Today is Astronomy Day!

Today is a holiday that many people don't even know exists: International Astronomy Day.

With humble origins in as an attempt at public outreach by the Astronomical Association of Southern California, the effort to bring astronomy to the masses, often city dwellers, quickly grew in popularity to the point where the holiday eventually went national, and then international. Now, nearly 40 years after the first Astronomy Day (1973) the holiday continues to grow and become more relevant?

Why the part about being relevant? Simple: dark skies are going away fast.

When the first Astronomy Day was launched in 1973, the whole idea was to set up telescopes in public places where astronomers could show members of the general public the wonders of the universe. Naturally, to guarantee that the public would show up, the telescopes had to be set up in urban/suburban locations, areas that are not all that good for astronomy. Obviously, by looking at the success of the holiday, people are seeing things in the telescopes.

Lesson of the day: you can do astronomy from just about anywhere.

For starters, the Moon is always visible as it is the second brightest thing in the sky after the Sun. Believe it or not, there are astronomers who spend the majority of their telescope time studying the Moon. Second, planets. All of the planets are generally of 0 magnitude or brighter, thus visible from all but the most light polluted areas. Being bright targets, the planets are also good targets for examination by city-dwellers. For suburbanites, binary (double, triple, etc.) stars are also a lot of fun to lok at because they, too, can be observed in all but the worst of lighting conditions.

So yes, the dark skies are going away more every year but, if you know what to look for and are content with the fact that you can't see deep sky nebulae, galaxies, and clusters from your backyard, there is plenty of fun to be had with a telescope in a city.

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.

Nikon D400 Speculation: 16Mp, Full Frame, $1999 Retail Price

Nikon has been very busy since the start of the new year. First, there was the flagship D4, then the more economically-priced, 36Mp D800 dSLR, which is being hailed by some as the greatest camera ever made. Now, in going high Mp with the D800, Nikon seemed kind of stupid in that they abandoned the low-Mp, high ISO $3,000 market, which they had exclusive domain in with the D700. So, why would Nikon cede its monopoly in this market niche?

Answer, it won't, the D400 will be coming out later this year and it will be poised to take the place of the D700, but for $1,000 less than the D700's introductory price.

So, why such reason for hope?First of all, Nikon has been very generous in letting features trickle down from its top-tier cameras into lower-priced models, albeit after the new kings of the hill have been out awhile. Example: the D700 was 95% of the D3 but at half the cost. Another example: in 2010, Nikon essentially obsoleted its $1,800 D300s with the$1,200 D7000, with the D7000 equaling or beating its older, more expensive brother in every respect except affordability. With the D400, this could very well happen again.Another reason for hope: pricing. Ever since Nikon split its pro D# camera lineup into low and high resolution models, the high-res camera always cost about 35% more than the low-res one. Example: Nikon's D3 sold for just under $5,000 at release. Upon announcement, the D3x identical to the D3 except for its double resolution sensor) was priced at $8,000. Now, looking at the high-res D800 that sits at the $3,000 mark, it would fit the trend for Nikon to cram the 16Mp, FF sensor of the D4 into a D300 body, call it the D400, and sell it for $2,000.

Third reason for hope: the market void lack of a D700 creates. In phasing out the D700, Nikon leaves a market which it monopolized: an 'affordable' FF camera with its main selling point being speed and high ISO performance. Simply put, there was no direct competitor as the $3,000 cameras from Canon and Sony were high-Mp clunkers in comparison to the D700. For going on 4 years, Nikon had this market all to itself and it makes no financial sense to abandon it now.

In making the D400 16Mp FF, Nikon would be both filling the market gap it created and, at the same time, making its customers happy, a win-win for everyone involved.

In the end, though, only time will tell if The D400 will be a FF camera using the D4's sensor. Still, though, it's still fun to speculate on what the D400 could look like, so here goes . . .

