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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

(unknown member): Defendant removed the image as soon as he was made aware of the copyright infringement. Shouldn’t that have been the end of story?

Why did this even proceed to court? Why wasn’t it simply dismissed?

Richard, the hypothetical you posit isn't a match for this case. I agree with the judge's ruling that...

1. Usage of the photo was informational (illustration on the film festival's "Area Activities" page)
2. Non-commercial (not offered for sale or used to directly promote another product)
3. In good faith (photo was removed when the festival organizer was informed it might be copyrighted)
4. Did not limit the photographer's ability to market the photo (it has been sold as a print and licensed for commercial use on multiple occasions both before and after use by the festival)

When one takes into consideration that the fair use broadens for copyrighted works that have been published prior to the alleged instance of infringement, the judge's ruling on this case appears even more solid.

As with all such things, there will be legal scholars who agree and others who disagree. But this is not the "obvious legal blunder" some folks are making it out to be.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2018 at 22:59 UTC
On article Sample gallery: Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: This is a lens made for shooting sports with the A9. I don't do that... which is good, because I also don't want to spend $12K on this lens. That said, I don't think it's easy to compete with this performance for sports shooting -- the speed, weight, balance, etc. are what this is tuned for. I think the IQ compares very well to the $10K Canon 400mm f/2.8 L II, including in bokeh quality (nicely diffuse edges in most cases compared with the Canon).

I don't get why stuff here was shot at such high ISOs? With camera shake taken care of and f/2.8, I'd expect shutter speeds to be high enough with ISO 400 or lower. Was lighting really that dim? Ye olde "sunny 16" rule would say ISO 400 == 1/12800s at f/2.8.

Just for context, shooting college football at the indoor venue where I live, my settings are 1/1000, f/2.8 and ISO 6400. And I often push another 1/3-stop in post. I can only fantasize about using less than ISO 2000 at night at 1/1000.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2018 at 03:44 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: "The smartphone doesn't need to equal the IQ of a dedicated camera. All it needs to do is deliver the control the photographer wants along with the user experience they've come to enjoy. And the reality is that more and more enthusiast (and even professional) photographers are getting both the result and user experience they want from the smartphone." Me - February 25, 2017

Well, "most" is not "all."

My assertion is that a person who makes the transition from being a casual photographer to being a hobbyist gets a camera to have more control over the image-making process. That step has not historically and is not now primarily about a desire for more resolution, color fidelity or any other technical image quality advancement. It's about wanting more control over the creative process of making a photograph.

In recent years as smartphones have evolved, the added features and functionality are doing a better job of meeting that need. At least, this is something dedicated smartphone photographers will say. Whether or not you or I agree with them is irrelevant. As long as emerging photographers find the control they seek in smartphones, that's where they'll stay.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 00:28 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: "The smartphone doesn't need to equal the IQ of a dedicated camera. All it needs to do is deliver the control the photographer wants along with the user experience they've come to enjoy. And the reality is that more and more enthusiast (and even professional) photographers are getting both the result and user experience they want from the smartphone." Me - February 25, 2017

My wife and son (and many smartphone enthusiasts) would disagree. They really enjoy experimenting with the camera control settings and processing looks available in their smartphones. These are not just "point, shoot and post" people. They're intentionally choosing shutter speed and aperture, and processing settings to achieve a desired look. They're photographers.

The options and degree of control available to smartphone photographers grow and become more user-friendly by the year.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 20:01 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)

"The smartphone doesn't need to equal the IQ of a dedicated camera. All it needs to do is deliver the control the photographer wants along with the user experience they've come to enjoy. And the reality is that more and more enthusiast (and even professional) photographers are getting both the result and user experience they want from the smartphone." Me - February 25, 2017

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 15:53 UTC as 248th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Gmon750: An Astronaut - doesn't know if an SD card is needed for recording?? Seriously? I just lost a lot of respect for this guy.

Because mastering the operation of a device used to record cat videos is so much more demanding of respect than having a PhD in geophysics and being trained NASA to live and work in space doing things like, oh, repairing the Space Telescope.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2018 at 11:11 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-H1 Review (524 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: If Fuji wants to develop the X-H1 line as their bird/wildlife/sports camera, they need to expand the zoom options and release a dedicated prime or two (the soon-to-be-released 200/2 is a great start) for these genres. In the meantime, improved AF acquisition and tracking in the next-gen X-H1 as well as improved battery life would make this body more attractive for fast action and subjects at distance.

Hi Gibbosa - I mentioned the 200mm f/2 as it will capture an angle of view equivalent to a 300mm lens on a full frame body. The f/2 aperture will be a stop faster for exposure than a 300mm f/2.8 lens and will match that lens in depth of field.

A 270mm f/2.8 would nearly match the classic 400mm f/2.8 in angle of view, would match that lens in f-stop for exposure but would give up a bit in depth of field. A 330mm or 340mm, f/2.8 or f/4 would compete with the full-frame 500mm f/4. A 400mm, f/2.8 or f/4 would compare with the 600mm f/4.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 18:31 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-H1 Review (524 comments in total)

If Fuji wants to develop the X-H1 line as their bird/wildlife/sports camera, they need to expand the zoom options and release a dedicated prime or two (the soon-to-be-released 200/2 is a great start) for these genres. In the meantime, improved AF acquisition and tracking in the next-gen X-H1 as well as improved battery life would make this body more attractive for fast action and subjects at distance.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2018 at 17:43 UTC as 53rd comment | 3 replies

Methinks a few judges scored the entries after binge-watching "Black Mirror."

