Bodzash Photography and Astronomy

Tokina Announces 11-16 f2.8 II with Built-In Motor For Nikon

2012-01-29T12:28:00.001-05:00

Tokina's 11-16 f2.8 II lens, due out later this year.

Tokina has just announced (you'll need to scroll down a little) that it will be launching a 'II' version of its highly-praised 11-16 f2.8 model, which is the only lens in the world that provides such a fast aperture with an extreme wide-angle perspective. Generally speaking, most ultrawide zooms start around f4 on the wide end. With its f2.8 maximum aperture and extremely wide field of view, some truly stunning low-light pictures can be shot without flash, provided one isn't afraid of cranking the ISOs up into the four digit mark.

If you want to see just what a f2.8 zoom can do under low-light when partnered with a modern digital camera, go to my Tokina 28-70 f2.8 review and scroll to the bottom.

For owners of low-end Nikon dSLRs, this is great news as this lens has a built-in motor, which will allow for AF on all current Nikons. The current lens employed the old-fashioned slotted screw drive, which will only allow AF on cameras with a built-in focus motor (D7000 and up). The lens also features what Tokina claims are improved optical coatings and a new AF mechanism, designed to boost AF speed.

As for pricing and availability, the lens should start hitting stores in April for the Nikon mount version and August for Canon. Price? Well, that's set at 94,500 Yen, which translates to about $1,200. Scared yet? Don't be, MSRPs are often greatly inflated from actual street prices.

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

'Solar Hurricane' Blasting Earth Right Now!

2012-01-24T16:18:00.000-05:00

Astronauts could be in for a real treat these coming days!

Here we go again, but this time, it's the big one: another CME hit Earth thus morning, some forecasters are expecting a one to two day solar storm. Needless to say, be alert for Northern Lights if your sky is looking to be clear tonight. Read all about it!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Nikon 85 f1.8G vs. 85 f1.8D, Solar Storm Update

2012-01-22T12:10:00.002-05:00

Nikon's new 85 f1.8G replaces the old '85 f1.8D.

Two new things this Sunday:

Thing 1: I just did a write-up on the new Nikon 85 f1.8G vs. the old 85 f1.8D lenses. Be sure to check it out.

Thing 2: The CME that was predicted to collide with Earth's upper atmosphere yesterday evening wound up traveling more slowly than expected and actually hit early this morning. Result: the folks at spaceweather.com are now forecasting tonight to be the night to look for aurora.

Best wishes for clear skies!

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

What Are the Northern Lights?

2012-01-21T12:19:00.000-05:00

The Northern LIghts: enchanting yet mysterious.

The Northern Lights: virtually everyone has heard of them and probably almost everyone who has seen pictures and/or video has been enchanted by them, but very people know what they are. So, what exactly are the Northern Lights, also known as aurora?

The aurora are caused by an interaction of energized particles from the Sun interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. When the Sun is active, it is more likely to emit a burst of charged atoms into space in a n event called a coronal mass ejection (CME). In technical terms, CMEs differ from the solar wind in that the CMEs are stronger. Think of it this way, if the solar wind is a breeze, a CME is a wind storm. Once launched into space, it will take between 2 and 3 days for the particles from the Sun to reach Earth.

Upon hitting Earth's upper atmosphere, the charged particles are funneled toward the polar regions thanks to the Earth's magnetic field, where they ten interact with atoms high in the Earth's atmosphere. When charged ions from the Sun hit atoms, they give off a distinct glow that varies by atom and also altitude.

As for colors, here are what they mean:
Deep red: caused by high-altitude (175+ miles up) oxygen
Green/greenish yellow: lower altitude oxygen
Pale red/pink: low nitrogen
Blue/purple: high-altitude hydrogen and helium

The most common color is a greenish shade, with ruby red aurora being the most rare.. Aurora can be as low as 60 miles and as high as 350.

When it comes to form, the aurora can take on many guises, which can resemble silk curtains, a cricking whip, or an amorphous glob. As for why the aurora look the way to do, it all has to do with how they hit the lines of Earth's magnetic field. The closer to a line, the more curtain/whip-like they will be.

When it comes to seeing aurora, for reasons that are still not completely understood, the best seasons to watch are the spring and fall, though they can occur at any time of the year because their origin lies with the Sun. As for frequency, aurora re more commonly seem when the Sun is at or near maximum in its 11-year cycle. For the record, the next solar maximum is forecast for 2013/14.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Incoming CME Could Produce Solar Storm Tomorrow

2012-01-20T11:55:00.002-05:00

The CME that is heading for Earth right now.

Yesterday, the Sun blasted a coronal mass ejection (CME) straight in Earth's direction. According to the experts on Spaceweather.com, the CME is projected to hit Earth sometime tomorrow evening for people living in the Eastern United States. Needless to say, one should be alert for aurora tomorrow night, and this does not apply just to high-latitude skywatchers, either.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 1/9

2012-01-17T11:07:00.000-05:00

Another week over, another Examiner roundup arrived. NOTE: this was a very news-heavy week (CES releases for photography, Phobos-Grunt for astro), which means that a lot of the same stories were covered by both columns, which is why i'm not posing what are links to essentially the same material twice.

Space News
Amateur video of Phobos-Grunt
iPad survives fall from space
Will Doomsday Clock move?
1 minute closer to Doomsday
Russia blames America for space failures?

National Photography
Nikon D4 vs. Canon 1Dx
What is a XQD memory card?
Fuji announces X-Pro1
Canon announces G1X
G1X vs. G12
Fuji: X-Pro1 just the beginning
Android-powered Polaroid announced

Cleveland Photography
Ditto National

Cleveland Astronomy
Jan. featured sight: seeing double

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Cell Phone Cameras vs. Digital Point and Shoots: Which is Better?

2012-01-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

Camera vs. Phone: which one wins? Read on to find out!

As technology gets better, a legitimate debate has arisen in photographic circles: are cell phone cameras killing the entry-level point and shoot digital models that have been a staple of the photographic world for over a decade. Yes, there is undeniable proof that cell phone cameras are getting ever better by the year and that their popularity is increasing, but do they pose a legitimate chance at killing the pocket P&S?

NEWS: Polaroid announces phone-like, Android-powered camera

In a recent article published by the BBC that focuses on American camera sales, it has been reported that, in the first 11 months of 2011, basic point and shoot camera sales fell by about 17% while entry-level pocket camcorder sales took a 13% plunge. The culprit (according to an online survey): smart phones, whose cameras are ever-increasing in their capabilities, possibly to the point of equaling dedicated, entry-level photo gear. So, do phones pose a legitimate threat to cameras?

Hardly, if you ask me.

There are several things that make true cameras stand out: better resolution, better AF, more versatile optics (think zoom), external buttons that allow for quick changes to settings, and the laundry list of customizable options that do not appear on any cell phone. In addition, point and shoot cameras can be made to be water, freeze, and crush-proof, too.

For anyone who is serious about taking pictures, any smart phone's user interface is its biggest drawback. On a cell phone, you are forced to dive into menus and scroll around for every single setting change you want to make. On a camera, the basic setting controls are at your fingertips in the form of buttons, no menu diving required. With this vital attribute, someone with a real camera can be snapping a once in a lifetime photo while the smart phone user is scrolling through menus, trying to find the setting he/she wants to change.

However, the numbers don't lie, do they?

One important consideration in the survey was the nature of the question, which found that phones were more likely to be used in “fun, casual, or spontaneous” settings. Well, duh, of course they are! Question: how often do you have a cell phone on you? A camera? Chances are, unless you're serious about taking photos, you're not like me and don't carry a pocket P&S at all times, too. For this reason alone, cell phones are going to be taking more spontaneous snaps than true cameras.

Another key finding in the survey: dSLR sales are getting stronger, not weaker, and that for planned events where picture taking would be on the agenda, dedicated cameras and camcorders were still the favored medium for imaging. Again, duh. After all, who shoots their daughter's wedding with an iPhone (as cool as it may be)?

In the end, camera phones are creatures of opportunity as many more people regularly carry a phone at all times than a camera, which means more on the fly pictures will come by way of phones. Also, phones can have great cameras but lousy user interfaces, which means that, when it comes to serious shooting, real cameras are still the way to go. Unless you're only wanting the bare bones of photographic applications (namely aim and shoot) and are willing to settle for “good enough,” don't ditch your camera anytime soon.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Canon G1X vs. G12, the World

2012-01-12T11:39:00.000-05:00

The Canon G1X: is this the only camera you'll ever need?

Two days ago, Canon announced a truly revolutionary camera: the Powershot G1X, the first digital camera in history that combined the small size of a P&S, the sensor of a SLR, and the flexibility of a zoom lens, all in one camera. For many photographers the world over, this is a dream come true: a camera that can deliver image quality, extreme portability, and flexibility all in one package. In addition, this is the camera that could make all other cameras obsolete, too.

Initially, by looking at the G1X, one immediately notices the strong family resemblance to Canon's previously top-tier model: the G12. While they may look similar on the outside, the two cameras are completely different on the inside. For a concise comparison of the two cameras, go here.

Now: the G1X vs. the world.

Previously, people had three choices when buying cameras: dSRS, large-sensor, fixed lens P&S models, and small sensor P&S models, all three of which have disadvantages that disappear with the G1X. First on the hit list: small-sensor P&S cameras.

With small sensor cameras, their biggest disadvantage is the sensor size itself. Why? It's all about the pixels, specifically their size. If two cameras with two different size sensors have the same pixel count, say 14Mp, the only way that this can be possible is that the individual pixels on the smaller sensor are smaller than the pixels on the bigger sensor. The problem is twofold. First: all electronic sensors have background noise, which manifests itself as graininess and/or color splotches with cameras. Second: small pixels capture less signal (light) than large pixels. Less signal means less data to drown out the noise. Result: grainy, splotched pictures. Now, while small-sensor P&S cameras can make good pictures at base ISO, at anything past 400, the noise really starts to show. At the same time, dSLRs/large sensor compacts can often do ISO 1600 noise-free.

Second on the hit list: all previous large sensor compacts. In 2006, Sigma made big news by announcing its DP1, the first compact camera to feature a SLR-sized sensor. While the camera was undoubtedly a breakthrough in design, it had one big drawback in the eyes of many people: the lens was of a fixed focal length equivalent of 28mm on film with a max. aperture of f4, meaning that the DP1 was only good for landscapes as the lens was too slow for low light shooting. In the following years, new cameras building on the same design (big sensor, prime lens) followed. While popular with serious photographers, these cameras never really caught on with the masses because of their high price (thanks to the big sensor) and fixed focal length lenses (which don't appeal to casual snappers).

Last of all, the dSLR. Until the arrival of the DP1 and its 'offspring,' dSLRs were the undisputed kings of the hill for image quality in less than ideal lighting conditions thanks to their big pixels, which drown out noise very well and result in remarkably noise-free images. Problem: dSLRs, even the small ones, are huge in of themselves. Add on a lens and guess what, forget about portability as neck straps and/or camera bags are required.

Now, with the arrival of the G1X, the world has a camera that eliminates all of these problems: the low IQ of small sensors, the prime lenses of previous big-sensor P&S models, and the sheer bulk of dSLRs. While not the smallest P&S model around, the G1X is still small enough to fit into a pocket, allowing for flexible, high-quality imaging on the go, just the thing for those spontaneous photo-ops that always seem to pop up when you wish you had a camera around.

Now another question: why not to buy a G1X?

In two areas, the G1X falls short of the dSLR. First, if you want telephoto performance, forget it, the G1X only has a lens that is the equivalent of 28-112mm, which is probably good for 95% of one's shooting, but can leave you wanting more reach for something far away. The other thing: dSLRs are better for fast action/low light focusing thanks to their phase-detect AF. While good on the IQ front, the G1X still employs the contrast-detect AF used by most P&S cameras, all of which can be so-so to downright lousy when targeting a fast-moving subject or anything in a dark setting.

In the end, for 90% of the people reading this, the Canon G1X may just be the only camera you'll ever need. Want one? Preorder yours now before the “line” gets too long!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Canon Announces G1X Large-Sensor, Zoom Compact

2012-01-11T10:42:00.004-05:00

The G1X: not your average P&S camera!

The camera we've all been waiting for is here: a large-sensor compact with a zoom lens as Canon announced its Powershot G1X yesterday. For serious photographers looking for versatile imaging power on the go, this is your perfect camera, so preorder yours now before the waiting lists get too long! For an in-depth look at the new Canon, go here.

Here are some key specs:

Body: metal, no sealing
Sensor: 14Mp CMOS
Lens: 28-112mm film equivalent, f2.8-5.8
Orientation sensor: Yes
Aspect ratios: 4:3, 1:1, 3:2, 16:9, 5:4
Formats: RAW, JPEG, DPOF
ISO: 100-12,800
Modes: Program, TV, AV, M, scene, creative, auto
AF: Contrast detect
AF assist lamp: Yes
Viewfinder: LCD, optical tunnel
LCD: 3” 920k dot live view, flip out
Shutter Speed: 1/4000-60 seconds
Continuous drive: 4.5fps (burst mode), 1.9 fps normal
Exposure Compensation: +/- 3 stops
AE Bracketing: +/- 2 at 1/3 steps
WB Bracketing: No
Built-in flash: Yes
Video: 1080p full HD
Microphone: stereo
Speaker: stereo
Movie Formats: H.264
Storage: SD, SDHC, SDXC
HDMI: Yes
GPS: No
Weight: 18.8ozs. (with battery)
Size: 4.6” x 3.2” x 2.6”
Price: $799.99
Availability: Feb. 2012

More hot stuff from CES:
Nikon D4
Fuji X-Pro1.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Fuji Announces X-Pro1, X100 Big Brother. Price Set, Release Date TBA

2012-01-10T12:28:00.002-05:00

The Fuji X-Pro1: the lenses come off!

There's some really hot stuff coming out of CES 2012. First the Nikon D4 and now the Fujifilm X-Pro1, the interchangeable lens big brother of the immensely popular X100 large sensor P&S. Read all about it here.

Ok, here are some key specs:

Body: metal, no sealing
Sensor: 16Mp APS-C CMOS
Orientation sensor: Yes
Aspect ratios: 1:1, 3:2, 16:9
Formats: RAW, JPEG
ISO: 200-25,600
Modes: Program, Time value, Aperture value, manual
AF: Contrast detect
AF assist lamp: Yes
Viewfinder: 100% coverage, optical/digital hybrid
LCD: 3” 1,230,000 dot live view, fixed
Shutter Speed: 1/4000-30 seconds
Flash Sync: 1/180^th second
Continuous drive: 6fps max
Exposure Compensation: +/- 2 stops
AE Bracketing: (1/3, 2/3, 1stop values)
WB Bracketing: No
Built-in flash: No
Video: 1080p full HD
Microphone: stereo
Speaker: stereo
Movie Formats: H.264
Storage: SD, SDHC, SDXC
HDMI: Yes
GPS: No
Weight: 15.9ozs. (with battery)
Size: 5.5” x 2.2” x 1.7”
Price: Around $1,700
Availability: TBA

Want one? Well, considering that the X100 was just about impossible to find for almost a year after it first hit stores, I suggest that you preorder your X-Pro1 today before the 'line' gets too long!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Nikon D4 vs. Canon 1Dx, Examiner for Weeks of 12/25, 1/1

2012-01-08T12:41:00.001-05:00

The Nikon D4 is the big photographic news event of now.

First of all, I did a write-up on my Examiner column on the whole Nikon D4 vs. Canon 1Dx debate. Which is better? Why not see for yourself?

NOTE: the Examiner lists may seem thin, but this is because I'm not including links to timely news items, like solar storms, and other 1-day events. The more evergreen stuff is staying.

Space News
Comet Lovejoy from Space
ASU to look for alien artifacts on Moon
Amateurs photograph Phobos-Grunt
Science vs. 2012
Astrology: why people still believe
President Obama has gone to Mars!
Stephen Hawking: women are the universe's biggest mystery
Stephen Hawking defies ALS, turns 70

National Photography
Caught on camera: the birth of an island
New software tracks lost cameras
Stars we lost in 2011
2012: Doomsday for digital cameras?
In photos: Quadrantid Meteors
Video: marriage proposal goes horribly wrong
Nikon announces the D4
Nikon D4: a $6000 yawn

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 12/25: latest sunrises
Comet Lovejoy from space
Get Sirius: ring in the New Year with the Dog Star
NASA takes on 2012
President Obama has gone to Mars!
Happy perihelion
The January Sky

Cleveland Photography
The nightmare after Christmas: unwanted gifts
The horizontally-moving Sun
Screaming of a White Christmas!
What will 2012 mean for digital cameras?
2011 predictions revisited
Meteor photos online
Fuji announces a slew of new cameras
Nikon announces the D4
The Nikon D4: a $6000 disappointment

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Nikon D4 vs. D3/D3s: Should I Buy One or Wait for the D5?

2012-01-07T10:36:00.006-05:00

The D4 is quite a camera, but it's not revolutionary like the D3.

Yesterday, Nikon announced its D4 dSLR, which the company labeled as 'multi-media' thanks to its much enhanced video capability. So, now that the 4 ½ year-old D3 is finally has a replacement (the D3s was a D3 with video), is the D4 a camera worth buying?

When looking at the spec sheet of the D4, one immediately notices one thing: a lot has not changed from the D3s.

UPDATE: See how the D4 stacks up against the Canon 1Dx

Now, what does this mean for Nikon?

Answer: the battle for the 4^th generation of pro digital cameras will come down to the high-resolution models that both Nikon and Canon have yet to launch.

When the Nikon D3 came out in fall, 2007, it completely blew away the Canon 1D Mark III in itself. Then, factor in the AF problems found on the Canon and the stupid 1.3x crop factor and, in one stroke, Nikon had, for the first time in 2 decades, a body that the pros really wanted. Want proof? Look at the photographer areas at sporting events. Before the D3, there used to be mostly white Canon glass. Now? There's a healthy mix of white Canons and black Nikkors. When Canon launched the 1D Mark IV in 2009, the, at the time, 2-year old D3 was still, in the eyes of many, overwhelmingly superior thanks to its larger sensor and better low-light performance. Then, throw in the just-announced D3s (a D3 with even higher ISO and video) and, guess what, Canon looked pretty antiquated.

Then came October, 2011 and the Canon 1Dx, a high-speed, FF pro model designed to go head-to-head with Nikon's aging D3 line. On paper, the Canon 1Dx was extremely formidable, being the first do it all Canon camera as it combined high resolution (18Mp), the ability to shoot high speed (12fps), and full HD video capabilities (something the band-aid D3s couldn't do). Now, with the first real competition in years, Nikon had to pull out all the stops to keep its place in the Sun.

And what did they deliver? Yesterday's lunch (a D3/D3s) warmed over.

In the end, the debate of whether one should buy a D4 comes down to one simple question: how important is video? If video makes up a substantial part of your camera usage, preorder a D4 right now before the “line” gets too long. If you are mainly a still shooter the D3/D3s is still a formidable camera that should allow you to happily keep clicking away until the D5 comes out, probably sometime in 2015.

As for who's king of the hill right now, it's hard to say. Both Nikon and Canon have pretty much equal high speed pro cameras (D4 and 1Dx) and an aging stable of other high-end cameras, most notably the big Mp flagship models (D3x and 1Ds Mark III). Also of note are the ancient (in digital terms) Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mark II, both 2008 releases though hardly direct competitors. Going older, both Nikon and Canon are still listing the D300s (Nikon) and 50D (Canon) on their websites, despite both being essentially made obsolete by 'lesser,' cheaper models (D7000 and 60D, respectively).

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see what both companies pull out of their sleeves in the coming months, especially now that both have put their cards on the table in the high speed pro market segment.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Nikon Announces the D4 'Multi-Media' dSLR, 85 f1.8 AF-S

2012-01-06T11:52:00.000-05:00

The Nikon D4 with the new 85 f1.8 AF-S.

Nikon has just announced the long-awaited successor to the D3/D3s models: the D4, which Nikon claims to be a true multi-media camera thanks to its greatly enhanced video capabilities. In digital camera terms, the D3/D3s was getting quite old for a dSLR. Launched in 2007, the D3 revolutionized photography and, for Nikon, was a much needed shot in the arm as, for the first time since the AF revolution in the 80s, pros had a legitimate reason to see the Nikon system as equal to or better than long-reigning King Canon.

Building on the success of the D3, Nikon has offered improvements in many categories that are sure to make many current Nikonians consider an update and some non-Nikonians consider jumping ship.

Key specs:Body: magnesium alloy, weather seals
Sensor: 16Mp FX
Aspect ratios: 3:2, 5:4
Formats: NEF (RAW), TIFF, JPEG
ISO: 50-204,800
AF Modes: 7
AF Points: 51
Viewfinder: 100% coverage. 0.7x magnification
LCD: 3.2” 920k dot live view
Shutter Speed: 1/8000-30 seconds, bulb
Flash Sync: 1/250^th second
Exposure Compensation: +/- 5 stops
Video: 1080p full HD
Movie Formats: MPEG, H.264
Storage: Compactflash, XQD
Weight: 2.95lbs (with battery)
Size: 6.3” x 6.2” x 3.6”
Price: $5999.95

Oh, yes, Nikon updated its 85 f1.8 lens to AF-S, too.

In the following couple of days, expect some commentary, especially in light of the Canon 1Dx, to come, too. For now, if you want some in-depth analysis, go here.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Happy Perihelion!

2012-01-05T12:40:00.000-05:00

The Sun: it's at its closest right now.

Believe it or not, Earth is at a point in its orbit called perihelion or, in everyday language, the point in its orbit where it is closest from the Sun (okay, perihelion was 2 days ago, but it's close enough!). For many people who erroneously believe that the seasons are caused by the earth's distance to the Sun, this fact disproves this common misconception (at least for people living in the Northern Hemisphere) as January is often the coldest month despite the Earth being at its closest distance from the Sun.

So, for people not familiar with the solar system, this fact leaves 2 big questions: how can Earth be at different distances from the Sun in a circular orbit and what causes the seasons? First, let's tackle the question about distance to the Sun.

First of all, the planets' orbits are not circular at all, but elliptical. In geometry, an ellipse is a slightly elongated circle. Since the time of the Ancient Greeks, it was commonly assumed that the planets had to be in perfect, circular orbits. Unfortunately, a observing techniques were refined, it became obvious that the planets weren't exactly where they were supposed to be. However, it was not until Johannes Kepler in the early 1600s that it was realized that the planets do not orbit in circles, but in slightly elongated ellipses, hence why the Earth can be different distances from the Sun.

Now, onto the seasons, if not for Earth's distance to the Sun, why do we have them?. Answer: it's all about Earth's tilt.

If the Earth were spinning on its axis with no tilt at all, everyone would be treated to days of identical length every day of the year, with latitudes nearer the equator having longer days than those nearer the poles. However, with the tilt, the angle of the Earth relative to the Sun changes as or planet moves about its orbit. On the Winter Solstice (shortest day of the year) the Northern Hemisphere is tilted up and away from the Sun. On the Summer Solstice (longest day of the year), the Northern Hemisphere will be tilted down toward the Sun. On the equinoxes, the tilt is half way between the solstices. To see this effect, go out and observe the path the Sun takes through the sky for the course of day of winter.

As seen on the Summer Solstice from the Cleveland area (where I'm from), the Sun rises in the Northeast, arcs into the Southern sky, peaking at a height of about 72 degrees at local noon (about 1:30pm), and then starts heading down to its set in the Northwest. On the solstice, the day will be over 15 hours long. Now, for people living at different latitudes, your numbers may differ with more Northerly dwellers seeing more extreme changes. For about a month after the solstice, you will notice that the rise/set points of the Sun hardly change, hence “solstice” from the Latin words “sol” and “sitre,” literally, “Sun stands still.”

By early August though, the days start to shorten and the Sun is noticeably moving South, towards due West at sunset. The shortening of the days will accelerate until the Sun reaches the day of the Autumnal Equinox, where it will rise/set exactly due East/West. At this point, both day and night will be exactly 12 hours long. The Sun will never leave the Southern celestial hemisphere until the next Vernal Equinox (first day of spring).

The shortening of the days will continue until the Sun finally reaches its most Southerly rise/set on the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year. On this day, the Sun will rise/set low in the Southeast, get only about 25 degrees high at local noon (in my location at about 12:30 thanks to a return to Standard Time). The final result: a day that is only 9 hours long.

Now, by looking at these statistics, namely where the Sun rises, how high it climbs, and how long the days is, it is obvious to see that the angle of the Sun relative to Earth, not its distance, determines why we have seasons.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

It's Official: 2011 Was the Worst Year for Astronomy in Recorded History

2012-01-04T07:17:00.004-05:00

Rain can be fun to photograph mid-fall, but is's all-around bad news for astronomers!

For anyone who lives in Northeast Ohio's Cleveland area and who likes to look up at the night sky, there was no doubt about it: 2011 was one of the cloudiest years ever. Personally, ever since really getting into astronomy back in 2004, this was the worst year I can remember. Honestly, it seemed like there was nothing but wall-to-wall clouds for the first 6 months of the year (except when the Moon was near Full, of course!). Finally, come July, things cleared out in a big way, finally bringing the first multi-day runs of clear nights for the entire year. With the middle of August, you guessed it, the clouds were back, which is where they have stayed for the most part.

Well, according to the national Weather Service, 2011 was Northeast Ohio's worst season for astronomy as it was not only the wettest year on record, but the wettest by a wide margin since records began being kept in in the early 1870s. For Cleveland, we ended the year with over 65 inches of precipitation in 2011, more than 26 inches above the average. The old record from 1990? It's toast, being beaten by over a foot this year.

Here's hoping for a drier, and clearer, 2012!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Happy New Year, and Many More to Come!

2012-01-01T07:36:00.000-05:00

ONLINE COUNTDOWN

Well, it's official: 2011 is gone and 2012 is here which, for many people, only means one thing: there's less than a year to live. While prophets of doom are nothing new, the 2012 Maya calendar running out hype is something that has been building for quite some time and will only continue to increase in the forefront of many individuals' minds until December 22 arrives after nothing happens on the day before. In short, more so than at any time since the big lead-up to Y2K over a decade (has it been that long already?) ago, 2012 will be a year of crackpots and crazy ideas that will make full fledged, frontal assaults on reason for almost all year long.

Now, anyone who has been visiting here for any length of time will have inferred by now that I am a big proponent of logic, skepticism, and the scientific method, three things that will be immensely useful in the coming 12 months as end of the world predictions become more frequent and, in all probability, more imaginative. The bottom line is this: never in the history of man has any prophecy ever come true, a lesson that preacher Harold Camping has learned twice in 2011 alone. When reading prophetic works, one cannot help but notice how vague such 'predictions' are, which is why they are only fulfilled in hindsight when we can take events of the present and make them fit with a prophecy of the past. Needless to say, the prophets have a pretty poor track record, one that shouldn't inspire any sort of confidence when it comes to predictions for December 21, 2012.