16Mp FF sensor
6 fps (8 with battery grip)
95% viewfinder coverage
Single CF slot
Only a 3:2 aspect ratio
LCD: 3.2” non-brightness adjust
Less movie clip time as compared to D4


In all, the D400 will be a D4 lite, with some specific changes in order to make the D4 more appealing to people to shell out the extra money. After all, Nikon can't make the D400 too like the D4, lest no one would buy the latter. Still, though, by looking at how feature-dense the D7000 is and for the price it sells for, a sub-$2,000 FF camera from Nikon no longer seems out of the question.

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.

Life Isn't Fair (Just Accept It) and the Value of Hard Work

Life is not fair and you just need to accept it, that old bit of advice can go long way in keeping you from going stark raving mad in some situations, which brings us to the topic of this somewhat off-topic piece of advice. In case you haven't heard, Fox News host Greta VanSusteren just got a Nikon D800 from B&H Photo-Video, and many people aren't happy about it. .

The issue many people have: VanSusteren used her celebrity status to jump the line and got the camera virtually overnight while others have been waiting for over 2 months (and counting) for their D800 to arrive.

So?

Like it or not, life simply isn't fair, sorry. VanSusteren is a world-famous journalist and, frankly, it should come as no surprise that, when she goes in to buy a camera (she probably went to B&H since it is based in New York City, just like Fox News) and said that she was looking for a camera to take to the recently-divided Sudan, top brass decided to just let her buy one on the next shipment that came into the store rather than wait her turn in line like all the Average Joes and Janes had to do..

Is it fair? No. Should you be upset? No t that, too.

Obviously, in order to get a show on Fox News, you have to have talent, a lot of it. Think about it: how many reporters never get past the local newspaper? The vast majority. When it comes to getting on TV in the first place, only a lucky, talented few get to do so in their local markets, few of whom then move on to something even bigger, the national news scene. Obviously, to get as far as she did, VanSusteren had to be in the top percentile of journalists in regards to both reporting and television skills. Obviously, to excel at both sides of reporting the news to such an extent as to get one's own national TV show is a big accomplishment. My take: Greta worked hard to get where she is today and, if she can use her hard-won status to jump the line and get a D800 right away, good for her!

The United States is an interesting study in human nature. In one vein, we value hard work but in the other, we often resent those who achieve success in whatever they choose to do (and the rewards success brings) through the hard work we so value. See the problem? Don't want to work? Well, you're a lazy oaf. Work too hard? Then you're a self-centered workaholic. Either way, you're screwed.

Whatever happened to going for the gold and being all you an be?

Another paradox in U.S. psychology: we want to be rich but are often resentful of the people who are rich. Think about it: who doesn't want to have a lot of money? Me? I'll take all the money I can get, thank you very much. On the other hand, whenever we see someone who lives in a huge house, drives an exotic car, or snaps pictures with a fancy camera, we often think the following: well, he/she has that, so why shouldn't I be able to, too?


Answer: hard work.


Generally speaking, people who put the most effort into their work often get the raises and promotions, which means more money to be made and spent on things like houses, cars, and cameras. Want to have nice stuff, the same stuff that makes you green with envy (or red hot with jealousy)? Well, work a little harder! Bosses recognize hard workers and, sooner or later, that hard work pays off. Yes, being the better worker can mean more work for you now but, in time, it will be you, not that slacker who you have to bail out all the time, who gets the promotion, the raise, and all the perks that go along with moving up on the chain of command.


The American Dream is, contrary to popular belief, not dead in the least. The dream is alive and well, but only for those people who are wanting to work for it. The problem in America: a lot of people are increasingly willing to just “get by” in their lives because they don't want to go that extra mile and work a little harder than the next guy, or girl. After all, most jobs pay by the hour, so why work any harder than you have to, right?


Wrong.


Yes, doing enough to just “get by” is fine for some people but, if you're one of these people who's content with mediocrity, don't go whining about not being able to have nice stuff or any of the perks that those who have made it enjoy. Bottom line: Greta VanSusteren worked hard, made it to the top of her field and is, thanks to her hard work, able to do things the ordinary person can't, so stop whining about 'fair,' get to work, and make something of yourself instead.

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.

