about :58 to 1:05.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2019 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: No words on optical/glass vs mirror? Seems bnkers they didn't go with mirrors. Would love to know why.

The primary optic is an 8.4-meter diameter mirror. The lens is the main component of the secondary and imaging system, which is centrally positioned in front of the primary. The video shows this configuration from about :58 to 1:05.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2019 at 13:12 UTC

But how's the microcontrast?

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2019 at 05:33 UTC as 119th comment
On article Nikon developing D6 professional DSLR (1010 comments in total)

Assuming the Nikkor 120-300 plays well with a 1.4x TC, it becomes a super sharp, 168-420 f/4. It'll be smaller, lighter and much less expensive than the 180-400 f/4. Well see a lot of these (D6 and 120-300) at the Tokyo games next summer.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2019 at 04:34 UTC as 193rd comment | 1 reply

Just installed and test drove the update on my i7-9750 (6 cores), GTX 1660 Ti (6GB) laptop and LR Classic does seem to be running more fluidly. I haven't done any objective testing to determine improved efficiency doing certain tasks in the modules but, compared to the performance from this past weekend, the app isn't at all laggy. Everything just seems to flow, smoothly. It's an improved user-experience.

I changed the GPU setting from Auto to Custom = selected both display and processing. Are there any advantages to using one mode over the other?

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2019 at 04:00 UTC as 33rd comment
On article DPReview TV: Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 S review (235 comments in total)

This reasonable, well-mannered and uplifting comment is brought to you by... :)

Understandably, Nikon seems focused on developing lens staples for their Z-mount systems. I'm sure they see that strategy as the honey that will attract...um, current Nikon customers to the new mount.

I'd be interested in hearing from you guys and the DPR staff editors: what exotic designs that the Z-mount makes possible would you be truly excited to see Nikon release? It may not even be a lens you'd buy. But what lens would say to you, Nikon is really pushing the envelope and taking full advantage of all this new mount and current optical design technology have to offer.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2019 at 13:42 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies

As well-represented as enthusiast cameras and lenses are amongst the winners of this competition, forum members should take heart that getting out with your gear on a regular basis is the first step toward making a great photo.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2019 at 19:23 UTC as 56th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

J A C S: Another evidence that Sony is killing Canikon...

Because, all winning photographs made by photographers shooting with Nikon or Canon DSLRs is evidence of Sony killing Canikon. Yup, it's impossible to make a decent photo with Canon or Nikon. All you can make, are world class competition winning photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2019 at 19:20 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Entry-level DSLR challenge (183 comments in total)

A link to this video might be part of the perfect response to so many of the, "Which new camera or lens will make my photography, better?"posts. The fundamentals (subject, composition, light, moment) Danson espouses can be applied to any photographic genre. So, too, can the first rule of photography: find amazing light and photograph it. The issues a person who applies this approach to their photography encounters, are more likely to be the product of actual equipment limitations. But if a person isn't paying attention to subject, composition, light and moment, no piece of whizz bang new gear is going to make their photography any better.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2019 at 13:08 UTC as 8th comment

This is genuinely interesting. It suggests a not-too-distant future in which a camera may be able to identify the athlete with the ball based on body language analysis and track focus on that specific individual, regardless of their location in a crowd. That's the consumer application. In some sports (basketball, soccer) it may even be possible to select a specifIc athlete from a menu and the camera will identify & track that person. Who knows where this might lead as a law enforcement or military application?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2019 at 04:54 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS sample gallery (77 comments in total)

Clearly not a nighttime sports lens. This isn't due to any lack of sharpness or AF performance, but to the f/6.3 maximum aperture.

Notice the shots of the players interacting with the fans and signing autographs were made at f/6.3, 1/320, ISO 6400 and look nice & bright. The game action shots were at f/6.3, 1/800, ISO 6400 and look a bit dingy. I'd wager the photog would normally have been at 1/1000, 1/1250 or even 1/1600 to absolutely freeze action. With a 400mm f/2.8, you could do that and keep the ISO to 4000 or 5000 with good image lightness.

This isn't surprising. I shot one college football game with my 200-500mm f/5.6 and it was too slow in that venue. It's just tough to get good results shooting at night with these consumer long zooms. They're a better match for daytime, outdoor field sports. Though, you've got to watch your backgrounds. At f/5.6 and slower, they can get distracting in a hurry.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 05:33 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 153, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »