Wednesday, November 28, 2012

What are WE? Some Random Rants.

One insomnia infected night & a head filled with wild thoughts. Suddenly an idea sparked! Why not take a break off all these and think of something else. Something that I'm not going to encounter any day or by anyone for that matter, but still worth spending some time thinking. Aliens, end of days, god? Wait. God? Inevitably this would lead to religion and again that's a worldly thing. Thinking a bit deeper, why I'm i even thinking of something like this when i have a busy day ahead and got a lot to plan in advance. Again I'm deviating. Left my room and into the terrace, under the open sky. Stars twinkling above me, moon in its full glory and a slight breeze. How romantic, isn't it. Now one idea stuck me which I haven't thought about in my entire life. What I'm I? or in a broader sense, What are WE? Got it. Something to think of till i get some much needed sleep.

Well this is something that I'm not sure finding an answer in my entire life time, let alone some hours this night. In a world filled with believers, atheists and some in between, I first thought of the answers if i asked this to someone else. To a believer, the world is created by god, he maintains it and one day will destroy it. To an atheist the answer would be scientific and would say the world started with big bang, so so so. And to the third kind, it would be a mix up of the former ones. In a believers perspective all the answers are clear, to him god created everything and everything goes by the will of god. Now if someone asks back: Who is god? Then the reaction would be a frown face (or may be a little more) or a hard hitting answer that is not an answer to the question, but to make sure no further questions are asked. Whatever be it, its a dead end. Questions still remains to be answered. Turning to the atheists, the question won't obviously be god as they already don't believe in god. They put their faith in science and got logical, proven answers for most question, well almost. So they are the ones whom i can ask the ultimate questions, Who are WE? Why are we here? Do we have a purpose being here? I'm sure the first question would be answered in the most logical and scientific way that is able describe all the aspects our our homo sapien species. Identity crisis over. But why are we here? Simple, because Earth is the only planet capable of harboring life as we know it. Why are we here, just because this is the only place life is known to exist. Got the answers, but these are not precisely what I was looking for and this blog post is not going to end.

Before proceeding any further, i would like to ditch the idea of god's creation from the rest of this post. At-least in the way its described in the texts. Why? Going by the religious texts (the only interface we have with god or the one we have know), we are divine creations made by god himself. But before accepting it, why did god create us? A cosmic sim city (sim world i must say)? Did he make other worlds like our's somewhere in this cosmos? If the idea of creation by god is to be accepted, then why aren't any texts describing about the past where there were a hell lot of now extinct animals that roamed the face of the earth. Are they not god's creations or our current religions ignorant about them? Whatever be it, I'm leaving it here.

The very basic question starts from about life itself. archaeologists n paleontologists say that all the life forms that we see in this planet came from a common ancestor. A single celled organism that lived on this planet some billions of years ago. Ok, i brought it. We all have a common ancestor that is some kind of a bacteria or virus and we are the products of billions of years of evolution. But where did THAT come from? Two possible explanations: life made its way from inorganic materials and the other is Panspermia. If the former is to be accepted, then why are we not able to synthesize life from inorganic materials? We do have all the physical info on the time when this happened and we have the equipments to simulate those conditions in labs. Still we are not able to do it. May be we are missing something, a secret ingredient of life may be. Believers can say this is an act of god, the secret missing ingredient is god. But at this point he would have to disbelieve what is written in his/her texts and that would obviously land him in the atheist territory. Ok, god created life, though in another form that's not described in texts. But the question of WHY remains. May be a grand cosmic game of chess with all the living beings in it as pawns. The second answer to the creation of life is much more interesting. Panspermia is yet an unproven theory, but looks promising. But it gives rise to more questions than the former. The first being, are we really aliens? If panspermia is to be believed, then we are a comic race born in some cosmic haven, brought here by asteroids. We don't actually belong here, we were a race who's adobe is in some part of the universe we haven't yet discovered. One day when we finally find extra terrestrials, it won't be a big surprise if they look like us. Still the questions of when, what, where, how n so remains.

Damn. I'm fed up. Too many questions and too little or inconclusive answers. I'd be better off formulating a hypothesis of my own and be a believer of it rather than asking questions about other's. Yeah, I'm ready to face the questions regarding my theory. I may not be having all the answers, still I will give it a try.

I'm basing my hypothesis on Panspermia. Why because, in a broader picture its the best solution. We are not yet able to prove life started on earth, may be some place in the cosmos there is a place where it is possible. Then how did we end up here in this blue planet? I'm coming to it. As per out current knowledge, the universe is some 14 billion years old and our earth is some 4 billion years old. This 4 billion years is the age of earth as a planet. Life came much later on the planet earth. Going by the size of the universe and the number of stars and planets it harbors, its very much possible that at some part of the cosmos there was another place where life actually began. Much before ours. Evolution did play its role there also and our grand ancestors became a hyper civilization much before our sun was even born. May be its possible that they wanted their seeds to spread over the entire universe and inhabit all the feasible planets. Then why the hell they didn't come directly n live in our planet? What's a life sustaining environment for us would be a gas chamber for other life forms. Sending in a fully developed organism is not a good idea here. May the that's the reason they have sent life in its most basic form. Cells. There are evidences of fossilized micro organisms found on meteors and comets that fell to earth. May be our ancestors came to earth through such a piece of rock. We evolved here adapting the conditions of the planet. We made this our home planet. Hey. Did our grand ancestors forgot us after ditching us here in this planet? May be they came visiting us at some point of time (ancient aliens?) or may be not. We don't have evidence.