Nikon Announces 24Mp, Wi-Fi Capable D3200

In case you haven't heard, Nikon just announced its D3200, which turned out to be pretty much exactly as the rumors said it would be, namely packing a 24Mp sensor and wi-fi connectivity. In these two areas, the D3200 mops the floor with every other APS-C Nikon dSLR to date. However, when it comes to the features that matter, the D3200 is just a toy for amateurs who need an in-camera photography help guide for tips on how to take better pictures.

My advice: if you're looking to buy your first dSLR, preorder your D3200 right now as it's sure to be a hot seller. If you're an advanced shooter who wants real functionality and user-friendliness, skip the D3200 as the other Nikons are better where it counts.

 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.

5D Mark III Light Leak Could Have Dire Consequences for Canon's Future

Yesterday, it was just confirmed by Canon that the 5D Mark III has a light leak problem that can ruin the camera's ability to properly meter exposures. In its press release on the problem, Canon said that it is 'looking for solutions' as we speak. Unfortunately, the problem appears physical rather than in firmware, which will probably mean a total recall at some point in the future.

For Canon, this is the last thing that the company needed after a string of quality issues and strong competition in the pro market from Nikon.

Of late, Canon has had a lot of duds in its flagship cameras. First, there was the infamous 1D Mark III AF problems. As for the 1DIV, there was nothing wrong with it, but it was just not very impressive when pitted against the Nikon offerings. The 5DII? Well, its sluggish performance and antiquated AF system made it look like a dinosaur compared to the D700 and over-priced when pitted against Sony's $2,000 A850. While not a dSLR, Canon's revolutionary G1X was found to have a light leak in the shutter. Also, just a few days ago, Canon announced that the 1DIV's successor, the 1Dx, was being delayed again, this time until June. For the 1Dx, this marks the third delay in ship date. Needless to say, things aren't looking good for Canon.

See also: why Nikon is better than Canon

With the 5DIII, Canon finally produced the camera that many shooters all over the world were begging for: essentially a half-height 1D with many of the top tier model's features. Oh, yes, it beats the Nikons for the all-important high ISO performance, too. Well, a lot of people were very, very excited over the 5DIII and the prospect of finally having that all-around performer that Nikonians had in the D700 since 2008.

Well, it looks like the 5DIII is shaping up to be another 1DIII: a much-hyped camera with a fatal flaw. For canon, this is the last thing the company needs and it couldn't have come at a worse time.

Ever since the 1-2 punch of the D3 and D300 in 2007, Nikon has undeniably taken the lead in the pro market segment. Throw in the D700 a year later and, overnight, a lot of pros who either long-since dumped their Nikon gear in the late 80s or who would have never considered Nikon before that point were flocking back to the manufacturer that had dominated the pro market until the AF revolution. Nikon's new-found dominance in itself is bad for Canon.

The second bit of bad timing: the latest Nikon flagship, the D4, was not all that big of an upgrade from the D3 it replaces. While the D3 was leaps and bounds ahead of the D2 line, the D4 was evolutionary, not revolutionary. Unlike from D2 to D3, there was no dramatic jump in image quality or shooting capabilities. Instead, the D4 merely added a few Mp to the sensor and full HD video, nothing that could scream “buy me!” to a lot of people still happy with a D3.

Long story short: Nikon mopped the floor with Canon from 2007 to 2011 and, with its latest generation of cameras, left the door wide open for Canon to finally catch up thanks to the modest improvements. So, what does Canon come up with? A flawed 5DIII and a 1Dx that, for reasons still undisclosed, is still not ready for mass production.

In the end, Nikon looks poised to win the battle for the 4^th generation of pro cameras not because of what it is doing to revolutionize the way the world takes pictures, but for the mere act of not screwing up its products like Canon has done a lot of in recent years.

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.

Do You Know What the Titanic Looked Like?

The Titanic and Olympic weren't truly identical.
This morning marked the 100^th anniversary of the Titanic sinking, which was, at the time, the worst maritime disaster in history. However, despite its fame, there are very few pictures and even less movie of the Titanic, which has created quite a problem for documentary producers.

Solution: use photos and footage of the Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, as a stand-in. Problem: Titanic and Olympic weren't identical and now, thanks to repeated use of Olympic imagery, few people know what the Titanic actually looked like.

What many people may not know is that, at the time, the Titanic was not a sensation at all, that distinction went to the Olympic, which entered service in 1911, the year before Titanic did so. At the time of her launch, Olympic was the largest ship in the world by a large margin and therefore it attracted a lot of media attention. The Titanic? Well, it was Olympic's near twin, but, since it was the second ship of the class, it attracted little attention, that was until it sank on its maiden voyage with over 1500 passengers and crew still aboard.

Now for the pictures.

As good as the Olympic was, designers were hard at work looking for areas of improvement. One area deemed in need of a fix: the promenade deck, the deck right below the boat deck. On the Olympic, this deck was open for the length of the ship. Titanic, being a year behind in construction, was still enough of a work in progress that a large section of the promenade deck could be enclosed. To see the difference, look at the pictures above.

So, the next time you see a documentary or read something about the Titanic, be careful to look at the promenade deck as, chances are, you could be looking at Titanic's nearly identical twin, instead.

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.

Proof that Nikon is Better than Canon

Nikon is better than Canon, no doubt about it, and not because of the cameras either company produces. Instead, what makes Nikon the better company is the way it goes about selling its cameras, specifically its new releases. Generally speaking, when Nikon announces a new camera, it is ready to ship within weeks. Canon? Heel dragging in the extreme.

In the past few months, Nikon and Canon have rejuvenated their top-tier lineups. In January and February respectively, Nikon announced its D4 and D800 dSLRs. By March, both were available for order (and quickly became back-ordered). Still, though, the cameras were ready to ship, meaning very little lag time from announcement to market. Oh, yes, as an afterthought, about a week after announcement, a whole van on D800s used for PR activities was stolen, too.

Canon? Well, it announced its EOS 1Dx last fall and, just the other day, it announced that the new camera would not be available until summer at the earliest. Initially, at the Fall 2011 announcement, Canon said that it expected the 1Dx to ship just after the start of the new year. This date was then pushed back to spring, and now to summer. Now, with 3 ship date delays already under its belt, who's to say that the 1Dx will not be delayed again and that the new, 4k video-capable 1D C will not ship until sometime mid 2013?

In the end, even at the best possible release of summer, 2012, the 1Dx will have been at least 3 months behind the D4 and D800. Yes, while news of the impending 1Dx is enough to keep those deeply invested in the Canon EOS system happy, for those not deeply invested, the repeated delays may just be enough to swing some first time pro camera buyers to Nikon for the simple reason that the Nikons are here right now and the Canon may arrive sometime in the next couple of months.

Seriously, what good does it do to announce a camera and then make potential buyers wait for almost a year before they can purchase it? Well, for Nikon, it may drive some business their way.

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.

Is the Shroud of Turin the World's First Photograph?

The Shroud of Turin: Holy relic or world's first photograph?

Today is Easter Sunday, the day that billions of believers all over the world hold to be the anniversary of Jesus Christ's resurrection. While religion is, by and large, an issue of faith, believers in the resurrection have a unique piece of "proof" for their belief: an ancient shroud bearing the image of a crucified man, the man being believed to be Christ himself. The cloth in question is the famous Shroud of Turin, but is it real?

The Shroud of Turin has been an enigma ever since it first came to light in the mid 1300s. Always a local curiosity, the Shroud shot to fame in 1898 when Italian photographer Secondo Pia photographed the Shroud for the first time. While the actual photos were nothing to write about, the negatives (pictured) were stunning.

From that point on, there was a clamor to prove or disprove the Shroud's authenticity. So is the Shroud real or fake? It is a question where there are many opinions but no conclusive answers. For art historian Nicholas Allen, not only is the shroud a fake, but it's also the first photograph, too.As absurd as the idea seems at first glance, Allen's theory may just be true, as it is based on sound photographic principles.

The first piece of the puzzle is camera obscura. While not a camera in the traditional sense, camera obscura does capture and reproduce images, albeit on walls rather than film. The principles behind camera obscura were known since before the birth of Christ. Simply a box with a hole on one side, a lens in the hole, and a screen on the other, light passes through the lens and an image is reproduced on the far side of the chamber. This is the same ideas as in the modern pinhole camera.

Okay, camera obscura is an ancient trick for capturing and projecting images, but could it be used for a subject the size of a human? Absolutely. The largest examples of camera obscura are room-sized, plenty big for a human-sized subject. So, if people knew about camera obscura in the 1300s, they very well could have constructed one room-sized, too.

The camera obscura is only one piece of the puzzle. Now comes the part that requires a leap of faith possibly big as believing in the authenticity of the Shroud itself.

According to the Shroud is a photo theory, the cloth itself acted as the film. Silver salts are light sensitive and, when cloth is treated with such chemicals, it can be turned into "film." Exposed to the light for a period of time, an image will appear on the cloth.

So how does it all work?

In practice, very simply. The body would be hung outside the camera obscura chamber so that its image would be projected through the lens and onto the rear wall opposite the opening. Now, to create an image, the treated cloth would be placed between the body and wall so that the image would fall on the cloth instead. Left exposed for enough time, a negative image would eventually appear on the cloth. The results of these recreations are both impressive and Shroud-like (scroll about 2/3 way down).

In theory, this sounds simple. In practice, there is one big problem: did anyone in the 1300s know the light sensitive properties of silver salts and would anyone have even thought to do such a thing at the time? With modern knowledge, it is very easy to reverse engineer an ancient problem, but the question of whether this would have been thought of at the time remains unknowable.

In the end, the Shroud of Turin is a mystery that will probably never be solved, which is good for the faithful and the investigators alike.For people interested in this Shroud is a photo theory, keep your eyes on local PBS schedules as the show "Secrets of the Dead" briefly explored this idea in an episode a few years back and reruns are still aired from time to time.

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.

Do I Need a New Camera? Considerations to Help You Make the Right Choice

With new models of cameras coming out faster than ever, a question is sure to arise more often than in the past: do I need a new camera? Back in the film days, it was not uncommon to see a model stay in production for a decade or longer, which virtually guaranteed obvious, no-brainer improvements. Result: a lot of people would upgrade. Now, with refeshes coming out every 2 years (or less), the question arises, but is not often as easily as answerable.
The big cause of fostering this hating one's own camera phenomenon are online communities. There are the people who cannot help but comparing their gear to others' equipment, whether it be a newer camera or another manufacturer's model, and then complaining how their camera stinks. Obviously, reading enough of someone else's whining enough times can convince a photographer who is in love with his/her camera to start to consider the need to upgrade. If you are one of these people being influenced by the belly-aching of others, ask yourself the following question: is my camera preventing me from doing what I want to do? If you answered “no,” there is no need for a new camera.

With these bi-yearly updates going on these days, skipping a generation in your camera's model line is not often that big of a deal as improvements are, at the generational level, evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Bottom line here: if you have any reservations about dumping your current camera for something newer, you don't need a new camera. Instead, just keep using your current toy and buy some accessories (or something else) with that money that would have been spent on a new camera instead. Is it really worth it to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars just for the pride of being able to say you own the latest camera? For anyone on a budget, certainly not. While on the subject of upgrading, there is another problem brought about by short product cycles: uncertainty over the next generation. The manifestation of this problem: people complaining about how they don't want to buy a camera now because they fear that their new toy will be rendered obsolete in the near future. On Internet forums, it is common to hear a line such as “should I buy Camera A now or wait until its replacement, Camera B, comes to market and buy it instead?” Problem one: Camera A exists and Camera B does not. Problem two: no one knows when Camera B will come to market. Manufacturers can follow predictable product cycles or release a new model out of the blue. Problem three: no one except manufacturer employees know a camera's exact specifications before it is released. The new camera could be completely revolutionary, a mild tuneup, or anything in between. Problem four and the biggest one of all: since the potential buyer is worried more about comparing today's camera to something that may or may not come in the future, he/she still has no camera and/or one that's not getting the job done. Bottom line here: if your current camera just isn't doing the job you want it to do, just go buy one now, you'll be glad you did.Hopefully, this brief piece of advice (or rant, your opinion!) will help serve to help some people in their buying decisions and better ensure that hard-earned money is spent wisely.


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.