Now, in anticipation of the big day when nothing is going to happen, I've placed a December 21 countdown clock at the top of the right menu bar as the one at the top of this posting is soon to get buried as more content is added.

So, being that it is 2012, be sure to keep your common sense about you, take a scientific approach to any outlandish ideas, and educate your fellow man about the reality of 2012.

For more info:
List of failed Doomsdays

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

10 Years After 2001 and Still no Space Odyssey

2011-12-31T07:52:00.000-05:00

It was in 1951 that a writer by the name of Arthur C. Clarke published a short story called The Sentinel that postulated a future for the human race among the stars. In time, the short story would be expanded into the 1968 novel and film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, as 2011, 10 years past the title year of 2001, ends, so far, humans are still pretty much as grounded as they were the day The Sentinel was published 60 years ago.

So, where did we go wrong?

Answer: the political climate changed.
In 1961, president John F. Kennedy famously declared that America would land a man on the Moon and return him to Earth before the end of the decade. While that may have been just talk in another time, before or after, in the 1960s, it was serious business as the Cold War was on the verge of becoming a hot one. While coming about with neutral aims, rocketry quickly became a military science. By the 1950s and the advent of nuclear weapons, the capabilities of a given nation's rockets was a symbol of that country's power. The longer the rockets could fly, the greater the capability of delivering atomic death over vast distances. When the USSR launched Sputnik into orbit in 1957, it was obvious that Soviet rocketry was ahead of American capabilities. Theoretically, with rockets capable of launching payloads into orbit, the Soviets could rain death from the heavens of any city in the world. So, in order to keep the balance of power even, American scientists had to work fast to equal their Soviet rivals. And they did. By the time 2001 hit theaters, NASA was finalizing its plan to launch astronauts to the Moon. Think of it: in the span of just 7 years, humans went from an Earth-bound species to one poised on the pinnacle of traveling to another world.

So, in 1968, who would have expected the enthusiasm for space to dry up virtually overnight?

Placing oneself back in 1968, if we looked at how far we had come in just a decade (Earth-bound in 1957, getting ready to go to the Moon in 1968), how could one not expect that in, say, perhaps another decade, we could be going on missions to Jupiter, just like in the movie? In the late 60s, only infinity was the limit. Unfortunately, and ironically, by winning the space race in 1969, America killed the enthusiasm for space exploration.

With Apollo 11's touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility and return to Earth, President Kennedy's promise of landing a man on the Moon and return him safely home had been fulfilled, the Russians had been beaten, and the national pride that had so publicly been put on the line for all the world to see was intact. Following Apollo 11, many people simply could not name any good reason to go to the Moon at all. By the start of the 1970s, the Vietnam War was escalating and the booming economy of the 60s that fueled the space race was beginning to sputter. With the cost of everything on the rise and wages not rising accordingly, in the eyes of many, the drive to go to the Moon and beyond, the very idea that gripped Americans of all economic, racial, and ethnic classes of the 60s seemed a waste of money. For a a few years, NASA used scientific research as reason to go to the Moon but, come 1972, the powers that be had other ideas and it was announced that Apollo 17 would be the last trip to the Moon and that three future missions, Apollo 18, 19, and 20, would be scrapped and NASA would focus on undertakings that it deemed to be more friendly to the national treasury.

So, come 2011, we humans find ourselves, at least in terms of manned spaceflight, worse off than we were in 1968 as not only can't we go to the Moon, but we can't even launch ourselves into space without hitchhiking a multimillion dollar ride with, of all countries, Russia, the nation that we beat in the space race 4 decades ago. In reality, the self-sufficient space cities orbiting Earth, permanently-manned lunar bases, outposts on Mars, and star ships that would take us beyond our solar system and deep into the cosmic sea are still as much science fiction as they were 4 decades ago, a testament to the folly of turning away from technology.

For more:
The Grand Tale of Human Exploration
The Case for Manned Spaceflight Long-Lost BBC Interview With Arthur C. Clarke

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for weeks of 12/11, 12/18

2011-12-27T11:44:00.003-05:00

A little belatedly, but here's a 2-week Examiner roundup.

Space News
NASA has lost 500+ Moon rocks
New evidence for martian water
Geminid Meteor Shower wrap-up
NASA faces unexpected budget cuts
Phobos-Grunt may not be a total waste
NASA announces Earth-sized planets
'Doomsday' is a year away
Spaceballs: they're real!

Cleveland Astronomy
Geminid wrap-up
Comet survives scrape with Sun
Featured sight for week of 12/28: Winter Solstice
Comet Lovegoy could be 'great'
Doomsday 1 year away
Winter Solstice is today
Comet Lovejoy seen from space

Cleveland PhotographyIt's now safe to buy high-tech gifts
How to photograph meteors
Geminid Meteor Shower in photos
Save big on Super Saturday
The other meaning of yellow snow
How to photograph Christmas lights
Winter Solstice photo-op
Time to shop is running out

National Photography
New camera snaps at speed of light
Olympus to post 2011 loss
Kardashian Christmas card dubbed 'fake'
Taylor Swift Photoshop ad controversy
Dad jailed over taped up daughter photo
Naughty delivery driver videos go viral

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The Planet of Bethlehem?

2011-12-25T15:26:00.000-05:00

The Star of Bethlehem was probably a planet.

One of the greatest mysteries of the Bible and astronomy is the Star of Bethlehem, which guided the Magi on their journey to the baby Jesus. The description of the star in the Bible leaves a lot of questions, and just as many possible answers to its true identity.

One problem, by far the biggest, must be confronted right before we can even start to narrow down the possible identities of the star: no one knows exactly when Jesus was born. Our current calendar is based on the birth of Christ. Unfortunately, this is wrong. It is now thought that Christ was actually born in the span of 8 to 4 B.C. In the Bible, the Holy Family fled into Egypt to avoid the wrath of King Herod, who died in 4 B.C. Thus, that year is the last possible year in which Jesus could have been born.

Now that our time frame has been narrowed down, we can start looking to the sky. There are two schools of thought about the Star of Bethlehem: it was either astronomical or astrological.Astronomical possibilities include supernova, planets, comets, and conjunctions. In the year 7 B.C., there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. However, this is very unlikely as the planets were about a degree (little finger at arm's length) apart. Unless the Magi had very poor eyesight, there is no way that two planets this far apart could be mistaken for a single object. Comets have been suggested, especially since they were often described as “hanging” in the sky. This is exactly as the Star was described in the Bible. A last possible interpretation is a supernova. A bright object was seen for about 70 days in 5 B.C. By Chinese and Korean astronomers. This may just be it, but there's a problem: the star was described as moving, which leads into the other school of thought: astrology.

People at this time were almost universal believers in astrology. A notable exception here were the Jews, who were forbidden to practice astrology at numerous spots in the Old Testament. As far as everyone else was concerned, heavenly bodies had special meaning.

One thing we know was that the Magi came from the East. Considering the geographical location of Judea, “East” almost certainly meant Persia. In Persian language, the word “magi” referred to Zoroastrian priests, who practiced medicine and magic (“magic” comes from “magi”), which could also include astrology, at which the Persians were very sophisticated.

One particular passage in Matthew can greatly narrow down possible candidates for the true Star of Bethlehem. According to the Gospel, “the star which they had seen in the East went before them till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” If this is to be believed, the Star was a planet. Over the course of months, a star's position will change as it rises about four minutes earlier each night. Stars don't stand still, but planets do.

Observe a planet over the course of a year, noting where it is in the constellations. For most of the time, it moves forward. However, there are times where it stops, reverses course, stops again, then continues forward. This apparent change in direction called retrograde motion is an optical illusion caused by the Earth passing the slower planet as both orbit the Sun. A comparison can be made to passing cars on the highway. As you pass, the slower car seems to travel backwards. The same is true of planets.

Besides retrograde motion, there is more. Planets and constellations had different significances. Jupiter was widely considered to be associated with kingship. The constellation of Aires the ram was often associated with Israel/Judea. Putting this information together with the knowledge that the Star of Bethlehem was almost certainly a planet allows one to start putting the puzzle together.

In 6 B.C., an astronomical/astrological event that fits the bill very nicely occurred. In that year, the planet Jupiter (planet of kingship) moved into the constellation of Aires (the constellation for Israel/Judea). Thus, this could be interpreted as a sign that a new king of Israel was born. To add even more weight to the hypothesis, Jupiter first appeared as a morning object in the East. At this time, the Sun was also in Aires (Jupiter was rising just ahead of the Sun). In astrology, any constellation is at its most influential when the Sun is in it. Also, it was believed at the time that planets were at their most powerful as they emerged in the East after a period of invisibility in the Sun's glare.

As it would have taken the Magi months to reach Bethlehem from Persia, this also explains the motion of the Star. As time progressed, the Magi could have observed Jupiter slow down and stop before going into retrograde motion. The stoppage could have coincided with the arrival of the Magi in Bethlehem after stopping in Jerusalem and being told of the prophecy predicting the Messiah's birth there.

This is by no means more than a hypothesis. The Star of Bethlehem will probably never be conclusively explained. Either way, Merry Christmas!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

'Doomsday' is Only One Year Away: Science Takes on the Maya Calendar

2011-12-21T01:28:00.001-05:00

The Caracol: ancient Maya observatory.

Do you realize what day it it? If you didn't, it's December 21, and according to some, we all have exactly 1 year to live as, come this date in 2012, the world will be destroyed by some as yet unknown worldwide cataclysm.

Ah, yes, the 2012 doomsday fears arise again, but are they founded in fact or fantasy?

Okay, before we start examining where the fear came from and whether we should even worry at all, let's run through the 2012 doomsday scenario first. On December 21, 2012, the Maya Long Count calendar runs out. Now, while no one has used the Classic Maya calendar in hundreds of years (the great Maya civilization in Southern Mexico/Central America collapsed around 1000 A.D.), some people read some ominous overtones into this whole idea of time just running out, which has lead some to believe that, since they were the only civilization with a calendar that ever ended at a fixed point in time, the Maya knew something that no one else did: the exact date the world would end.

Now, that's 2012 as told by the fear mongers, what about 2012 told by science and history?

Understanding the whole 2012 doomsday fear requires a mix of Maya history and religion, which will then come together quite elegantly in the end. First off, Maya religion was in itself quite a convoluted mix of mythology, the most important of which was the myth of the Hero Twins, as this story told of the triumph of life over death that just may be the basis for 2012.

The Maya, so far as we know, were the first people to possess rubber, which they used for, among other things, molding into giant balls (about 10-12 inches in diameter) that were used in a ceremonial ballgame that represented the triumph of life over death by recreating the myth of the Hero Twins. As for the story, it went as follows.

A Maya ritual ballcourt. Note how high the hoop is on the wall.

Way back when, perhaps at a time when the game was more about fun, a Maya king and his brother liked to play the ballgame, the object of which was to knock the ball through a hoop high on a wall without using one's hands or feet. Obviously, with the useful appendages out of play, the game could go on for days, with the first team to score winning. Unfortunately for the king and his brother, their ball court was just over an entrance to the underworld and the sound of the heavy ball bouncing all over the place started to irritate the Lords of Death, who also just happened to be ball players. Getting fed up, the Lords of Death invited the king and his brother to the underworld for a game. Accepting the challenge, the king and his brother entered the realm of the dead and squared off against, and lost to the Lords of Death. The king and his brother were then sacrificed. However, the story wasn't done: the king had twin sons of his own, who also liked to play the ballgame. In time, just like their father and uncle, the twins ball playing annoyed the Lords of Death, who then decided that they were going to try and go 2-0 against the humans. Long story short, the twins beat the Lords of Death, sacrificed them, and then resurrected their father and uncle as the Sun and Moon, respectively, thus, life triumphed over death.

A highly stylized representation of the Milky Way void as a monster swallowing the souls of the dead. A copy of the coffin lid for king Pacal the Great.

Onto the astronomy, the Maya were perhaps the greatest astronomers in history until the Renaissance, with achievements to their credit that still stun modern scientists. However, like the Greeks, the Maya were an interesting people in that they made the most accurate astronomical measurements of their day, yet still clung to mythologies characteristic of far more primitive peoples. For the Maya, one facet of this mythology was the idea that the Milky Way was the road to the underworld and a dark rift in the Milky Way itself right above the famous Teapot asterism was the actual gateway. Okay, fine, so what?

Back to the Hero Twins myth. Remember that the Twins resurrected their father and uncle a the Sun and Moon. In releasing their father (now the Sun) from the underworld, the twins were creating, according to the Maya, a “new Sun,” or cycle of life. Now, back to the ballgame. While no one knows the exact symbolism involved, there is agreement on the idea that the ball represented the Sun. So, if the ball represented the Sun and the players the Hero Twins and Lords of Death, it only makes sense that, by the winning team knocking the ball (Sun) through the hoop, they were thus representing the Hero Twins resurrection of their father as the Sun by shooting the Sun out of the underworld through the gateway, represented by the hoop on the wall. Now, back to astronomy. It just so happens that, due to precession of the equinoxes, the location of the Sun on any given day against the background sky changes over time. Now, perhaps one of the Maya's most remarkable astronomical achievements: on December 21, 2012, the Winter Solstice Sun will rise exactly in the center of the dark rift in the Milky Way, symbolically rising out of the underworld and representing a new cycle of creation, at least according to the Maya.