Or are we living in a matrix and we are just the characters in a cosmic simulation by hyper civilization? We might never know.

To anyone who stumbles upon this *mad* blog post, please feel free to post in your comments, suggestions, opinions, abuses n likes.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Nikon vs Canon.

Once in a while a friend/acquaintance approaches me with this question. "Iam looking forward to buying a new DSLR and i would like to have your opinion". Invariably the next question to me would be "Nikon or Canon".  Mostly the person would be new to the world of DSLR's and want to have an entry level DSLR that provides excellent image quality while maintaining ease of use. Both the Canon and Nikon fanatic fan following (in which i must say both are almost equals) who would vouch for their brand and finds no good reason to buy the other. Now where iam I?, Canon fan or Nikon fan? Honestly, i would say iam somewhere in between or to be more precise, i believe that a photographer's talent produces better pictures than a good camera. Owned three Nikons and three Canon's in my quest and i must admit that i was never completely let down by either, though little generic nicks nagged me at times.

Coming back to the topic, is it Canon or Nikon? Before proceeding, let me explain some typical traits of the enquirer:
  • Would be looking for an entry level camera.
  • Want ease of use of a P&S and IQ of a DLSR.
  • Won't be spending much on extra accessories (lenses, flash guns etc).
  • Wants good pictures right out of the camera and don't want to spend much time on post processing.
  • Kit lens are like an integral part of the camera (won't be buying better or more lenses).
  • Would like to play around with the camera settings a bit, but would be refraining from advanced photography techniques or never finds time to go that pro.
  • Not much familiar or don't know much technical details like ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc.

As i mentioned previously, its a really close call. With the above requirements in place, iam giving my call. Its 'Nikon' and here's why:

1) Distortion Correction: Newer Nikon DSLR's have a nifty little feature integrated into them called "Lens Distortion Correction". To be frank i never cared about the lens distortions until one day i applied the lens distortion correction filter in Adobe Camera Raw and i was totally taken aback with the difference. Is this feature worth making the buying decision over Canon? In my opinion (and with the above requirements), YES. As mentioned earlier, the typical user won't be spending correcting the lens distortions in the computer and would like to have good right out of the camera pics. Moreover the kit lenses (both Nikon and Canon) have pretty bad distortions at the wide end which really ruins the pics.

For pro's its not much of an issue as they can correct this in PP. Myself being a bit paranoid about post processing, this single feature is a enough to lean to the Nikon camp though the below ones are just marginal advantages.

2) Kit Lens: Nikon's 18-55mm VR kit lens is better than the Canon's 18-55mm IS kit lens, though the difference is marginal.

3) Metering Performance: Nikon does have its edge over Canon here. Most user's would be using the full auto mode or Programed auto for shooting and metering does makes a difference. I rarely had a botched shot due to bad metering on all my Nikon's (from age old D40 to the newer D3100), while my Canon 450D and 500D has substantially more bad shots due to metering performance (i mostly use the P mode) and happens mostly in indoor shots with flash. The newer iCFL metering on the newer Canon's would have improved this, however i haven't used the same.

4) Jpeg Output: Most of the entry level user's won't be caring to shoot in RAW and spend time post processing the images. Here also Nikon leads by a small margin. Nikon's jpg engine produces much better jpg output than Canon. This is a matter of personal preference, i prefer Nikon's default jpg output over Canon.

5) Annoying flash strobe AF assist: Having to open the inbuilt flash and using the same for AF assist seems weird, atleast for me. Its annoying when you click in a pic in a place where the bright flash strobe is a real mess.

6) Help is always just a button press away: Really helpful to the budding photographers, Nikon has a "?" button which displays a brief info about the selected function. Canon don't have one.

7) Guide Mode: Helps in getting a picture the way you want it without needing to know any technicalities of capturing such an image.  Canon don't have one.

     There are some more, but the above given ones are the ones that really matters to a beginner when it comes to making a purchase decision.

By the way its not a complete Nikon domination. Canon has got quite some advantages. The main ones are:
* For the price, Canon does provide extra features over Nikon. Though the usage of the same depends totally on the user. The ones that comes immediately are the dedicated ISO button, DOF preview button and bracketing. Thus it offers a bit more headroom.
* Canon offers a better choice of lenses are a bit cheaper too. Nikon has messed up by removing the AF motor for low end bodies making a good share of the lenses incompatible. So if you are planning to take your photography to the next level and on a tight budget, Canon is for you. It has got a cheap 50mm prime and a good 55-250mm tele, both are very much VFM options.

This article is written with my limited experience with DSLR's and consequently might be incomplete or incorrect. Feel free to post your opinions/suggestions/info.