The Case for Evolution: the Facts that Support the Theory

Is evolution a fact or a theory? What observations prove that evolution is taking place right now? Those are two big questions often posed by the vast majority of people who (at least in America) still desperately cling to the notion that God created the universe and all in it in a matter of just 6 days. Right now, the battle of evolution vs. creationism is being joined again as Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam is poised to sign a bill that would protect teachers who criticize evolution/promote creationism in the classroom.

So, all heated opinions aside, what is the evidence that has helped turn evolution from Charles Darwin's personal hypothesis into a virtually unassailable scientific theory that, in all common sense, should have long since been accepted by the vast majority of the population?

First of all the theory itself. According to Darwin, all current life forms evolved from simpler ones. The agent for change: natural selection, which is, at the most basic level, the idea that, due to genetic differences, certain individuals of a species gain a biological advantage that aids in survival. Result: those individuals with the given edge, whatever it may be, are more likely to survive and reproduce than individuals without the one key difference. In time, those individuals with the advantage will keep surviving and reproducing while the ones without the advantage will die off and reproduce less and less as time progresses. In time, a new species will evolve and the old one will become rare, possibly extinct.

An accelerated illustration of evolution is the process wherein humans selectively breed animals for desired characteristics. This is called artificial selection because the agent of change is deliberately imposed on the animal from the outside by humans.

Natural selection, where certain genetic errors actually prove advantageous to survival, works on a much slower time scale measured in the tens of thousands, millions, and billions of years. In time, this process that started with inanimate matter spontaneously assembling itself, an idea that has been proven by experiment, is what has taken life on Earth from single-celled life forms like bacteria algae into the entirety of what we see around us today, things such as flowers, trees, birds, fish, cats, dogs, and, of course, humans.

Now, for evolution deniers, one of the biggest problems with the idea is that of the slow time scale, wherein natural selection works at a pace too slow to witness during the human lifetime. However, thanks to rapid advances in technology, that notion can easily be disproved.

In one wants to see evolution by natural selection at work, one needs to study the smallest creatures on earth, the single-celled organisms that are, in fact, direct descendants of humanity's (and everything else's) most distant ancestors. It is a common piece of knowledge that certain bacteria are developing antibiotic-resistant strains. While this is a troubling, some would say frightening discovery for the general public, it is ideal ammunition to be used against those who continue to deny the theory of evolution. For anyone who's willing to consider evolution over longer spans of time, there are many observations supporting the idea that life is continually evolving from simpler into more complex forms, such as the fossil record, genetic similarity between all life forms at the DNA level, and the geographic distribution of related species.

In science, there are no absolute truths and there is just one commandment: respect the facts. Yes, evolution is considered a theory, which is far different from a hypothesis. Yes, while it will never be 100% proven that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism that created all life on Earth as we know it, the evidence in favor of the theory is very overwhelming to say the least. Yes, while evolution will always remain a theory, it is a theory with one of the firmest foundations in science, one that we owe it to our children to have in the classroom.

For more info:
Scientific answers to creationist arguments



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.

Captured: Venus in the Pleiades

Pictured: Venus in the Pleiades.
Right now, Venus is amongst the Pleiades star cluster, where it will remain for the next few days. The great news: one doesn't need to have a telescope or a fancy photographic rig to see and/or photograph it either. The above photo was a 8 second exposure on my Nikon D700 using a 50mm lens. Even with 'only' 12Mp, there is a lot of cropping room here as the full shot demonstrates. For other great things to see in the sky without a telescope this month, go here!


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.

Canon Announces EOS 60Da

The Canon 60Da will be available this month and cost $1499.99.

Canon has just announced the long-awaited (6 years!) successor to its legendary 20Da astro cam: the 60Da, which, like its predecessor, is a standard 60D except for its enhanced sensitivity to the hydrogen alpha wavelengths, which make it, hands-down, better than any standard dSLR for capturing the brilliant reds common to deep sky objects.

In the following couple of days, expect some commentary either here or on Examiner. For now, if you want some in-depth analysis, go here.