So, does this mean the world will end?

Ironically, for all the fear their calendar has created, according to the Maya, one cycle running out and another starting meant that the world could end, not that it would end. For a really interesting cosmology, one only has to look at the history of Maya timekeeping. The Maya (and other Mesoamericans before them) were interesting in that they believed that time was cyclical, not linear. So, being obsessed with cycles, it was only natural that that Mesoamericans started looking for them in nature. Being farmers, it was important for these early people to ascertain the length of the year to better ensure successful harvests. So, as every other primitive farming culture did, the Mesoamericans found the year to be about 365 days long. Now, for reasons unknown, the Mesoamericans used not one, but two calendars, the other being a 260 ritual one that was used for divination purposes. Now, here's the big unknown: which came first, the two calendars or the realization that they would line up exactly every 52 years? While the answer to that question will never be known (the Olmecs who developed it left no writing), the impact of the calendar would last for centuries, with the Maya taking it to new levels of sophistication.

As with some people today, the Mesoamericans found the notion of time running out to be a little unnerving. However, unlike today, this fear was held by the entire population. So, as the 52-year calendar round entered its final days, the priests would up the prayers and demand greater sacrifices in the hope that the gods would let the world continue to exist. Well, by looking at the fact that we're still here, those Maya priests must have been pretty good! Now, despite the fact that the end of the world had been successfully averted every time in the past, the thought of confronting doomsday every 52 years left the Maya rulers/priesthood (on whom the continued existence of the world hinged) uneasy. So, some unknown genius came up with a big idea: why not postpone the end of the world by finding a longer cycle of time so that we don't have to worry about it anymore? Well, the idea took off and, in time, the Long Count, which ran 5,125.25 years, was created.

The Maya were so obsessed with timekeeping that they even built calendars into their pyramids. This one has 91 steps on each side plus a temple on top (94 x 4 = 364 + 1 = 365).

By looking at the cycles contained within the Long Count, it quickly becomes apparent that the Maya had a true love of numbers and/or had too much free time on their hands. The breakdown of the units of time contained within the Long Count is a follows:

1 day = 1 K'in
20 days = 20 K'ins = 1 Winal
360 days = 18 Winals = 1 Tun
7200 days = 20 Tuns = 1 K'atun
144,000 days = 20 K'atun = 1 B'ak'tun
1,872,000 days = 13 B'ak'tuns = 1 Great Cycle (completion of Long Count)

Obviously, with the 5,125.25 year Long Count complete, the Maya must have felt more than secure in the knowledge that they would never have to worry about the world coming to an end in their lifetimes ever again, as if the gods somehow had to obey the will of man now that a longer time cycle had been created. Pretty funny, isn't it?

Okay, back to the present.

If you have made it this far, you (hopefully) have come to the logical conclusion that there was no way that the Maya could have predicted the end of the world as the Long Count is a human construction that has absolutely no basis in nature. Simply put, the Maya hated the prospect of having to worry about doomsday every 52 years, so they decided to create a longer cycle (the Long Count) so that they wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. So, come 2012 and the end of the Long Count, why worry? The world never ended at any of those 52 year calendar rounds, so why would it end now at the end of a Great Cycle? Answer: it won't, the Long Count means nothing and desperately needs to be confined to the realm of pseudoscience junk like astrology, tarot cards, and all other forms of divination, not a single one of which has stood up rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Canon 70-200 2.8L IS Mark I: Quick Review

2011-12-17T09:59:00.001-05:00

Tech Specs
Focal Length: 70-200mm
Dimensions: 3.4 x7.8 in.
Weight: 3.2 lbs.
Maximum Aperture: f2.8
Minimum Aperture: f32
Diaphragm Blades: 8
Front Element: non-rotating, non-extending
Optical arrangement: 23 elements in 18 groups
Autofocus Mechanism: USM
Closest Focus: 4.3 feet
Maximum magnification: 1:6.3
Filter Size: 77mm

Disclaimer: I rented this lens a few awhile back and used it to shoot some high school sporting events. So, the vast majority of pictures made with this lens being of minors, I've decided not to include them for obvious reasons.
The test was also done on an APS-C format camera.

Background
The Canon 70-200 2.8L IS can trace its roots back to Canon's “Magic Drainpipe,” the 80-200 2.8L that was in the original generation of AF lenses. In 1995, Canon ceased production of the 80-200L and released a new 70-200L, which added a Ultrasonic motor and 10mm at the wide end. With its lightning-fast AF and low light capability, the new 70-200L became the workhorse lens for many an action shooter. In 2001, Canon took a good thing and made it better by adding image stabilization to the popular 70-200L, thus creating an even more well-rounded lens. Then 70-200L IS would remain in production until 2010 when Canon introduced a “II” version. Now, with the new lens on the market, the old one can be had for reduced prices, but is it any good?

Build Quality: 5/5
The Canon 70-200 2.8L IS exemplifies “L” build quality. To start with, the lens is all metal. Second, the lens is internal focusing and zooming, which means that it never changes length no matter what you do with it. On top it all off, the “IS” version, unlike the un-stabilized 70-200Ls, is weather resistant. To see this, just look for the rubber gasket at the mount that will prevent junk from entering your camera at the camera/mount connection, the weakest link in the weather-resistance chain. Moving onto the rings, both are rubberized and highly textured to provide ample grip. The outer focus ring doesn't spin during AF thanks to the USM focus mechanism. Speaking of the rings, they move as though they are floating on air and are a true pleasure to use.

Autofocus: 5/5
Being a Canon USM lens, focus on the 70-200 2.8L IS is fast, accurate, and silent. Also, being USM focus drive, you have the ability for full time manual override and a stationary focus ring during AF. In addition, Canon was nice enough to include a focus limiter switch that will prevent the lens from focusing at its closest possible distances in order to speed up the AF. In practice, unless you're torture testing the AF capability of the lens, such a switch is probably useless.

Optics: 4/5
Optically speaking, the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS is, while not bad, not exactly sharp wide open, either. Stop it down to f4 and it's razor sharp across the focal range. Heck, I'd give the edge on wide-open sharpness, at least on the wide end, to my ancient Tokina 80-200 f2.8, which was from back in the 80s! If sharpness is your prime concern, consider this a f4 lens, which pretty much negates the need for paying all that extra cash for less then ideal wide open performance, especially when considering the price class of this optic. Now for the good stuff. Distortion is nil, vignetting wide open (at least on APS-C) is minimal, and CA is very well controlled. By the way, the across the frame sharpness is very good with virtually no falloff in the corners.

Competition:
The short, fast telephoto zoom lens is a very crowded market segment for the simple reason that such lenses are so doggone useful that everyone wants a piece of the action. In camp Canon alone, there are 4 more 70-200Ls, a standard f2.8 and f4 and a stabilized, weather-sealed f2.8 Mark II and f4. The prices range from $650ish for the 70-200 f4L to over $2,300 for the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. In the middle of this price range, there are 70-200 f2.8 Sigma and Tamron alternatives, too. The non-stabilized Sigma is considered to be optically on-par with the tested Canon and the new stabilized version is said to be slightly better. Both Sigmas feature sonic drive AF, too. If one can live without sonic AF, Tamron's version may be the sharpest one of them all, Canon or not. However, with the lower prices, one loses the weather sealing offered by the Canon. Then, if you don't mind going for out of production lenses, there is the Tokina 80-200 f2.8, which is built so well that it could probably withstand a nuclear explosion. Just be sure to get the inner focusing, AF/MF clutch featuring, gold-banded “PRO” version for vastly improved AF over the one I tested already.

Value: 2/5
Now, I know I may take some heat for this, but the original Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS, while not a bad lens in itself, is a little underwhelming when considering its price point. First of all, when paying $1,600+ for a lens, one can reasonably expect top-notch performance wide open, which this lens does not deliver. If you can get by with f4 (where the lens is razor sharp), save some money and get the razor sharp right from the get go 70-200 f4L IS, which sells for $600 less. If you absolutely need f2.8, IS, and weather sealing, well, there's the superior “II” version, which is great right from f2.8. Then there are the better (in some respects) third-party alternatives. Lastly, when considering that this lens is out of production and service may be limited, what do you get? An over-priced white elephant, sorry.

Conclusion: 3.75/5
Canon's 70-200 f2.8L IS was, in its day, the best thing going for the photographer who demanded a versatile lens. Come 2011, the ship has sailed and there are better alternatives on the market from both Canon itself and third party manufacturers. Still, the lens has a lot going for it, namely build quality, USM, and, for the most part, good optics. However, it does have an Achilles Heel: sharpness at f2.8, which, for some, could be a deal breaker when considering the price. Another thing to consider is that, now that it is an out of production model, there is no guarantee that parts will be available should the lens break. Would I recommend it? No, for what it is at f2.8, the price is just too high, especially considering the alternative models and the fact that it is now out of production. However, should you come across a used one going for around $1000 or less, I'd give a cautious thumbs up, just hope that the AF motor holds together!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for week of 12/4

2011-12-12T07:51:00.001-05:00

Another week done, another Examiner roundup here.

Space News
ESA gives up on Phobos-Grunt
Most Earth-like planet yet
Get psyched for upcoming eclipse
Saturday's eclipse, what you can see
Why tomorrow's eclipse is 'impossible'

National Photography
Nikon to resume dSLR production
Nikon's dark role in Pearl Harbor, WWII
Photograph the eclipse with a telescope
Photograph the eclipse with a dSLR
Photograph the eclipse with a cheap pocket cam

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 12/4: lunar eclipse
Get psyched for upcoming eclipse
Learn all about the 'impossible eclipse'

Cleveland Photography
Sowell house demolished
Pearl Harbor: 70 years later
Photograph the eclipse with a dSLR
Photograph the eclipse with a cheap pocket cam

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

This Morning's Total Lunar Eclipse: First Photos

2011-12-10T13:09:00.002-05:00

As anyone who's even remotely interested in astronomy knows, this morning brought, for some, an 'impossible' total lunar eclipse. Unfortunately, owing to my living in the Eastern United states, I wasn't able to see either the partial, let alone total phases. In the end, it would have been a moot point as the clouds obscured the Moon, anyway. However, for people living in the Western United States who were lucky enough to have clear skies, some wonderful photo-ops abounded this morning. After all, it's not too often that you get to partner an eclipsed Moon with the famous Moon illusion.

Now, despite only a few hours having elapsed since the eclipse itself, the web is already starting to get flooded with pictures of the event.

Some good galleries can be found here:
Space.com
Spaceweather
Earth & Sky
Huffington Post
Thai Visual

Needless to say, there will be many, many more galleries popping up in the coming hours, so keep your eyes open!

My Eclipse Series
Start to finish eclipse photo gallery

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Total Lunar Eclipse Tomorrow Morning

2011-12-09T15:48:00.001-05:00

Totality from a 2008 total lunar eclipse.

There is going to be a total lunar eclipse tomorrow morning that will be visible, at least partly, for most of the United States.

The eclipse's visibility.

As you can see, the Eastern United States will get virtually no eclipse at all, unless you consider the barely visible penumbral stage part of the eclipse. For people living in the EST meets CST area, you will be able to see a brief part of the partial phases at moonset. The farther West you live, the more you will be able to see, with people on America's West Coast being able to see just about all of totality and, in addition, the rare phenomenon, of senehelion, wherein the eclipsed Moon and Sun are visible in the sky at the same time thanks to the refraction of light caused by the atmosphere.

Photographing the eclipse:
Through a telescope
With a dSLR
With a cheap pocket cam

Pictures
Start to finish eclipse photo gallery

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Nikon D700 Running Review: Automatic White Balance

2011-12-07T06:37:00.002-05:00

In photography, probably the second most vital thing to making a good picture (after being in focus) is the white balance (WB), which amounts to color tone brought upon by light source. So, what does that all mean?

Through millions of years of evolution, the human eye has adapted so that it can adjust to different light sources so that any given color, say white, always appears its true color no matter what the lighting condition/source is. Example: incandescent lighting has a low temperature of about 3000K while shady areas on a sunny day reflect light at around 8000K. Result: if you set your camera to the wrong WB, the color cast will be completely wrong.

Back in the film era, you had to use different color lens filters to get correct WB as different light sources have different temperatures. In the digital age, you can set your WB in the camera, but one is more likely to forget now as in the past because way back when, you couldn't help but notice what color filter was on your lens as you looked through the viewfinder! Result: a lot of pictures shot under the wrong WB setting. I know, I've done it and you've probably done it too.

Fortunately, there is a way to avoid having to constantly worry about the WB: the auto WB setting, which, in the case of the D700 uses Nikon's 1005 segment RGB sensor to measure the light source. Unfortunately, the auto WB function's evolution, unlike the eye's, is only a few years old, which means that the technological systems are anything but perfected. So, how does the D700 do in auto WB?

Answer: pretty darn good.

Under most settings, feel free to leave the D700 in the auto white balance setting as there is really no problem with the color casts produced. Sure, there may be a slight color difference in some situations, but they are always so minor that I personally wouldn't bother with changing the WB manually.

Auto white balance in sunlight.

AWB in fuorescent lighting

AWB with flash (top).
Oh yes, the D700's built-in flash in no whimp, either.

AWB in shade.

AWB under cloudy skies.

AWB in mixed light (incandescent and Sun)

Now I've shot with a lot of digital cameras and, so far, the most challenging lighting condition in which to get an accurate WB result in auto mode was under incandescent (tungsten) lighting. So how does the D700 do here?

Answer: it's the best I've ever used.

To this point, just about every single camera I've ever shot with, with exception of the Coolpix s550, also a Nikon (coincidence?), has failed to consistently meter a color temperature cool enough under incandescent light. Result: a very warm-looking picture with a deep orange/orange-yellow color cast to it. Needless to say, when using these cameras (which were good in every other lighting condition), I always set the WB to incandescent when shooting under such lighting. The D700? It's a heck of a lot better than anything else I've ever used. In practice, the D700 under incandescent lighting may produce a slightly warm image some of the time, but nothing truly objectionable. Yes, the dedicated incandescent setting produces cooler image (too cool in some lighting), but the D700's auto WB under incandescent lighting is the best thing I've ever seen. As a side note, I'd love to see what the new D7000 does as it has an all-new meter with over twice the sensors the D700's does, my guess is that it will be even better.

AWB under incandescent lighting.

As a last note to the WB settings in the D700, you can adjust them. By going into the shooting menu and selecting 'White Balance,' you can adjust the exact level of compensation the camera makes at each setting by altering the shades of Green, Blue, Amber, and Magenta. Result: you can fine tune the WB to your specific shooting conditions if so desired. For me, I may want to play around with the incandescent setting by shifting it a little to the blue in order to get a slightly cooler image under tungsten lighting.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 11/27

2011-12-06T12:39:00.001-05:00

Another week done (a bit belatedly), another Examiner roundup here.

Space News
NASA launches 'Curiosity'
Russian pres. calls for space agency prosecutions
Photos from atop NASA's new launch tower
NASA announces 2012 budget
Astronomers search for doomsday
ESA gives up on Phobos-Grunt

Photography
Cyber Monday: the dark side
Digital pictures survive bottom of ocean
Blind photographer creates stunning images
Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln

Cleveland Photography
Nikon to resume dSLR production
Euclid police hidden camera suit dismissed

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 11/17: earliest sunsets
The December Sky
December naked eye astronomy
December featured sight: Winter Solstice

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Ancient American Astronomy, Part 1: The Moundbuilders

2011-12-01T14:26:00.001-05:00

The New World: a place long thought to be a world of largely uncivilized wilderness upon the arrival of the first European explorers in around the year 1500. However, as the explorers pressed inward, they came across the traces of past, high civilizations and even a few that were still flourishing as the culmination of Native American civilization. .

In short, the civilizations the first European explorers encountered upon their arrival in the New World were the last in a long line of peoples to inhabit North America starting with the migration across the Bering Land Bridge before it was cut off by the rising seas following the end of the last Ice Age in around 10,000 B.C. Following the land free of ice down from Alaska, through Canada, and into what would eventually become the Continental U.S., these people fanned out across the vast expanse of land and were creating permanent settlements by 8,000 B.C. Unfortunately, as only the Maya developed writing (some of which scholars still can't understand), we are left with only artifacts and records from the first Europeans as to what the cultures that dominated the continent were once like. Obviously, with thousands of years of history before around 1500 A.D., there are a lot of unknowns, and educated guesses.

So, starting in North America, we will attempt to trace the astronomical legacies of the earliest Americans.

Some of the mounds are over 60 feet tall.

The first major group of peoples to be addressed are collectively known a the Moundbuilders, whose civilization was centered in the area of the Ohio and later Mississippi Valleys. However, as the general name implies, there is a lot more to the Moundbuilders than one group of people. Their dominance stretching from about 1000 B.C. to the arrival of the Europeans in around 1500 A.D., the Moundbuilders were actually a diverse group of people with a continually evolving culture. Despite the changing centuries, though, these people left quite an astronomical legacy in piles upon piles of soil.

Early rendering of the Great Serpent Mound.

Of all the mounds build in the early stages of the Moundbuilder civilization, the Great Serpent Mound, Located in Adams County, Ohio, is the most mysterious. At nearly 1,400 feet long, the Great Serpent Mound is the largest effigy (animal-shaped) mound in the world. Making the whole structure more mysterious is the fact that no one knows who built it, when, or why. However, at least for the last part, there are some possible guesses.

The Great Serpent Mound from the air.

Naturally, with all of its undulations, some people believe that there are astronomical alignments to be found within the Serpent's coils. For instance, there is the thought that the head of the snake points toward the Summer Solstice Sunset. In the main body, some think that the coils could be representing solar and/or lunar movements throughout their well-known cycles. On the other hand, other experts believe that these alignments are merely coincidental and that the giant snake was not built with these in the plans as there is not a single straight line on the outline. Either way, the Great Serpent Mound is and will remain a mystery.

The Octagon

Onto another Ohio earthwork, this one almost certainly with astronomical alignments that are not by chance. The Octagon is an acres-large geometric earthwork in Newark, Ohio that consists of a giant circle connected to, guess what, a huge octagon. Although no one can pin down an exact date for construction, it has been determined by looking at objects in the same strata that the Octagon was built by the Hopewell Culture, which flourished from around 200 B.C. to 500 A.D. In the 1980s, scientists decided to analyze the Octagon in the thought that they would find solar alignments. Unfortunately, no solar alignments were found. However, several lunar alignments, some of amazing precision, came to light.

First up, the main axis. Connecting the circle and octagon is a narrow lane with earthen banks on either side. It just so happens that this avenue points right at the Moon's northernmost rise of its 18.6 year cycle. Four other sides of the Octagon point to the maximum Southern rise, minimum Northern rise, maximum North set, and minimum Southern set. Obviously, with all the straight lines in the Octagon (versus all the curves in the Great Serpent Mound), chances are that the builders of the Octagon were intentionally trying to reflect the Moon's movements on Earth. In all, a pretty remarkable achievement for the time. However, things get better: the Octagon has a twin.

The High Banks Earthworks.

Located about 55 miles away in Chillicothe, Ohio, there is another earthwork called the High Banks Earthwork. In reality, it could be called the Octagon 2 as the two sites are virtually identical in layout (preservation is a very different story, though).

The supposed Great Hopewell Road.

On top of this, there is another amazing probability linking these two far flung (in the time of construction) sites: a road. Starting at the Octagon, remnants of a road 200 feet wide with earthen embankments for boundaries have been found leading out 6 milers toward Chillicothe. In the intervening miles between the two sites, more probable remnants of the “Great Hopewell Road” have been found, largely due aerial infrared photography that can detect changes in soil density) always parallel earthen banks 200 feet apart running on a direct line between the 2 sites.

Sunwatch Village, last astronomical achievement in the Ohio Valley.

After the decline of the Moundbuilders in Ohio, the culture would shift in focus to the Mississippi Valley (more later), but the astronomical achievements of the people in what is now Ohio were not at an end.

In Dayton, Ohio, a farming community was so in-touch with the sky, particularly the movements of the life-giving Sun, that they designed their whole settlement around solar motions. Appropriately called Sunwatch Village, the ancient settlement from around 1000-1500 A.D., originally excavated as a salvage operation, has now been fully restored to as original a condition as is possible after scholars realized its importance. Centered around tall posts in the ground, the Sun at various days will produce line of sight equinox and solstice alignments directed toward prominent buildings in the village. By looking at later constructions in the Americas, Sunwatch Village, though not overly spectacular in itself, was the start of a new trend of building to astronomical alignments that reflected the heavens' ever-growing influence on life as the old hunter-gatherer ways gave way to settled agriculture, which required precise timekeeping.

Monk's Mound in Cahokia.

Moving to the South and West, the Moundbuilder culture reached its apex in the area of modern St. Louis at a city named Cahokia that flourished from around 650-1400 A.D. Unlike the ruins of other civilizations that were built in stone, the grandeur of Cahokia is largely unseen today except for one very prominent exception: Monk's Mound. Thought to be there center of the great city that once may have housed as many as 50,000 people, Monk's Mound is, at least in area, a third larger than the Great Pyramid in Egypt. While Monk's Mound may take all the limelight, another achievement reduced to post holes is the object of a lot of scholarly interest, too.

Artist's depiction of 'Woodhenge.'

Located to the West of Monk's Mound is a ring of ancient post holes. In all, there are over 100 holes in the ground in circles as large as 400 feet across. However, all of these posts together cannot represent a single structure, rather the evolution of a single site from a simple circle of 12 holes to t largest, most complex one that contains 48. Obviously, holes in the Earth were not always just holes and what historians think that all the post holes at Cahokia represent are the remains of circular rings of posts in the ground not unlike Stonehenge in England. In the interest of hands-on archeology, “Woodhenge,” the 48 post, 400 foot diameter version of the henge, has been fully reconstructed. So far, solstice and equinox alignments have been discovered and far more may await recognition.

For anyone looking at the dates, one cannot help but notice how the fall of the final Moundbuilder civilizations coincides with the arrival of the first European explorers. However, in contrast to what many would assume, the Moundbuilder culture was already in a sharp decline when the Europeans arrived and was not spurred on, as in Central and South America, by the Europeans themselves. In fact, Spanish explorers wandered into Cahokia in the early 1500s, a point in time where the once great city was nearly abandoned. No one knows why the great Moundbuilder civilization faltered around 1500, but the consequences of the mysterious downturn, namely the unsolved puzzles which tey left us with, are the consequence. Hopefully, with enough time, the mysteries of the Moundbuilders, astronomical and not, will finally be solved.

*Note: This is the first in a 4-part series dealing with ancient American Astronomy, check back for more in the coming weeks.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Today is Cyber Monday, Shop Wisely!

2011-11-28T15:54:00.002-05:00

The media is reporting that Black Friday 2011 was the best in history, with some figures giving over $50 billion in total retail sales for the day. Now, the brick and mortar retailers having had their day, its the online stores' turn with today, Cyber Monday, the day online retailers traditionally offer their deepest discounts of the year.

However, not all is rosy.

While there are obviously some major perks to online shopping (no long lines, no mad rushes, probably no sales taxes, guaranteed availability, and no getting pepper sprayed or shot), there are some downsides to online shopping, namely shipping charges, return policies, and lack of a hands-on shopping experience. For anyone wanting detailed explanations, check out my examiner page for an in-depth look at the pros and cons of Cyber Monday.

Don't Hold Your Breath for New Toys
The start of the Christmas shopping season has, with Cyber Monday, officially started, which means, in all likelihood, that there will be no major announcements in the photo industry until at least January. Why? Being so close to Christmas, there is simply not enough time to announce a new, major camera and then get it to stores fast enough to cash in in time for Christmas. So, for all of you dreamers waiting for a Nikon D800, Canon 5DIII, or an update to a favorite, yet old lens, sorry, you'll have to wait for at least a couple of months before your dream toy may come into being.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 11/13, 11/20

2011-11-27T11:21:00.003-05:00

Examiner has been slow, but there is a little to read.

Space News
Toxic fallout could result from failed Mars probe
Zero hour approaching with Phobos-Grunt
NASA delays Curiosity launch
Exoplanet count tops 700
Doom or detour for Phobos-Grunt
Black Friday, black Sun
NASA launches Curiosity rover

Photography
Picture sells for $4.3 million
Proof of JFK conspiracy caught on camera?
Adobe draws ire of Photoshop pros
Win a Sony a55
Yesterday's eclipse in photos

Cleveland Photography
See Black Friday ads today
Skip the extended warranties
The salesman's 7 costly lies
Don't shop this Black Friday
Eclipse photos

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 11/13: the Leonids
Featured sight for week of 11/20: Old Moon
How to avoid buying a junk telescope
Black Friday, black Sun
NASA launches Curiosity

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Shopping Advice: Day 3: Don't Shop Black Friday

2011-11-23T10:20:00.000-05:00

In day 3 of the smart shopping installment, we focus on a rather controversial idea: skip the Black Friday sales altogether and wait a couple of weeks before buying electronics for Christmas. Most retailers give a 90 day return window for purchases. Unfortunately, electronics are an exception as return windows are often only 2 weeks long and can also come with a restocking fee if the item is in good condition but simply unwanted. Fortunately, many retailers waive this condition in the days immediately following Christmas. Simply put, it may be better to skip the sale and wait until mid December (there's always online shopping) to get that gift, which will give you enough time to make sure what the giftee really wants and, in case you didn't bother to make sure, enough time for a post-Christmas return should your gift find itself in the same category as those ugly Christmas sweaters or that store-bought fruitcake.

Bonus: How to Avoid Buying a Junk Telescope
Since Black Friday is not all about cameras, I decided to run a piece on my Cleveland Astronomy Column dealing with telescope buying tips, namely warning signs of junk telescopes. In the list are 6 tips to help educate first-time buyers as to what signs designate a good telescope from a junk one. While this seems like common sense to every seasoned astronomer, we all have to start somewhere so, if this is your first time buying a telescope, check out the above link.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Shopping Advice: Day 2: The Salesman's 7 Costly Lies

2011-11-22T10:52:00.000-05:00

In day 2 of the smart shopping installment, we focus on seeing the facts through the salesman's fistfuls of B.S. Listed below are 7 things a less than honest salesman (or woman) will probably tell you in order to convince you that that camera/lens you're looking at is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

More pixel mean better pictures
Tons of file size/formats are a great thing

The more shooting modes, the better

You need that ultrazoom lens

Electronic 'stabilization' is just as good as the optical variety

Look at how high the ISO can go!

