Saturday, August 6, 2011

Examiner Roundup-Sort Of

Not much has been going on with Examiner lately, justa  story about the launch of NASA's new Juno mission to Jupiter. Other than that, plus a now out-dated story about the non-materializing (at least in Ohio) aurora event, there's nothing new.

Look for a new photo gallery and pergaps a review in the coming days. Just as a heads-up, July's AP gallery will be a good one!




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.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Take Astrophotos With Your iPhone Using the AstroClip-Maybe

With your help, the iPhone 4 can be an astrophotographic tool.

In a rather interesting story I just bumped into on Universe Today, Matthew Geyster is seeking to launch a project that will allow iPhone 4 users to couple their phones onto any 1.25” telescope eyepiece in order to take simple astrophotos through the eyepiece itself.

Unfortunately, there's just one problem: money.

Getting things patented and then produced is a rather expensive process that is beyond the scope of most individuals, including Geyster. As a result of this financial problem, Geyster has pitched his AstroClip on the website Kickstarter, which allows cash-strapped inventors to pitch ideas to the public and visitors to contribute money towards a project in amounts ranging from $1 to over $500.

So far (on 7/29/2011) there are 36 days in the cash drive left, but over $12,000 more needs to be collected in order to make this cool idea become a reality. Want to help? Go here and kick in some cash!


The full story:
Universe Today
The AstroClip:
Official Website



 
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.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Camera Lenses 101: Macros (With a Complete List for Every Manufacturer)


Tokina's 100 f2.8 ATX-PRO Macro is an excellent choice for both digital and FF/film shooters.

When looking at extreme close up (macro) photos, two reactions are quite common: “that's cool!” and “how can I do that?” Well, macro photography is undeniably cool (but challenging) and as for how to do it, the answer is simple: buy a macro lens.

Okay great, what is a macro lens?

Technically speaking, macro lenses are lenses that can focus to extremely close distances, so close that they will reproduce the subject on the film/sensor at its true life size. In photographer jargon, being able to do this gives a lens either a 1:1 reproduction ration or a 1.0x life size magnification, both of which mean the same exact thing. To put it in a visual term, if you shot a macro shot of a penny on a film camera, Lincoln's head would be the same size on the negative that it is in real life.

As for what types of macro lenses are out there, there are two common sizes: the 100mm f2.8s and the 200ish f3.5s, though there are other focal lengths on the market, too, some as short as 35mm. The good news about buying a macro lens is that, because of the demanding nature of macro photography, one would be hard pressed to find an optically bad macro. Generally speaking, macro lenses are sharp to diamond dust saw sharp from widest aperture across the entire frame and virtually free of distortion. The bad news: because macro lenses are such precision optics, their price reflects the workmanship. A macro lens will typically sell for at least $400 (the 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor is nearly $1,800 new).

With a macro lens, the minimum focusing distance is something that needs to be considered. As with all lenses, minimum focus distance is measured from the film/sensor plane to the subject, not end of lens to subject. So, if you have a 100mm macro lens with a minimum focus distance of 11 inches, the subject will actually be about only 6 inches from the front of your lens. Needless to say, longer is better because, the closer you get, the more of your own light you block (and the more timid insects you scare away). While there is no fix for scaring subjects, the light situation can be remedied not with expensive macro lighting rigs, but with white paper used to reflect light onto your subject.

Unfortunately, there are a lot more “macro” lenses than the 1:1 variety.
Whether you choose to call it a marketing tool or deceptive advertising, manufacturers in all industries often like to stretch the capabilities of their products to the breaking point. Photographic companies are no exception. One of the biggest stretches comes in the area lenses and specifically, their close-up capabilities.

To put it simply, unless the lens can do a 1:1 reproduction ratio or a 1.0x magnification factor, it is not a macro, sorry. Unfortunately, this traditional definition of macro seems to be disregarded most of the time today.

Even in the old days, manufacturers were willing to stretch the definition of “macro” to its limit. To find proof of this, look on KEH's website for manual focus/early AF macro lenses. Chances are that a lot of them will only give 1:2 reproduction or .5x magnification (half life size), you pick your terminology. Why the macro designation? Simple, with a dedicated extension tube, all such lenses are capable of true macro photography. The reason such lenses were sold was to appeal to the poor macro shooter. A 1:2 “macro” plus extension tube was cheaper than a true macro.

Unfortunately, come 2011, things have gotten far, far worse. Now, manufacturers are willing to label anything around a 1:3 reproduction or a 0.3x magnification power as a macro. Yes, while a lens of these lesser closeup powers can be somewhat useful, they pale in comparison to dedicated macro lenses. On top of that, most of these “macro” lenses are zooms, which means that, unlike a dedicated macro prime, that can be optimized for a single focal length, they will often be soft and anything but sharp across the entire frame, even when stopped down. On top of this, there are all kinds of thread-on “macro filters” out there, none of which can both turn your standard lens into a true macro while retaining dedicated macro lens quality. Below, you'll find a list of true 1:1 Macro Lenses.

Third-Party:
Tokina 35 f2.8
Tokina 100 f2.8
Tamron 60 f2 VC (crop only)
Tamron 90 f2.8
Tamron 180 f3.5
Sigma 70 f2.8
Sigma 105 f2.8
Sigma 105 f2.8 OS
Sigma 150 f2.8
Sigma 150 f2.8 OS
Sigma 180 f3.5


Manufacturer:
Canon 60 f2.8 (Crop only)
Canon 100 f2.8
Canon 100 f2.8L IS
Canon 180 f3.5L

Nikon 40 f2.8 (crop-only)
Nikon 60 f2.8
Nikon 85 f3.5 VR (crop only)
Nikon 105 f2.8
Nikon 105 f2.8 VR
Nikon 200 f4

Olympus Zuiko 50 f2 (crop-only)
Olympus Zuiko 35 f3.5 (crop-only)

Panasonic-Leica 45 f2.8 Macro Elmarit (crop-only)

Pentax smc DA 100 f2.8 WR
Pentax smc DA 100 f2.8
Pentax smc DA 50 f2.8
Pentax smc DA Limited 35 f2.8

Sony 100 f2.8 Macro SAL
Sony 30 f2.8 DT Macro SAL SAM (crop-only)
Sony 50 f2.8 Macro SAL
Sony 30 f3.5 SEL (E-Mount, crop-only)


Moral of the story: be sure to read the fine print, not just the key features when buying a lens as, more often than not, macro is no longer macro today.


For more info:Macro Photography Primer




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 for Week of 7/17

A little bit late but, considering nothing new's gone up this week, it's time for an Examiner roundup.


National photography news:
Man survives 15,000 foot plunge, all caught on camera
Teen claims to ride bike on water
Undeniable photographic proof we went to the Moon
'Bottomless pit' sinkhole beneath bed
D300s vs. D7000: which is better?

 


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.





Friday, July 22, 2011

The Shuttle Era is Over, Now What?

Atlantis touches down, thus ending the space shuttle program on July 21, 2011.

It has been just over a day since space shuttle Atlantis touched down for the final time, thus ending its 33-flight career and NASA's space shuttle program as a whole. So, as NASA prepares to strip down its final shuttle in preparation for turning it into a museum exhibit while beginning the process of handing out the pink slips, what does America's future in space hold?

The simple answer: a trip to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars by 2030. The complex answer: no one really knows for sure.

Back in 2004, President Bush introduced the Constellation Program, which was designed to return Americans to the Moon with the ultimate goal of establishing permanent bases on the Moon, which could later serve as launching platforms into deep space. With this new vision in mind, NASA set to work, spending billions and billions of dollars in developing the technology that would not only take Americans back to the Moon, but help them stay there for the long-term.
Unfortunately, unlike in the past, new presidents today often mean complete overhauls of policy, space exploration being no exception.
Within a year of coming into office, President Obama decided to kill Constellation, focusing on a more ambitious goal of sending astronauts to Asteroid and then to Mars. Result: all of the money, time, and effort spent on Constellation might as well have been wasted. However, this sudden cancellation did not sit well with some politicians, who managed to resurrect some parts of Constellation, namely the heavy-lift rocket, which is now set to be utilized for the Obama space plan.

The reason for going to the Moon was more about Earth politics than anything else.

