180 Years Ago Today: The Great Leonid Storm of 1833

It was an ordinary November night in 1833 when, suddenly, the pitch-black sky (there was no electricity then) suddenly went ablaze with fire. All over the country, people rushed out of their homes, awakened either by the shouting in the streets or the light coming in through their windows, convinced that Armageddon was upon them. However, the reason for the fiery sky was not Doomsday, but meteors, as in thousands per second of them.

This event would go down in history as the Great Leonid Storm of 1833 and this event would spur an intense study of meteors.

Until the early 1800s, scientists weren't even sure of where meteors came from, with most believing that they were some kind of atmospheric phenomenon. By the time of the great Leonid Shower of 1833, a consensus was building that meteors did originate from space. Taking the Leonids of 1833 as a start, scientists started reading old accounts of meteor showers. By looking back through the centuries, meteor showers were found to be not random, but regular in appearance. In regards to the Leonids, it was found that every 33-34 years brought a terrific storm far more intense than usual. By the 1860s (and the time just a few years ahead of the next forecast Leonid storm) it was confirmed that meteor showers came from comets. Right on schedule, the Leonids stormed in both 1866 and 1867.

It seemed as though the meteor mystery was solved, but nature has a way of playing tricks.

After the great storm of 1866 (1867 was nowhere near as strong, but, at over 1,000 meteors an hour, still a storm), the next Leonid storm was forecast for 1899. So, with predictions of shooting stars by the dozen per second being made, people all over the world went out to view the Leonids. They were disappointed, there was no storm that year nor the next, even the shower's parent comet, Tempel-Tuttle was not seen those years. What was going on?

Proving that great discoveries in the area of orbital calculations were possible before the advent of computers, turn of the last century astronomers did some calculations of Comet Tempel-Tuttle's orbit and found that a close encounter with Jupiter had occurred in the years before the great Leonid disappointment of 1899-1900. Unfortunately, no one could say with certainty where the comet and its debris had gone, especially after the comet/shower failed to materialize yet again in 1932-33. In all, the great Leonid Shower seemed consigned to the pages of history..

Fast forward to the early 1960s.

In 1961, the Leonids made a comeback. After years of meteor trickles, a shower came calling in 1961, with rates of around 50 meteors per hour being reported. Then, the astronomical community struck gold in 1965 when Comet Tempel-Tuttle, not seen in a century, was spotted. The next year brought a spectacular shower. During a short time span, meteor counts in the range of 40 per second were being reported in the Western United States. That translates to about 2,400 a minute or about 144,000 per hour. In summary, the Leonids of 1966 were the strongest since the legendary storm of 1833, but, unlike the earlier shower, were captured on camera.

In the years that followed, the Leonids started to regain their strength, with storms materializing in 1998-99, 2001-2. Since then, the rates have slowed to around 20-30 meteors per hour on a good year. Unfortunately, for those people marking 2031 on their calendars, Comet Tempel-Tuttle will have another close encounter with Jupiter in 2028, which means that, chances are, the Leonids will be upset once again in their rhythm.

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.


And don't forget to check out my other website!

And We're Off!

It's up and running: my new website called The Nightly Sky. As is suggested in the title, the website deals with nightly goings-on in the sky. Want to head out and look at the sky but don't know what to look at? Well, look no further, just click on the logo below or bookmark this URL in your favorites: http://thenightlysky.blogspot.com/ 

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 DF vs. D700 vs. D610 vs. D800: Which Should I Buy?

Nikon has put potential buyers on quite a pickle by having so many FX dSLRs available in the $2000-$3000 price range. Right now, there's the nearly 2-year old D800, the just-released D610 (which is essentially a re-warmed year-old D600), and the brand new old school DF. Throw in 2008's D700, which is now a bargain shopper's model and, presto, lots of research to do! So, with so many cameras and so little money, which is a photographer to buy?

Well, let's examine that question.

Construction:
DF: metal, sealed
D610: metal and plastic, sealed
D800: metal, sealed
D700: metal, sealed
The D600 is a little bit wimpy


Sensor:
DF: 16Mp
D610: 24Mp
D800: 36Mp
D700: 12Mp
All have more than enough for 99% of people reading this


Aspect ratios:
DF: 1
D610 1:
D800: 2
D700: 1
Pros will appreciate the D800


Maximum ISO
DF: 204,800
D610: 25,600
D800: 25,600
D700: 25,600
DF wins by a light year


Max shutter Speed
DF: 1/4000^th sec
D610: 1-4000^th sec
D800: 1/8000^th sec

D700: 1/8000^th sec
D700, D800 are a stop better


White Balance:
DF: 12 preset, 4 custom
D610: 12 preset, 4 custom
D800: 12 preset, 5 custom
D700: 12 preset, 5 custom
D700 and D800 by a nose


Viewfinder coverage:
DF: 100%D610: 100%
D800: 100%
D700: 95%
New wins


Viewfinder magnification:
DF: .7x
D610: .7x
D800: .7xD700: .72x
D700 by a hair


AF Points:
DF: 39
D610: 39D800: 51
D700: 51
D700, D800 win here

LCD:
DF: 3.2”, 921k dot
D610: 3.2”, 921k dot
D800: 3.2”, 921k dot
D700: 3,” 921k dot
Newer is better, but will you even notice?