Protect your investment, buy the extended warranty

More so than with any of the run-downs, a look at the full article is worth a look today as, naturally, some people may want some of these features despite the fact that they all have a dark side/are rather useless to a seasoned shooter.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Shopping Advice: Day 1: Extended Warranties are a Scam

2011-11-21T07:01:00.000-05:00

In today's edition of smart shopping 101, skip the extended warranties for your new camera, lens, or anything you buy for that matter. Generally speaking, extended warranties only cover repairs required because of 'normal wear,' which leaves manufacturers/third party service providers a lot of room to wiggle out of having to fix your merchandise. How far can they go? Browse online forums and you'll come across tales of repairs being denied because hairline scratches on lens barrels constituted 'damage' outside of regular use and thus an excuse not to fix the problem. Yes, manufacturers talk about customer service but, when providing a service costs money, they'll try and worm their way out fixing your gear any way they can.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Black Friday is Coming, Smart Shopping Tips on Tap This Week

2011-11-20T12:41:00.002-05:00

For people living in the United States, this week marks Thanksgiving and, for many, an unofficial holiday: Black Friday, which is when retailers traditionally make major price cuts in order to lure in shoppers for a strong start to the Christmas season (the term 'Black' Friday refers to the fact that stores are all but assured of operating at a profit, or 'in the black,' for the day). For my readers living in other countries, the sales are so good that some people are willing to camp out all night outside a store in order to be among the first in line to get that special item.

Now, unfortunately, many people will spend like a drunken sailor and make all sorts of impulse buys upon seeing the word 'sale,' which is the goal of all retailers. Naturally, with photography (and astronomy) being expensive pursuits, if you are going to buy in order to fuel these hobbies this year, a lot of cash outlay already, which is all the ore reason to go into Black Friday with some smart shopping tips in the back of one's mind.

Running tomorrow through Wednesday, I will be using my Cleveland Photography Examiner column as an avenue through which to provide sound shopping advice. Basically, I will be writing on three main topics: why extended warranties are scams, how to weed through a salesman's pitches, and, last but not least, why it may be smart to not shop on Black Friday at all. Basically, I'll be running the full piece on Examiner while providing quick run-downs here for anyone who wants the most basic of info.

So, come the next three days, be sure to check back here or at Examiner for sound shopping advice that will hopefully keep you out of the poorhouse this Christmas season.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Weeks of 10/30, 11/6

2011-11-16T17:36:00.000-05:00

Been really busy, not much on Examiner of late . . .

Space News
NASA, astronaut settle camera lawsuit
Comet plunges into Sun
Standard Time returns
Giant asteroid to buzz Earth

National Photography
Canadian lake monster caught on camera

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 10/30: Late sunrises
The Taurids are coming!
Featured sight for week of 11/6 Standard Time
Asteroid to buzz Earth

Cleveland Photography
Zip, zilch, nada . . .

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Favorite Carl Sagan Quotes

2011-11-10T16:11:00.000-05:00

Carl Sagan would have been 77 yesterday.

November 9 would have been Carl Sagan's 77^th birthday if he were alive today. While it has been nearly 15 years since he died (December, 1996), Carl Sagan's influence is still as strong as ever for the people who were first introduced to astronomy/space science by him, in all probability through his Cosmos TV series, which first hit the airwaves in August, 1980. From that point on until his death, for many, Sagan was the face of astronomy.

Now, with November 9 being the unofficial holiday of Carl Sagan Day, space/astronomy websites/organizations were paying tribute in various ways. On Universe Today, staff took up a list of favorite Sagan quotes sent in by readers and published them in in an article as a tribute to the astronomer who could very well have been a poet as well.

By following this link, you can read through the ever-growing list of favorite Sagan quotes and, through the comment function, even add your own below the main article itself.

Ok, here are a few of mine . . .
Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid.

Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.

Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles. But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you . . . books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic.

For all I know we may be visited by a different extraterrestrial civilization every second Tuesday, but there's no support for this appealing idea. The extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence.

Our loyalties are to the species and the planet, we speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos ancient and vast from which we spring.

The iconic 'pale blue dot' iamge of Earth from Voyager 2.
Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Our Dangerous Universe

2011-11-08T14:41:00.001-05:00

If a doomsday asteroid were to be discovered, as of now, we might as well kiss ourselves goodbye.

Today, Earth is going to have a close call with an asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier. While the asteroid, 2005 YU55, will pose no threat to Earth, the fact that such a huge space rock will be coming within the Moon's orbit serves as stark reminder that we live in a cosmic shooting gallery of sorts, populated by millions upon millions of miniscule worlds, some of which are big enough to do great harm here on Earth should they hit out planet.
As of now, there are millions of asteroids floating around the solar system, mostly in the Main Asteroid Belt, which is safely between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Of the millions of asteroids over 7,000 are classified as near-Earth. Of the near-Earth objects, over 1,000 are considered as "potentially hazardous," which is defined as an object over 500 feet in diameter that can come within 4.6 million miles of Earth. Obviously, a metallic space rock 500 feet across traveling at up to 15 miles per second could do an immense amount of damage. For comparison, the object (most likely a comet) that caused the Tunguska Incident was probably less than 100 yards (300 feet across, or only about a quarter the diameter of 2005 YU55) but still leveled forests for over 1,000 square miles.
Needless to say, if such an object (even a small one) were to hit a populated area, the death toll would be apocalyptic. Large impactor? Worldwide devastation and possibly an end to civilization as we know it, all the more reason to keep looking and work on planet defense systems.

Unfortunately, the truth is that the world would probably be helpless to do anything as of right now if a doomsday asteroid were to be discovered. When doomsday scenarios are considered, planners usually give months or even years advance notice time to come up with a plan to divert the colliding body and save the world. However, new asteroids are being discovered all the time, often within just days or even hours of close passage to the Earth.
So, if scientists were to discover a doomsday asteroid on a collision course with Earth, would there be enough time to do anything about it or would we simply have to resign ourselves to a terrible fate and possibly go down in history like the dinosaurs?

It's a not a pleasant thought, but one that may just come true. All the more reason to keep scanning the skies and breath a collective sigh of relief when a big space rock like 2005 YU55 passes harmlessly, albeit a bit too close for comfort, by our planet..

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Rejoice! Standard Time Returns

2011-11-06T09:36:00.000-05:00

With the end of DST, the Teapot and Summer Milky Way (and all their treasures) make a brief return to the night sky.

Daylight Savings Time is gone and Standard Time (is it standard, it only lasts for just over 4 months) returns, which means good news for astronomers/astrophotographers.

The calendar says November, but the sky still says August, at dusk at least. With the advent of Standard Time returning, we will be treated to one last, brief peek at the summer constellations. So go out just as it gets dark to see the Teapot diving in the Southwestern sky. If you live in a dark area, you can still see the Milky Way, looking like steam, coming out of the Teapot's spout and rising up into Aquila and then through Cygnus. If the visual sight was not enough, a telescope at low power will reveal a swath of nebulae and star clusters, both open and globular, among the starry arch that is the Milky Way. Overhead and to the West, Hercules (two wonderful globulars) and Bootes (globular and double stars highlighted by Izar, which looks green and gold) are still visible. Since the summer constellations are still visible, all we need now is the warm weather!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Standard Time Returns Tomorrow Morning

2011-11-05T19:20:00.001-04:00

It's the first weekend of November, which means that it's time to fall back for those of us living in the United States. While most people are happy for an extra hour of sleep on this one night, for us astronomers, there are perks to Standard Time that are much more far-reaching, such as earlier bnights, a a last chance to see the summer sky, and not having to stay up so late for a winter preview. So, don't forhet to set your clocks back before you go to bed tonight.

So, as daylight Savings Time ends, why not learn a little with some trivia? Enjoy!

* Many ancient civilizations divided their days into 24 hours just like us, but adjusted the hours'
lengths so that there would always be 12 hours of day and 12 of night.

* While he did not propose DST, Benjamin Franklin, while serving as envoy to France,
anonymously published a letter suggesting people rise early (and thus go to bed earlier) to
economize on candles and make use of natural sunlight.

* DST was actually proposed by New Zealand entomologist George Vernon Hudson, who
suggested a two hour daylight savings shift.

* English outdoorsman/builder William Willet also proposed the idea simultaneously. He
suggested advancing the clock during the summer months only

* Both Hudson and Willet had personal stakes in seeing more daylight: Hudson found that
extended time at night would allow more time to collect specimens. Willet hated having to cut
short his golf rounds and see many Londoners sleep through most of the mornings

* In WWI, the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and allies) were the first to use DST
as a coal-saving measure in 1916. England and many allies quickly followed suit. Russia
started using DST in 1917 and the United States adopted the idea in 1918.

* While we shift by an hour today, twenty and thirty minute shifts, and also two hour shifts, have
been used in the past

* Even now, start/end dates aren't standard around the world

* Switch dates are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere

* In some areas, voters have rejected use of DST altogether while in other areas, there are pushes
to eliminate Standard Time and have DST all year long.

Humble requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner Roundup for Week of 10/23

2011-11-01T21:43:00.000-04:00

Another week done, another Examiner roundup arrived.

Space News
ROSAT falls to Earth
Surprise aurora storm
All about the aurora
Oil tanker sized asteroid is coming
Could NASA get out of space science?
NASA, astronaut settle suit over camera

Photography
Amazing aurora pictures
ACLU sues over photographers' rights
East Coast snowstorm in photos

Cleveland Astronomy
Northern Lights over Ohio
All about the aurora
Giant asteroid to buzz Earth
Be alert for Northern Lights, again!

Cleveland Photography

Protect your computer from Muammar Gadhafi
DPR's hands-on with Nikon 1-series
Northern Lights pics ignite Web
DPR tests Sony A77
Hands-on with the Fuji X10

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Happy Halloween: Don't be Tricked by Fake Ghost Pictures

2011-10-31T08:01:00.000-04:00

What happens to us after we die? Do we go on to exist in some non-physical form or is death truly the end? Well, the answer to that question will probably never be found but the uncertainty created by death and longing for lost loved ones created a booming industry for photographers in the later part of the 19th century.

Enter spirit photography.

Almost as soon as the camera had been invented, some people started thinking that the almost magical photographic medium could be just the thing to prove the existence of spirits, and thus life after death. So far as we know, the first photograph of a supposed spirit was taken in 1860. However, while ghost photos started to appear sporadically in the years after, one event alone produced an onslaught of ghost photos: the Civil War.

The Civil War, which raged from 1861 to 1865 was the bloodiest war in American history, leaving over 625,000 Americans dead, more than were killed in every other American war combined. Needless to say, with so much sudden death, America in the late 1860s was not a happy country as it would probably have been impossible for any one family not to have been touched by the war. In this nationwide grief, some enterprising photographers saw the potential for big money.

While no one knows who made the discovery, by the 1860s, the double exposure was common knowledge among photographers. In doing a double exposure, the photographer would take a picture of someone against a black background and then reuse the plate for another shot. Result: an eerie, transparent figure of a person would be superimposed on the final picture. At the time, portraits would often need to be exposed for a few seconds so, by cutting the exposure short, the photographer could further muddle the 'ghost' and make it much harder for a clear image that could be identified by grieving relatives as their lost loved one.

In the wake of the Civil War, some photographers of questionable morals seized on this opportunity and public ignorance to make big, big money.

Of all the supposed spirit photographers, William Mumler of Boston, then New York was the most famous. At the time, getting one's picture taken was a big, and expensive, event. Mumler and other photographers, being careful to guard the double exposure secret, would then advertise that they had the ability to photograph spirits. Needless to say, with all the sudden death wrought by the war, people lined up for photos in the hope that their dead relatives would join them, paying far in excess of the normal portrait price and making the spirit photographers rich in the process.

With the general public ignorance about photography, it seemed as though this fraud could go on indefinitely. Unfortunately for the fraudulent photographers, the good times did not last.

In 1869, William Mumler was put on trial for fraud, with his accusers, among them, P.T. Barnum, stating that he was using double exposures to fake spirit photographs. While Mumler himself was acquitted of the charges as there was no hard evidence against him, his trial let the big secret of spirit photographers, double exposure, out into the open. Result: once everyone knew about trick photography, people were less inclined to line up for photos when they knew that they were, more than likely, being swindled.

By the turn of the 20th century, spirit photography as well as the whole spiritualism movement was consigned to the pages of history. However, while the spirit photographs of the 1800s have been essentially proven as fakes, the interest in catching ghosts on camera has not waned in the least. Just Google something to the effect of 'ghost pictures' for proof of this fact.

Ghost pictures can be . . .

Historical

Eerie

Accidental

and comical (ghost snot?!? Seriously?)

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Website Structure Changed

2011-10-28T16:13:00.000-04:00

For as long as I've been archiving my content not in the AP/Reviews pages, I've just lumped everything into one, 'General,' page with all sorts of astronomy and photography stuff crammed on. Well, as I've not created quite a content library, I decided to make things easier by separating my content into an 'Astronomy' and 'Photography' page, wherein sub-categories can be found under the two, broad umbrella topics. Hopefully, this will make your (and my) life a lot easier!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 10/17

2011-10-23T11:10:00.003-04:00

Another week done, another Examiner roundup arrived.