However, come 2012 or 2016 after Obama leaves office, who's to say that the entire focus for America's future in space may not be shifted again?.Between 1961 when John F. Kennedy declared that Americans would go to the Moon and 1969 with the Apollo 11 landing, there were 3 presidents, yet one singular focus for NASA: going to the Moon. Now, though, without a Cold War rivalry and the public fascination with all things space (and not to mention today's serious financial problems), space exploration is often seen as a waste of money, never mind the fact that our survival as a species depends on traveling into space and colonizing the universe.
Apparently, some people just can't think in the long-term, which brings us to our current dilemma: not having any way to get Americans into space for the foreseeable future.
One day, the Sun will devour Earth, so, unless we want to go extinct, we must travel far into space to find a new home.

Yes, there are avenues to get into space, namely spacecraft built by private companies. Unfortunately, despite the vast knowledge to be found in these aerospace firms, the resources simply aren't there in order to get us back into space in the near future. Evidence: it has been nearly 7 years since the inaugural X-Prize for the creation of the first privately-owned space vehicle was claimed, yet commercial spaceflights are anything but routine. As of now, the best-case scenarios are for regular commercial spaceflights by 2016 at the earliest, which does not bode well for America's future in space.
As for NASA, its focus is on deep space exploration (the plan is for the private sector to take over the low-Earth orbit missions) and NASA is supposedly in the process of finalizing plans for a heavy-lift rocket, which should, if all goes as planned, be flying by 2016. However, as already addressed, budget woes are a huge concern when it comes to government-backed spaceflight. If anyone high up in the government is reading this, here's a suggestion: how about cutting off all monetary aid to America-hating nations and giving that money to NASA instead? Unfortunately, such a move is doubtful.
Bottom line: America has no clear picture of its future in space. Yes, there was another huge lapse in NASA's manned spaceflight program that lasted from 1975 (Apollo-Soyuz) to 1981 (Columbia's first flight, but there was a coherent plan in 1975 to build the space shuttle. Now? Well, if past events are any indication of the future, NASA's goals seem to get changed with every occupant of the White House. Obviously, if America is to become the dominant player in space one again, NASA needs a coherent, long-lasting vision, which should be going to Mars by 2030.


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.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Sorry State of NASA 42 Years After the Apollo 11 Moon Landing

Neil Armstrong about to take his first step on the Moon.


It was exactly 42 years ago today that man accomplished his greatest feat of exploration: landing a man on another world, the Moon. Since Neil Armstrong's “giant leap for mankind,” 11 other men would set foot on the Moon before the U.S. government decided to pull the plug on the Apollo Program, and thus man's greatest adventure.
Now, 42 years later, NASA finds itself unable to even launch astronauts into orbit, much less to the Moon. So, where did things go wrong?
Answer: Earth politics.
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 eve, American scientists had to work fast to equal their Soviet rivals. And they did. However, after the end of the Space Race, which America won by landing Apollo 11 on the Moon, the desire to compete subsided to the point that going to the Moon for the sake of science was seen as a waste of money. By the mid 70s, Americans and Russians would cooperate on the first international space mission.
Oh, yes, then there's the question of money.
In 1961 when President Kennedy made his famous pledge, the economy was on the upswing, a trend that would continue through 1966. . However, even as the first Apollo rockets were lifting off into space, there was trouble below. By the late 60s, the cost of President Johnson's Great Society welfare programs and the Vietnam War were combining to overburden even America's economy,. By the end of the decade, America was into a recession that would last, with small rises but many more plunges, into the 1980s. Simply put, the money as well as the public's appetite for space exploration (remember, we won the Space race with Apollo 11) dried up. In fact, in 1966, the first year there were signs of sputtering in the economy, NASA's total budget share of 5.5% of the total federal budget was achieved. By the mid 70s, it would be less than 1%, where it remains today.

Atlantis lifts off for the final shuttle mission. How long will we have to wait to see Ameicans fly into space again?
So, as space shuttle Atlantis prepares to land after the final space shuttle mission as I am writing this, so goes America's status as the dominant power in space. Yes, there will still be launches to compliment the myriad of satellites we already have up in space, there is an undeniable loss of prestige at the inability to send humans into orbit. Even worse, there is no successor to the space shuttle in the near future, either. President Obama already said that he wants to have humans on Mars by 2030 but, at the rate we're going with partisan politics and budget woes, not to mention a possible default, America's long-held dominance of space is becoming a thing of the past and, with every passing day without an all-American manned mission, will be even harder to reassert in the future.



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.