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 00:47 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benjamin Kanarek: Lumix 84% gets GOLD...Fujifilm 86% gets SILVER. That is totally illogical! Will someone from this site, explain to me how that can even be explained?

Re-reading the review, it appears DP Review treated the X-H1 as either a camera in a different category than the X-T2 or inserted at the top end of the same category. Comparing the two reviews, it's pretty clear DPR was very impressed with the performance improvements delivered with the X-T2. While they're also impressed with the improved performance of the X-H1, the elevated price tag puts the X-H1 in more direct competition with more accomplished bodies. DPR may not consider the X-H1 to be best-of-the-best but the Silver Award is only given to very good-to-excellent gear. It's hardly a snub and definitely not an insult.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2018 at 01:43 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1596 comments in total)
In reply to:

fox-orian: OK so, it's *kinda* big and kinda heavy compared to many other mirrorless bodies. But I don't understand for the life of me why this is a bad thing? Fuji offers a wide range of camera body sizes all using X-Mount, and this camera is a new addition to the line up that goes one level higher to DSLR-ish sized, for arguably better handling for its more video-centric feature set. I can't be the only person who appreciates having a bigger, more grippy Fuji camera on the market, am I? A few of the X-Series lenses can get a tad on the large size (the 16-55 2.8) and it feels right at home on this body for me. If I really want, I could still pick up a smaller X-E2 or 3 too, and still use all my lenses if I know video isn't a concern that day. For now, as a 6'5" dude with big hands, I deeply appreciate having this option in size. Cams the size of the A6500 just cramp my hand up.

Also it's still smaller/lighter than an actual DSLR (like 7D series,) and (roughly) the same size/weight as the GH5/S.

Not bad, per se, but definitely a calculated departure from a product strategy that's been very successful for Fujifilm since the 2010 introduction of the X-100.

I realize there are a number of current Fuji shooters who eagerly placed pre-orders for the X-H1 and are now enjoying doing photography the camera. To them I say, "Rock on! Enjoy your new kit." But let's step back and look objectively at where the X-H1 competes in the wider interchangeable lens camera market.

Setting aside current Fuji owners, fill in the blank: "You're likely to switch to/add the X-H1, because the X-H1 offers (blank) that your current camera or another competing camera doesn't." I would argue the X-H1 offers little in the way of compelling design and specs to the photographer who currently shoots with anything other than Fuji.

Let's check back in a year from now to see how well the X-H1 has faired on the open market. If it's a sales leader, I'll need the first to step up and admit I was wrong.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 21:41 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1596 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benjamin Kanarek: Lumix 84% gets GOLD...Fujifilm 86% gets SILVER. That is totally illogical! Will someone from this site, explain to me how that can even be explained?

It's not illogical, if you understand what the scores and ratings mean: https://m.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 19:25 UTC

I see the "Adobe is evil" clown show is still running. Have you tried an aluminum foil hat?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2018 at 10:58 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
On article Why brand market share shouldn't matter to you (547 comments in total)

All well and good. So, which numbers do matter? Is there an industry number that has been a reliable leading indicator since, say, 2012? What does that number suggest about how the Big 3 will stack up in the next 12-18 months? What does that number say about the tech, performance specs or marketing strategy that actually moved the needle?

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2018 at 15:53 UTC as 109th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bronto99: So I spent an extra $2,500 on an A9 and all I got was a second dial and 10 more fps I almost never need? Help me understand why someone other than an extreme sports shooter would spend more than twice as much on an A9 now?

Yes, it is a gift...but also a burden. Peace, to you.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2018 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

Bronto99: So I spent an extra $2,500 on an A9 and all I got was a second dial and 10 more fps I almost never need? Help me understand why someone other than an extreme sports shooter would spend more than twice as much on an A9 now?

Actually, the point is that you bought an A9 even though you had a pretty good idea exactly what the A7III would be. You knew what you were getting and had a pretty good idea that the A7III would bring similar performance to the table. If you wanna complain to somebody about it, look in the mirror.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2018 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Bronto99: So I spent an extra $2,500 on an A9 and all I got was a second dial and 10 more fps I almost never need? Help me understand why someone other than an extreme sports shooter would spend more than twice as much on an A9 now?

"I bought the A9 because of the blackout free shooting, the super fast AF, the excellent Eye-AF, the compact body, the awesome EVF, the silent e-shutter etc."

So, you shoot a lot of sports, wildlife/birds or other fast action? Perhaps, weddings or events where the eye AF and silent shutter come in handy?

The A9 seems a pretty good body for that kind of work.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 18:23 UTC

Wow, nearly 1200 comments. Say what you want, but Sony had clearly struck a nerve with this product. I wonder if they've improved they're labrynthian menu?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 01:42 UTC as 69th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Bronto99: So I spent an extra $2,500 on an A9 and all I got was a second dial and 10 more fps I almost never need? Help me understand why someone other than an extreme sports shooter would spend more than twice as much on an A9 now?

Why did you buy the A9? Which cameras did you say, "No," to when choosing the A9?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 01:31 UTC

Most of those Canon lenses are probably mounted to Sony broadcast television camera bodies.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 13:57 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 153, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »