Meteorite that smashed my D3 (photos)

Below are nine pics of the hellacious, alien-of-a-rock that tripped-me-up while I was hiking with my vicious dog one day last freezing-January in a dark, wicked forest, near the hell-hole I live in. I say a 'hell-hole' because one next door neighbor is allergic to dogs & the other completely, completely neglects their own. What-a witch !!!



As of yesterday (and not before then), I'm thinking & believing this is a Real McCoy meteorite. What's y'all think? (I warn ya, I got me a shotgun !). I just now emailed these images to a professional astronomer, here in Atlanta, at the place where all the southern stars hang-out at night. Our other main bar scene is outside Atlanta, in an area called Buckhead.





Oh, the thing adversely reacts to a magnet. It both wants to attract & repel the magent. I tried this with three different magents - one being my own head.





This antique-black, far, far more heavy than it looks thing had just been placed on the edge of my desk the other day, there where my spilled beer is still sticky & bits & pieces of my breakfast still lies. And my dog, my evil one, slammed me in the side of my right shoulder with her stiffened & out-stretched paws as I was sooo peacefully sitting here, typing an email to my Lord & Savior.

Well, one thing led to another and my left elbow smashed into the meteorite thingy, causing it to once again become an airborne meteor: blasting downward from off the edge of my desk, and smashing onto the large, glass LCD of my peacefully standing upright D3 camera (the attached 300mm lens was pointing downward & resting on the floor, there next to my desk chair - I'm attached to the thing, you know).





So anyway, what's-ya-see here's whats I've got. But I warn-ya... I ain't got no macro lens ! (cauz I ain't got no $$$). So don't judge the quality of my me-te-or-ite thingy. But I would like know if it's a bonna-fide meteorite or whatnot. No one seems to care when I ask... I guess they-all know I'm now going to become more rich than they...(but who'm I to care anyway?).





Thanks y'all. And I dos appreciates your comets.

m.

http://meteorite-identification.com/

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

It doesn't look like the piece of magnetite I saw a few times. You'll probably have to walk it in somewhere to have it positively i.d'd.
-KB-

... that was very entertaining, but rocks, comets and meteorites are not my thing. It's a shame about your camera mishap... hope it works out for you.

hey KB,

I'm on Facebook with a professional geologist (who happens to be a fb 'friend' of mine). She works in the geology lab at Georgia State University, in downtown Atlanta (where I happened to have gone to school). She's asking that I bring it into her geology lab.

Also, Fernbank Science Center is a large facility, here in Atlanta, and the head astronomer there is wanting to see the rock first-hand as well. I emailed to him earlier today the images you see here (above).

I'm awfully nervous, because apparently, the more common types of found meteorites contain 'orbs' of mineral type substances within them or on their surface. Although I'm not wanting or willing to cut this rock open I have here, there is a lesser common "Stony Iron" type of meteorite (approx 1-1/2 percent of found meteorites). If what I have is a meteorite, perhaps this is its type. Of course, I simply don't yet know.

It does react to a magnet, which I think is a good sign, and it seems to be extremely dense. I'm not joking when I write it's far heavier than it seems it should be.

Cheers to you,
m.

The insides can be more interesting than the outside. Someone with the proper skills and tools can slice it and polish the surfaces to show some great crystal patterns in the metal.

Some meteorites contain olivine crystals. While this is a fairly common mineral on earth, gem quality crystals are known as Peridot.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

Just kidding ...

It looks a very good looking stone and I understand why you have fallen in love with it

Even if it turned out to be an ordinary stone, it would still make a very nice paper weight

OT, do you mind if I ask you a question? In a few weeks, I will go to Waddington (UK) airshow.

I shoot with a D3. Will I be OK with the 70-200/2.8VRI and TC1.7? Or should I rent a longer zoom?

I understand you may have never been at that particular event and that different events may have different lens requirements. But, as one who has taken so many beautiful shots of iron birds, I am sure you can tell me the ideal focal length for an average airshow.

It's my first time at an airshow and I wanted to cover it properly

Thanks in advance for any inputs you may have for me.

Cheers

--
Nicola (mr)
http://www.nicolacammisa.com

Love your story, but sorry about your camera. Does it still work? Anyhow, I love your rock, and it looks like it could very well be a meteorite judging from the color and the magnet attraction. I hope it is. Dave
--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com

Nice meteo-something and entertaining story.

And i was not aware that one can do such good documentations without an expensive macro lens.

In your place I would keep my distance.

Chances are that it is the major part of an escape shuttle from an alien ship.

Some aliens may still be inside and now that they realize there is no longer any movement they may feel tempted to have a peek outside. If they see you as first person they might hold you responsible for the crash of their spaceship. Who knows.

We could watch the meteo-thing if you set up a web cam - so you could hide in a safe place and we could warn you by email in case anything crawls out.

Hope to hear from you again from time to time just to know you are safe.
So keep posting

Dave,

only the thin, glass, aftermarket LCD protection cover shattered - and into a zillion (still connected) pieces at that ! But little or no direct damage to the facing-downward camera, itself.

I should probably write a kind letter to the (likely Asian) company who manufactured the protection cover (though I'm really not sure which one it is/was) - stating their product solidly protected the camera from a falling meteor.