Built-in flash:
DF: no
D610: yes
D800: yes
D700: yes
DF loses


Continuous drive:
DF: 5.5fps
D610: 6fps
D800: 6fps
D700: 5fps, up to 8fps with battery grip
Get the grip and the D700 wins by a mile


Exposure Compensation:
DF: +/- 3 stops
D610: +/- 5 fps
D800: +/- 5 fps
D700: +/- 5 fps
DF looks decisively limited

Video:
DF: no
D610: 1080p
D800: 1080p
D700: no
Old and old school lose


Storage:DF: single SD
D610: SDx2
D800: SD, CF
D700: single CF
2 slots are better than one


Wi-fi connectivity:
DF: yes
D610: yes
D800: no
D700: no
Older loses

GPS:
DF: optional
D610: optional
D800: optional
D700: no
Newer wins

Weight:
DF: 760g
D700: 1074g
D610: 850g
D800: 900g
DF wins here

So, which to buy? Unfortunately, that's hard to determine without considering one's needs.

If absolute speed is a top priority, the old D700 with a battery grip trounces the competition here. Believe me, an extra 2fps can make all the difference between getting and missing that shot for anyone who spends a lot of time shooting fast action.

If resolution is far and away your number one concern, get the D800 because, at 36Mp, it bests the others by at least 50% extra resolution.

Like to shoot in dimly lit settings? Well, then the DF, with its insane ISO 204,800, is 3 stops better than the competition (even though those last 2 stops are sure to suck at anything bigger than web size or a 4x6 print). Still, a picture is better than no picture, right?

Have lots of really old gear laying around? The DF can use any Nikon F-mount lenses ever made (and without modification) with full compatibility. On the others, all of the non-AI optics need a modification to work properly.

On a budget but want a current camera, then the D610 is your horse.

Problem: a lot of would be buyers' needs aren't as clear-cut as those listed above, which means that there is a lot of need to take the above considerations into account as well as the control setups, which couldn't be more different. Rather than writing a whole new piece about this, simply take a look at my D7000 vs. D300s summary as it could be thought of as D700/D800 vs. D610 as the D700 and D800 share essentially the same interface as the D300s while the D610 and D7000 are very similar to each other, too. As for the DF, loses the dedicated white balance and quality buttons of the D700/D800 buy gains dials on the top for ISO, shutter speed, and exposure compensation, 3 controls the other cameras lack.

All in all, there's a lot to consider when one is about to drop $2000+ on a camera. Hopefully, the above analysis helped as much as possible. Personally, I'd take the above advice into consideration when going to a store in order to do a 'test drive,' which is the best way imaginable to see if you'll actually like a camera or not.

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.

Will There Ever be a Nikon D400, Canon 7D Mark II?

What will the Nikon D400 and/or Canon 7D Mark II look like? Will there even be such cameras in the first place? Well, to be honest, many in the photographic community (myself included) are thinking that, if 2013 doesn't bring these cameras, they may never show up at all. 

Honestly, I'm not holding my breath on either camera, and I don't think you should, either (especially with November having just arrived).

Introduced way back in 2009 as an answer to the Nikon D300 (in light of Canon getting caught with its pants down with both the EOS 40 and 50D models) the Canon 7D was in many ways, the pro-grade APS-C camera that Canon shooters had been demanding for years. With a feature set clearly comparable to the Nikon D300, the 7D sent a clear message: Canon was serious about its APS-C line, after all. Selling for $1,800 new, the 7D has come down quite a it in price in the intervening 4 years since release and is looking rather antiquated by 2013 standards. Unfortunately, there's a big problem for people looking for a 'II' version: the $2100, full-frame EOS 6D which, despite being a 5D Mark II reheated in the technological microwave, is still a full-frame dSLR for just over $2000. Additionally, the trend toward increasingly affordable FF (what all APS-C shooters lusted for a decade ago) is undeniable, which begs the question: is there any point (and enough of a customer base) of offering a $1800 sub-frame camera when a FF model can be had for just $300 more? My bet: probably not.

Even older than the Canon 7D is the Nikon D300s, which is technically the same age as the Canon 7D (both 2009 releases) but in reality 2 years older as the D300s is merely a D300 (2007 release) with video. Throughout the digital era, Nikon has had a habit of adding various letter designations to established nameplates in order to create a new, stop-gap replacement model until a major overhaul of the old camera can be perfected. Typically, these letter models have production lives of less than 2 years. Well, the Nikon D300s is rapidly approaching its 4^th (or is it its 6^th?) birthday, which begs the question: is the D300/D300s the end of its branch on Nikon's evolutionary tree? My bet: yep. Unlike the 7D, which faces a single-front attack, the D300s is fighting a 2-front war against the D7100 on the lower side and the D600 on the higher side. Initially priced at $1800, the D300s sits smack in the middle of the $1200 D7100 and the $2100 D600, which both share a lot of features with the D300s. Result: Nikonians have 2 options here: pay a little more than the D300s and get a FX sensor, or save some money and get an in many ways (save user interface) superior D7100.

The bottom line here: both cameras are being kept afloat solely by their rung on their respective manufacturers' product lineups. Yes, the 7D and D300s may be slotted higher than the 70D and D7100, but one must remember that the 70D and D7100 are both less than a year old while the 7D and D300s are 4 (or 6?) years old meaning that one is paying all that extra money for the snob appeal of having a higher-tiered model, never mind the fact that these higher-level cameras are obsolete when compared to today's cameras.

Bottom line: its now or never for a Nikon D400 or Canon 7D Mark II and personally, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either to show up in the first place.
 

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.

Astronomical News Galore!

It's going to be a big weekend in the astronomical world this weekend. First up: tomorrow morning brings the return to Standard Time (never mind that 'standard' is only 4 months of the year!) So, don't forget to set your clocks back an hour before you go to bed tonight. Later in the morning, there will be a hybrid solar eclipse (the eclipse will go from an annular to total eclipse as it moves along the path of totality) that will start in the Atlantic Ocean and conclude in Africa. The good news: you can watch the event live online!

For some fun:
Time Change Trivia

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 D600 vs. D610: What are the Differences?

Recently, Nikon announced the somewhat unexpected update model of its D600 'affordable' dSLR: the D610, which comes to market scarcely a year after the D600 (along with the Canon EOS 6D) shattered previous pricing barriers for full-frame dSLRs. So, with the new camera starting to make its way to retailers just in tie for Christmas, many are asking this question: should I buy a D600 or a D610? Well, let's look at the differences.

Construction:
D600: plastic and metal, sealed
D610: plastic and metal, sealed

Sensor:
D600: 24Mp
D610: 24Mp

Aspect ratios:
D600: 1
D610: 1

Maximum ISO
D600: 25,600
D610: 25,600

Shutter Speed:D600: 30-1/4000th second, bulb
D610: 30-1/4000th second, bulb

Viewfinder coverage:
D600: 100%
D610: 100%

Viewfinder magnification:
D600: .7x
D610: .7x

AF Points:
D600: 39
D610: 39

LCD:
D600: 921k dot, 3.2”
D610: 921k dot, 3.2”

Touch screen:
D600: no
D610: no

Built-in flash:
D600: yes
D610: yes

Continuous drive:
D600: 5.5fps
D610: 6fps
WOW! A DIFFERENCE!

Exposure Compensation:
D600: +/- 5
D610: +/- 5

AE Bracketing:
D600: 2, 3 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV, 2 EV steps
D610: 2, 3 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV, 2 EV steps

WB Bracketing:
D600: 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1, 2 or 3
D610: 2 or 3 frames in steps of 1, 2 or 3

Preset WB settings:
D600: 12
D610: 12

Custom WB Settings:
D600: 4
D610: 4

Video:
D600: 1080p up to 30fps, 720p up to 60fps
D610: 1080p up to 30fps, 720p up to 60fps



Wi-fi connectivity:
D600: optional
D610: optional


GPS:
D600: optional
D610: optional


Weight:
D600: 30 oz.
D610: 30 oz.

Needless to say, there's not a whole lot of differences on the spec sheet. An item of note: Nikon claims to have tweaked the white balance algorithm to provide, according to them, even better performance. Well, we'll see on that. Personally, I think my now 5-year old D700 does perfectly fine for that matter.

So, should you get the D600 or D610? My answer: whichever is cheaper at your preferred vendor as the cameras are essentially the same.

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.

200,000 Hits: Wow!

I've been having a lot of problems with my Internet connectivity of late, hence the complete lack of anything for the past month. Well, the web finally cooperated yesterday and, surprise, I saw that my little for-fun website had just eclipsed the 200,000 hit mark! Holy cow! Honestly, I never thought I'd be seeing anywhere near this number of hits so soon especially considering that I started this whole thing as just an online storage backup for my astrophotography. Well, not quite 4 years and over 200,000 hits later, all I can say “thank you!” to all of my readers. Hopefully, you've found my stuff at least a little useful (and hopefully my wi-fi will cooperate better soon)!


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.