Space News
Meteors from Halley's Comet
Stamp-sized satellites could become reality
Orionid viewing tips
Orionid Meteor Sower peaks tonight
Orionids not done
Another satellite to make uncontrolled fall

National Photography
Canon announces 1Dx
Cyclops shark on camera
Lytro camera pricing announced
Gaddhafi death photos: why show them?
Protect your computer from Muammar Gaddhafi

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for 10/17: Orionid meteors
Local astronomy club starts text alert system
Orionid viewing tips
Orionid Meteor Sower peaks tonight
Orionids not done
Another satellite to take the plunge

Cleveland Photography
PETA offers award for circus abuse photos
Canon announces 1Dx
How to photograph meteors
Dead animal photos create controversy

Occupy Cleveland thrown off Public Square

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

A Camera That Can Do Everything: What a Novel Idea!

2011-10-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

The Canon EOS 1D X has just revolutionized photography.

Yesterday, canon made big news in the camera market by announcing its 1D X, a camera that is being marketed as a replacement for both the 1D Mark IV and the 1Ds Mark III. How did Canon manage to do this? Well, how about blending the speed of the sports-focused, 1.3x crop factor 1D-series with the mind-blowing resolution of the 1Ds-series. In the end, one gets a 18Mp, FF camera that can do up to 14 frames per second, all aided by an all-new 61 point AF grid.

For many Canon and non-Canon shooters alike, it' s about time.

Since the dawn of the digital era, the pattern has been this: a manufacturer comes out with a professional-grade camera and then, about a year later, takes the camera, sticks in a much higher resolution sensor, and then starts selling the 'new' model for about 50% more. Example: since the dawn of the professional digital era about 10 years ago, Canon and Nikon have bringing low-resolution, high-speed cameras to market for about $5,000 and then, after the new model has been out about a year, jamming a high resolution sensor into the exact same camera, slowing down its frame rate, and charging $8,000 for it.

Needless to say, these companies have been making killings of of the fact that, despite being labeled 'professional,' its top-tier cameras have been anything but all-around photographic tools, but specialized instruments for a specific purpose (action or still shooting). Now, I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of pro photographers owning both a 1D and 1Ds model on the Canon side and a D3 and D3x o the Nikon side.

Well, with the 1D X, Canon has effectively blended its parallel pro cameras into one model that splits the differences enough to be a general purpose camera. Here are some of the key specs.:

18Mp FF sensor. More than the current 1D IV but less than the 1Ds III. Still, when comparing 21Mp of the 1Ds III to 18Mp of the 1D X, the loss of 3Mp will barely be noticeable as even most pros don't go above 12x18 that often as the Average Joe is often simply unwilling to pay for bigger prints.

14fps capability. The 1D x is the fastest mechanical dSLR on the market, easily beating Nikon's D3 (9fps in F and 11fps in crop mode). This is a win-win.

Three processors for fast data writing. Who can complain here?

400,000 shot shutter life. The highest shutter rating on the market, gotta love it.

100,000 pixel RGB metering sensor. Canon finally catches up with Nikon by utilizing a color metering sensor.

ISO 204,800-capable. Generally speaking, the top ISO an all cameras, no matter their rating, is generally crap, the next-highest is often seen as 'usable' in emergency situations. If this pattern holds true on the 1D x, ISO 51,000 will be respectable in performance. Remember when we all thought ISO 25,000 on the D3 was insane when it was first announced?

61 AF points, 5 are cross-diagonal. One can never have too many AF points, at least according to action shooters. One just has to hope that the 1D III new-AF system issues don't make an encore here, ruining what could be the world's very best action camera. |

AF functions have own menu. Access to AF modes is made quick and easy.

Up to 9 shot multi exposure. A Canon first, the rich, artsy-types will love this.

Improved video mode. I'm not a videographer, but Canon says that the entire movie making experience will be a lot better, so I'm taking their word for it.

Wireless control options for multiple cameras. An old hat for Nikon that first appeared in Canonland on the 7D, many pros with dinosaurish cameras in wireless control regard are rejoicing right now.

Needless to say, the 1D x is the most ground-breaking dSLR in quite some time, perhaps since the Nikon D3 really started the high ISO wars 4 years ago with its fall, 2007 announcement. Either way, the real winner in this announcement is the consumer. For Canon shooters, you have quite a camera to look forward to, provided you can afford its expected $6,800 price. For everyone else, Canon has brought a lot of innovations to the market, features that all other manufacturers will be striving to equal or better in their future cameras.

Hats off to Canon for their great, new camera that will only serve to make photographers happy and spur further technological advances of the future.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 10/9

2011-10-16T09:05:00.003-04:00

Another week done, another Examiner roundup here.

Space News
The Draconids in photos
The tiny Hunter's Moon
Saturn's Earth-like Moon
Iran tries, fails to launch monkey into orbit
NASA takes astronaut to court over camera
The name a star Sweetest Day scam

National Photography
Football player nails photographer
Dad branded terrorist for photographing daughter in mall
Big Ben is leaning
Michael Jackson autopsy photo controversy
Naked picture thief faces 100+ years in prison

Cleveland Photography
Woollybear Festival in photos
Cleveland gets big screen time in Avengers
iPhone 4S hits stores
The world's smallest camera

Cleveland Astronomy

Draconid Meteor shower continues tonight
Stargazing weather for October
The tiny Hunters' Moon
Saturn's Earth-like moon
Another satellite to make uncontrolled plunge
One day, 2 planets at opposition
Sweetest Day star naming scam

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Don't Fall Victim to a Sour Scam This Sweetest Day

2011-10-15T10:19:00.003-04:00

Today is Sweetest Day, Hallmark's 'Valentine's Day, Take 2.' Now, while flowers, candy, and cards are sure, generally safe ways to go when it comes to gift giving, one modern take on a romantic gift is not even worth the paper it's printed on: the naming rights to a star.

The short answer (go here for the detailed one) as to why this is stupid: only the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has authority to name anything in space. Honestly, as stupid as this seems, I could open a 'business,' give it a fancy name, and then offer to name stars for people, too. It's simple really: convince people that there's something real to your service, get their cash, and then print up an authentication slip (that's not worth the paper it's printed on) stating that some obscure star is now named for their loved one.

And you thought paying $30 for a dozen dead flowers was dumb, didn't you?

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Camera Lenses 101: Street Sweepers

2011-10-14T07:44:00.000-04:00

With its 18x reach, Tamron's 18-270 is the widest-reaching SLR lens on the market.

As the last installment of my Camera Lenses 101 series, we come to the all-in-one zoom lens, the lens that can do 90% of what all the other classes can do. Covering extreme focal lengths, typically 18-200 on crop and 28-300 of FF/film, these lenses easily earn the nickname of “street sweepers” because they can, literally, capture just about anything you come across when out and about.

Tamron created quite a stir in the early 1990s when it introduced the world's first vacation zoom, a 28-200mm model. As with any first, the initial 28-200 was, other than for its zoom capability, nothing worth writing home about, the optics were terrible. As a budget-orientated college student when I took up dSLR photography, I snagged one of these lenses for its ability to cover a vast zoom range in a single package. My take? Well, it got the job done, but not overly well unless one closed it up 2 stops, not a very practical undertaking at 200mm in less than ideal light!.

In time, other third-party and name brand manufacturers would get into the vacation zoom market and the quality of the lenses themselves would improve as opticians got more used to designing such extreme lenses. Now, as the vacation zoom enters its second full decade, about the only thing that hasn't changed are the focal lengths. For FF/film, 28-300 is still the standard. With the advent of sub-frame crop cameras, 18-200 is the norm, although some lenses are now ending in the 250+mm range. Now, the innovation is all about optical quality and add-ons.

Like with anything else, the addition of stabilizers, sonic drive AF, and weather sealing ups the price of a vacation zoom lens. Right now, the cheapest models are the $300ish third party offerings while the $2,200 weather sealed Canon 28-300L IS leads the pack in price. In the middle, there is a wide variety of lenses priced to suit anyone's budget. For those who are especially budget-conscious, there are always the older vacation lenses, though the dollar savings often come at the price of optical quality.

In short, the vacation zoom can do 90% of what the other classes of lens can do all in a single package. While missing the ultrawide, true macro, and ultra telephoto offered by other specialty lenses, the vacation zoom is a jack of all trades that can do most things increasingly well. Oh yes, if you're going on a trip, I'd highly recommend one of these plus a fast prime for your pocket just in case you encounter extreme low light situations.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

July 2011 Astrophotography

2011-10-11T07:48:00.000-04:00

Well, it was a long, long time coming, but here's July 2011's gallery, it's a big one as clear skies abounded this month. Enjoy!

M13, the Great Hercules Cluster

M25, one of my favorite open clusters.

The galactic center.

The Summer Milky Way

Moon, Pleiades, Hyades, Jupiter, 17mm.

Moon, Pleiades, Hyades, 50mm.

Lagoon, Trifid, M21 (could your crop can do this on a 600mm scope?)

Can you find the Summer Triangle? The wonders of 17mm on FF!

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for weeks of 9/25, 10/2

2011-10-09T11:41:00.003-04:00

Two Examiner roundups for the price of one!

Space News
Dangerous Draconids
NASA pinpoints UARS fall location
Solar storms could destroy our way of life
Fewer near-Earth asteroids than thought

China launches first space station
Pair of asteroids just misses Earth
Man behind the Hubble retires
Chinese space propaganda plays 'America the Beautiful'

Did Jesus die for ET?
Want to be an astronaut? Just apply!
The Draconids are coming!
Meteor viewing tips
1,000 meteors per hour possible

National Photography
Dad drops daughter, still can't catch foul ball
Photographers' rights app
Catchy ad or necrophilia?
Kodak on verge of bankruptcy
Glowing water caught on camera

Gene Simmons wedding
iPhone 4S announced today
Will iPhone kill digital cameras?
Steve Jobs photo tribute
Quadruple rainbow caught on camera
How to photograph meteors

Cleveland Photography
Get the Q locally
New Flickr Apps
Nikon 1 review in New York Times
See historic warship now
Grounds crew's embarrassing goof
Apple launches iPhone 4S
DPR tests Sony's new NEX

Steve Jobs: a career in photos
Quadruple rainbow caught on camera
How to photograph meteors

Cleveland Astronomy

Potentially dangerous meteor shower next month
Northern Lights possible tonight
UARS crash site located
Jupiter-sized sunspot
Northern Lights videos
Naked eye astronomy in October

See China's new space station
All about Spaceweather phone alerts
The October Sky
Do comets cause solar flares?
Cassiopeia
The Draconids are coming
Meteor Viewing tips
1,000 meteors per hour possible

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The 1833 Leonids: the Greatest Meteor Storm in History

2011-10-08T09:52:00.000-04:00

Famous depiction of the 1833 Leonids by Adolf Vollmy.

Today, the world is abuzz over the Draconid Meteor Shower, which some optimistic forecasters are calling for to produce 1,000 meteors per hour. While the 2011 Draconids, if they live up to the hype, will be the best meteor shower in quite some time, they will have nothing on the greatest meteor shower in history: the 1833 Leonids.

In the early 1800s, meteor showers were recognized, though their exact origin had yet to be determined at that time. Through centuries of observation, scientists and amateur sky watchers noticed that showers always seemed to take place on the sane dates over the course of decades. In time, the showers became known by the name of the constellation from which they seemed to radiate from. So, when meteors started to appear in the sky in the middle of November, no one was surprised.

Then came the morning of November 13 came along.

On the night of the 12^th, many sky watchers noticed that there seemed to be an unusually high number of meteors in the sky heading into the morning of the 13^th. Suddenly, as if someone turned on a switch, the sky filled with meteors to the tune of, according to some estimates, over 200,000 per hour! That translates to over 3,000 per minute or, even more mind boggling, 50 meteors per second. All across North America, people were woken by their bedrooms suddenly becoming filled with light thanks to the light of all the meteors. Now, the kicker: this lasted for 4 hours until the Sun started to rise.

Needless to say, reactions to the shower, which just about turned day into night, were quite varied. Naturally, those well-versed in the sciences were excited as no meteor shower of anywhere near this magnitude had ever been seen before. On the other hand, for a lot of the less well educated, panic ensued as many thought that Judgment Day was at hand, that the stars were falling, and that the earth would soon be destroyed.

As night gave way to morning, some of the meteors were so bright as to be seen by day, a true rarity for meteors. However, while the shower lasted only about 4 hours at its outburst phase, its implications were much more long-lasting as this event, more so than any other to that time, did much to drive knowledge.

After the 1833 Leonids, meteor showers, namely finding the cause behind them (now known to be cometary debris entering Earth's atmosphere) became a true scientific study, yearly ritual, and even musical inspiration.

For more info:
NASA

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Camera Lenses 101: Going Long

2011-10-05T06:31:00.003-04:00

The Sigma 100-300 DG HSM APO: an excellent telephoto lens.

After the standard walk-around lens (whether it be zoom or prime), the next optic most people look to when building a kit is the high-power telephoto lens. Whether they be zooms or primes, telephoto lenses greatly expand photographic applications thanks to their extra long reach. And, just like standard walk-around lenses, thanks to the high demand, the telephoto lens market is very crowded, and not always with good products, either.

Let's start with the telephoto zooms.

If you look in every manufacturer's lineup, you'll be sure to see one, if not more, telephoto zooms in the 70-300 f4-5.6 (or equivalent) range. Why so many lenses of this specification? Simple, they're cheap and easy to make, unfortunately, the results produced by such lenses are often in accordance to the price. However, like with the kit zooms, the quality (at least optics-wise) are starting to get better with the low-priced telephoto zooms as customers have been demanding better, and manufacturers are starting to offer products accordingly. Some of the new 70-300s are now getting stabilizers, sonic drive AF, weather sealing, or any combination. However, the more add-ons are attached, the higher the prices go, too.