Key specs:
Body: plastic
Sensor: 18MP APS-C
Aspect ratios: 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
Formats: RAW, JPEG
ISO: 100-12,800
AF Points: 9
AF assist lamp: no
Viewfinder: 96% coverage
LCD: 3” 1,040,000 dot live view
Built-in flash: yes
Shutter Speed: 1/8000-30 seconds, bulb
Continuous drive: 5.3 fps
Exposure Compensation: +/- 5 stops
AE Bracketing: 3 frames
WB settings: 6
WB Bracketing: yes, 3 frames
Video: 1080p full HD
Movie Formats: H.264
Microphone: mono
Speaker: mono
HDMI: Yes
Wireless: no
GPS: no
Storage: SD/SDHC/SCXC
Weight: 1.66lbs (with battery)
Size: 5.7” x 4.2” x 3.1”
Price: $1499.99 (with 18-55 kit)
Availability: April


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.

Why a 24Mp, wi-fi Equipped D3200 Won't Kill the D7000

The D3200?

There has been a lot of gossip going around the Internet of late concerning the Nikon D3200, which some 'sources' place at a mid-month release. Two of the hottest features supposedly on this camera: a 24Mp sensor and wi-fi capability, two features that no Nikon APS-C dSLR has (or in the case of wi-fi, a feature that no Nikon dSLR has, period). Now, even before the camera is announced, many are going so far as to stick a for in higher-end models, most notably the D7000, but is this warranted?

Hardly.

First of all, 24Mp is a lot of resolution, far more than most people will ever need. Personally, I get great 8x11” prints with 3Mp. Want to hear something even funnier? Back in high school, we were using 1Mp cameras and printing full page pictures with them. Oh, guess what? They looked great. Simply put, megapixels are one of many gimmicks designed to trick people into buying a camera based on a feature that they will never use.

Another problem here, small pixels, which smart people are not all that crazy about to begin with. It doesn't take a college degree to figure out that, if two camera sensors are the same size but with different pixel counts, the one with more pixels must also have smaller pixels, too. Technically speaking, this is known as pixel density. The problem: all sensors have background noise and small pixels capture less signal than big ones and are thus less capable of drowning out the noise. Result: cameras with small pixels produce noisier images than cameras with large pixels. Go here for a detailed explanation of pixel density and here for photographic tests that prove the same point.

Simply put: if it is 24Mp, the D3200 probably won't be able to touch (let alone better) the high ISO performance of Nikon's current, 16Mp, APS-C dSLRS, namely the D5100 and the D7000. Generally speaking, the top 2 ISO settings can be considered emergency use only, which means that the D3200 which is rumored to have an ISO range of WHAT to WHAT, will only be usable to ISO WHAT.

The other big rumor about the D3200 is that it will come with wi-fi capability. So what? Wi-fi has absolutely nothing to to with making pictures. Instead, it serves as a great conversation piece for technophiles who now have the ability to say “look what my camera can do” to their Facebook “friends” (who they can now share pictures with in high-resolution an instant after snapping them thanks to this wonderful technological innovation) because they are too absorbed in virtual reality to develop meaningful friendships with people in real life. Great, another reason for Nikon to charge us more money for a camera.

In contrast, the D7000 has a lot of features that professional photographers would want and/or need, (and would certainly be willing to pay for) depending on their exact type of work. These features include:
Weather sealed magnesium alloy body
39 point autofocus grid (including 9 cross points at the center of the frame)
100% viewfinder coverage

+/- 5EV exposure compensation

Full HD video with full time autofocus

Dual memory card slots (SD)

New processor

RGB 3D Matrix Metering system

In camera video/RAW editing

Built-in intervalometer (fancy word for programmable remote)

Quiet shutter mode
Full compatibility with mechanical drive Nikkor lenses
Lots of direct-access (even though many are dual in nature) control buttons

Yes, the D7000 doesn't have 24Mp or wi-fi, but it can do a lot of things that the D3200 almost certainly won't be able to do. Personally, I'd buy the D7000 just for its ability to use the old, cheaper, virtually indestructible mechanical drive Nikkor lenses. Heck, for the price it's almost surely going to sell for (about $500), you'd be better off snagging a used D200, provided you're a photographer and not a techno geek.

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.