The next class of telephoto zoom is the short, fast lens, typically a 70-200 f2.8 optic. The bread and butter of many working pros, such lenses are ideal for low-light conditions (provided they can deliver the goods wide open). Unfortunately (their fast aperture should have been a clue), such lenses are typically very expensive, with even the third party models running for around $750 new. When one adds a manufacturer nameplate, weather-sealing, sonic drive AF, and a stabilizer, the price can be pushed to nearly $2,500.

The other class of telephoto zoom is the extremely long model, with some lenses in this class reaching 500mm at the telephoto end. Essentially, these are big brothers of the 70-300s in that they are typically f4-5.6 (or even 6.3) in order to keep the size down. In terms of price, these range dramatically, starting at around $500 and nearing the $2,000 mark on high-end models. As with everything else, the addition of weather seals, sonic-drive AF, and stabilizers up the price dramatically. As a bit of advice, when buying such lenses, getting fast shutter speeds becomes increasingly important to prevent camera shake, which manifests itself at an ever quickening pace the longer the lens is.

Now, onto primes.

The first group of telephoto primes are the modern AF versions. More than any other class of lens, the price variances here is dramatic. Stating at around $600 for a 200ish f2.8 model, primes can go over the $10,000 mark with the 600+mm designs, especially those that add sonic AF and stabilization. The good news with telephoto primes is that they typically work well with teleconverters (at least the more modest 1.5x types). In short, getting, say, a 200 f2.8 and a 1.5x teleconverter is cheaper than buying a 300f4 and will typically produce results that are almost as good. This aside, being optimized for a single focal length, primes will almost produce better images wide open than zooms.

Next up for telephoto primes: the obscure brand optics. Typical prime manufacturer optics over 300mm are out of most people's price range. In contrast, many obscure manufacturers offer 400mm and up lenses for just a few hundred dollars, often about $300 at most. So, how do they do it? Answer: chop the AF, focus confirm, build quality, reasonable focal ratios and presto, sub $300, 400+mm lens. My advice? Skip these as even a cheap 70-300 is better by virtue of the AF alone!

The good news with telephotos is that, more so than with the other classes of lenses, price is a direct indicator of quality with the zooms as there really are very few hidden gems lurking in bargain-price category. Primes? Well, as long as they don't need some kind of adapter to attach to the camera (think those 500mm lenses priced at $300), they should be good, at least optically, too.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Astrophotography for June 2011

2011-09-30T21:00:00.000-04:00

Can you say late? Well, after a 3 month delay, I finally managed to get June's astrophotos up in the gallery. Expect July's (it'll be a lot) to follow in the coming days.

M4 globular cluster in Scorpius.

M11 Wild Duck cluster in Scutum (right off Aquila's tail)

Not smoke, but clouds.

The Orion ED80 does not cover a FF sensor.

Jupiter and Capella in the morning.

Same day, a little later, can you find the Moon in this 105 degree field a 17mm lens offers on FF?

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Camera Lenses 101: Kit Lenses

2011-09-28T06:41:00.000-04:00

The Nikkor 18-55 AF-S VR: the epitome of the modern kit lens in taht it is a zoom with decent optics, modern features, but questionable build quality.

When many people think about buying a camera, surprisingly, they never really consider the lens, the very part that focuses the incoming light in order to create a picture. Fortunately (or perhaps not), camera makers often cover this oversight when packaging their cameras, especially the low to mid-level models, for market.

Way back when, as in the early 1980s and before, camera makers didn't skimp on bundled glass. Example, my Canon FTQL came with a 50 f1.8 optic as standard. Now the funny part: this “cheap” lens is better built than all but the most expensive of today's lenses and, on top of that, it takes good pictures. Stop it down and the corners are good, too. Yes, there were better lenses at the time but, by and large, the kit optics were no slouches, either.

Now, enter the zoom lens revolution.

Before the mid 1980s, zoom lenses were something that no serious photographer could be caught dead with. Why? As in the infancy of any given technology, the products were not all that good. For the first part of their existence, zooms offered flexibility at a lost of lousy optics. Result: serious photographers stuck with primes. However, by the middle 1980s, the zoom lens was maturing into a capable photographic tool at the same time that AF cameras were taking the photographic world by storm. By the end of the 80s, many people who would not have attempted photography otherwise, thanks to the convenience of AF, were snapping pictures. Obviously, people who get into photography because of a technological advance that makes the whole process easier are going to want convenience, and thus zoom lenses.

So, to satisfy the need of these beginning, convenience-orientated photographers, manufacturers stopped equipping their camera kits with “cheap” primes made of metal and containing good optics with cheap plastic zooms containing passable optics and sometimes second-rate AF mechanisms. Why? The public (actually, the influx of convenience-craving photographers) demanded it. AS for the high-end cameras, the manufacturers started selling them without lenses as the people who bought such models would know what lenses they wanted anyway (if they didn't own them already). So, in no time at all, the kit lens became synonymous with junk.

So, in 2011, is this still the case?

Fortunately, no. The great thing about a free market is that the consumer rules so, if people stop buying a product they consider of shoddy craftsmanship, the manufacturers will listen and make a better product. Case in point: the evolution from the kit lens from plastic, anything but fantastic, to a true, albeit still somewhat limited, photographic tool.

Right now, kit zooms are offering features that, even just a few years ago, would have seemed unthinkable. Fancy optics in the form of aspheric elements, low dispersion glass, and even coatings now come as standard on many kit lenses by many different manufacturers. Right now, Nikon offers sonic drive AF on its $200 18-55 kit model. Last year, Pentax came out with sub $250 lenses with rubber gaskets at the mount to protect against dust and moisture. Both Canon and Nikon (the big holdouts against in-body stabilization) both offer sub $200 lenses with stabilizers rated up to 4 stops effective. On top of all this, the optics themselves are getting better, with some lenses, at least at some of their focal settings, offering image quality comparable to much more expensive, pro-grade zooms.

Now, the big question may be, with all these pluses of kit zooms, why not just stick with them in the first place?

Well, some things don't seem to be changing anytime soon. Then as now, the build quality of kit zooms (apart from the weather-resistant Pentax lenses) is terrible. How shoddily are some of these lenses built? A few models don't even have metal mounts! An often cut ergonomic corner is that most kit zooms don't have a true manual focus ring. Instead, one has to turn the end of the lens itself for MF. AF mechanisms? Still often inferior to higher-grade models in that AF is slower and/or doesn't allow full time manual override. As a last note, to keep prices down, the apertures are still slow, typically in the f3.5-5.6 range.

Now, examination complete, when you buy a camera with a bundled lens, should you keep it or try to unload it on Craigslist or Ebay?

Answer: it's all about what you shoot. For most situations, I would say that the kit lenses are just fine. The only real situation where the stock kit lens falls flat is under low-light conditions where the slow apertures pretty much require using flash, which is not always desirable (or even allowed at some public venues). The good news is that the advent of image stabilization (whether in-body or in-lens) will offset this disadvantage if the subject is stationary, which makes such lenses great for nightscapes. Unfortunately, image stabilization does nothing to freeze action, only aperture can do that. My key to lens buying:

Action = aperture

Stationary = stabilizer

Basically, if you're shooting stationary subjects, just stick with the kit lens, it will do the job just fine in most situations. If action/low light photography is your thing, it may be a good idea to invest in a fast (f2 or faster, preferably) prime instead.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for weeks of 9/11, 9/18

2011-09-25T07:33:00.001-04:00

Well, it's been a busy week on Examiner with all of the UARS stuff going on. Below you'll find all the non-UARS news, as well as a special UARS coverage list comprising articles from all of my columns.

Space News
9/11 from space
50 new planets, 16 super-Earths discovered
NASA unveils 400 foot rocket
Comet Elenin doomed
Real life Tatooine
Rocks indicate Mars was once warmer, wetter
UFO sightings on the rise

National Photography
9/11 memorial photo roundup
ACLU launches photographers' rights page
Scarlett Johansson photo hack, FBI gets involved
Grandparents with webcam
Camera lens falls through roof
Constitution day is today, picture taking a right
Glowing cats help with AIDS research
The Emmys in photos
Nicholas Cage a vampire?
Crooks use red lights cams to steal identities

Cleveland Astronomy
Featured sight for week of 9/11: Harvest Moon
Watch comet's death dive into Sun
'Doomsday' comet doomed
Real life Tatooine
They have landed!
Featured sight for week of 9/18: Autumnal Equinox
Take a ride aboard the ISS
Now is the best time for stargazing

Cleveland Photography
Cleveland Browns Stadium is photo-friendly
Nikon stocks on rise based on rumor

Manny Ramirez mug shot
ACLU: photography not a crime
Lensrentals.com lowers prices
Constitution Day is today
Huge mural in Lakewood
Adobe launches Photoshop Elements 10
Nikon launches CX format cameras

Full UARS coverage:
UARS fall caught on video?
UARS falls over the Pacific
Official NASA updates
Q&A with space junk expert
NASA begins to estimate fall zone
Re-entry fireball could be as bright as Full Moon
FEMA braces for the worst
Amateur's amazing UARS video Track the UARS on your Android

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

UARS Update: Fall Zone Determined

2011-09-23T21:23:00.001-04:00

Now, just hours before its scheduled fall, NASA has finally been able to pinpoint where the UARS satellite will be when it makes its uncontrolled plunge to Earth. Location: the satellite could fall over Canada, the Pacific Ocean, Australia, the Indian Ocean, or Africa. AS the fall time approaches, NASA may be able to narrow down the fall zone even more, but only time will tell.

Full UARS coverage:
Official NASA updates
Q&A with space junk expert
NASA begins to estimate fall zone
Re-entry fireball could be as bright as Full Moon
FEMA braces for the worst
Amateur's amazing UARS video Track the UARS on your Android

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

UARS Update: Satellite Could Fall Over the United States Sometime Tonight

2011-09-23T15:20:00.001-04:00

Feel free to ignore what I have written all week about the time/location of the fall of the UARS satellite as NASA has now announced that it doesn't expect the UARS to fall until sometime tonight or even as late as tomorrow morning. To boot, the space agency now says that a fall over the United States could be possible, too. This just goes to show just how hard it is to predict the fall of an uncontrolled satellite orbiting Earth at 17,500mph.

Full UARS coverage:
Official NASA updates
Q&A with space junk expert
NASA begins to estimate fall zone
Re-entry fireball could be as bright as Full Moon
FEMA braces for the worst
Amateur's amazing UARS video Track the UARS on your Android

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Today is All About the Fall

2011-09-23T06:51:00.001-04:00

In a funny coincidence, the UARS satellite will fall to Earth on, you guessed it, the first day of fall.

Today, September 23, 2011, is in the news for two big, astronomical reasons: the fall of the Upper Atmospheric Research (UARS) satellite as well as the arrival of the Autumnal Equinox, which officially heralds the start of fall.

UARS Takes the Plunge
As for the UARS satellite fall, the official word from NASA is that they still do not know exactly where the fall will take place, other than it is expected to occur sometime between afternoon and evening, United States time. As for what can expected to be seen, optimistic estimates have the UARS producing a fireball as bright as the Full Moon.

Want to learn more about the UARS plunge? Well, here's complete UARS coverage from both my Examiner columns as well as other places.

:Official NASA updates
Q&A with space junk expert
NASA begins to estimate fall zone
Re-entry fireball could be as bright as Full Moon
FEMA braces for the worst
Amateur's amazing UARS video Track the UARS on your Android

Fall Arrives

For anyone not keeping track, fall arrives (in fact, it has already arrived at my EST location) today, September 23, specifically at 5:05am. So, with the seasonal change, why do we have seasons at all?

Answer: it all has to do with the Earth’s 23 degree tilt. If the Earth were spinning on its axis with no tilt at all, everyone would be treated to days of identical length every day of the year, with latitudes nearer the equator having longer days than those nearer the poles. However, with the tilt, the angle of the Earth relative to the Sun changes as or planet moves about its orbit.

On the Autumnal Equinox, the Sun will rise/set exactly due East/West. The Sun will climb about 50 degrees high and the day and the night will be exactly 12 hours long (Equinox means 'equal night'). After the equinox, the Sun will never leave the Southern celestial hemisphere until the next Vernal (spring) Equinox.

After the Autumnal Equinox, the shortening of the days will continue until the Sun finally reaches its most Southerly rise/set on the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year., which is around December 20. On this day, the Sun will rise/set low in the Southeast, get only about 25 degrees high (at Cleveland's latitude) at local noon (at about 12:30 thanks to a return to Standard Time). The final result: a day that is only 9 hours long.

From that point on, the Sun will only get stronger, once again having an Equinox, the Vernal, around the 20th of March before culminating in its most Northerly rise of the year, the Summer Solstice, around June 20, at which point the Sun will peak at a height of about 72 degrees (Cleveland, again) at local noon (about 1:30pm). Result of the high-flying Sun, a 15+ hour long day.

So there it is, the mechanics of why we have the seasons.

Year-Long Photo Shoot
For anyone looking to have some fun with a camera, go out tonight and photograph the Sun just as the solar disc starts to dip below the horizon in order to minimize the glare. Now, take note of what lens you are using (use an ultrawide if you have one) and exactly where you are standing as, in the following months, you will return to the exact same spot to shoot the solstices in December and next June, thus giving yourself a complete picture of just how much the Sun's rise/set point moves along the horizon during the year.

Humble requests:

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.