They probably would very much like to hear that.

your friend,
marc

I'm Laughing Out Loud, Walter

However, the video cam idea is less than a good one, as indeed there are aliens within the strange thing - I know this as my dog, Grady, is hard at work to keep them at bay.

No doubt though, they'll eventually exit the rock, though surely would simply enter into the front glass of the video camera and transmit themselves through its wires & eventually the Internet wires. The problem, pure & simple, is that I'll then be liable for endangering the rest of the world.

For right now, I'm keeping Grady on close security detail over the rock. She's going as far as drooling on it - just to let them aliens know who's boss ...

have a nice weekend,
marc

Nicola,

you bring forth a good question, and is one likely asked on these boards quite often by many others. The best & most honest answers are actually quite vague in nature, as there's really no right or wrong to any one answer.

The short & narrow is that you'll obtain an better quality of images, overall, if you utilize a longer focal length lens of equal or better lens quality than that which you now have, even it it too is attached to a TC.

The 70-200mm lens which you have would be best suited for candid images of people looking at the static-displayed aircraft, or of the aircraft themselves, for example (I include 'people' here because it's often difficult to make a portrait of a static-displayed aircraft, during an actual airshow, without people closely around it or even on it or in it).

But the gist of your question obviously pertains to those aircraft which are flying in demonstration. Here in the U.S., it's a solid 500 ft from the spectator line to the outside edge of the aerobatic box. Add another 500 ft to the center of this imaginary box which the aircraft are to fly within (I speak primarily of aerobatics here - though this is still the same box which fly-by aircraft remain within as they pass the crowd-line, or airshow-center as well). The rules & regulations here in the U.S. are similar in the U.K., although the separation distances I believe differ slightly.

The answer to your question becomes vague as everything boils down to the individual taking the pictures, especially that of a hobby, such as those of your own interests. Truth is, you can take the same 70-200mm & TC-17 setup you have in your hand, and go out to the entertainment & enjoyment of the upcoming airshow - and have a splendid time. Tied to this concept is the level of one's expectations towards his/her photography : the level of his/her own content, if you will. A case in point, some spectators pull out their small P&S cameras - and seem to be quite happy about this (then they see my camera equipment & well... want what I have... LOL)

For you, you seem to desire to strive to do a little bit better than most, hence your own simple notion of renting a lens in the first place. And the basic answer is that a longer focal length lens will directly help you in terms of the Image Quality you seek.

Some basic things to keep in mind:

• Renting a lens is directly related to your ability to pay the rental fees and the non-concrete or non-monitary amount the is endeavor worth to you.

• When renting a lens, you take liability of the lens. And we're talking the 200-400mm zoom or one of the three primes (400, 500, 600) in your case. Be ready to write a security deposit check or as a hold on a credit card - a mind-boggling sum of 'temporary,' security-deposit money. But really, none of this is typically a problem.

• The heavier lenses will somewhat quickly wear on your arms, as you're not accustomed to holding one, let alone for a four or five hour duration. The key here is to rest the lens & camera on the ground as much as possible - when not actively using it.

• I always use a monopod, though many here don't. A monopod though will help fight the fatigue factor I speak of above.

• Renting a lens & making use of it is simply 'fun.' Basically, the airshow becomes an 'excuse' for you to be able to try-out something new & different. In every way, you'll actually feel proud to be using for the first time the 200-400mm or one of the long-focal length exotic primes. If all goes well, you'll likely cherish the experience.

• As with anything in life, a certain amount of experience with such a 'new' lens is required. However, you're no doubt confident with a camera & there would be minimal 'transition time.' On the other hand, learning how to properly photo fast-flying airplanes, and portraying their energy - is & can be difficult.

If you're truly up to renting a lens, your best bet (as a first-timer) would be to rent the VR 200-400mm lens. Second to this would be a 400mm or 500mm. If you can rent a 400mm f/4 lens - then do that. If the 400mm is an f/2.8, or the 500mm an f/4, then utilize a monopod. I have a 300mm and would think if you're going to rent something, rent something longer.

Although I do not have any TC's, I do not recommend your renting a TC-2.0. You'll simply lose too much IQ for the seemingly small airplanes way off in the distance. And your focusing of the camera will be too slow.

This past Saturday, I photoed an airshow and used an af-s 600mm f/4 lens, which I rented as well. Expectedly, I had a very low keeper rate, as I was shooting the lens at 1/160 to 1/200 of a sec on a continual basis. However, I have landed yet another magazine cover because of it, and the images of mine that did turn out - are basically spectacular. Similar to you, the lens I rented was attached to a D3.

Ask any other questions, as I don't mind.
marc

PhotoRecon said:

It does react to a magnet, which I think is a good sign, and it seems to be extremely dense. I'm not joking when I write it's far heavier than it seems it should be. >

Click to expand...

It could be gold nugget (heavy) coated with megnetite (magnetic.

All joking aside, I give you my 2 cents. As a geologist, I am entitled an opinion about this piece of rock.

It consists of magnetite. So that is a positive sign. It is not the rare stone-iron type you hoped, because the stone-iron type would have weak megnetism at the best. Yours is too strong. Sorry.

But magnetite is very commom mineral. How cen we tell?

It doesn't have the signiture "burn marks", circular dents, on the surface, to unequivocally prove it is a meteorite. Short of that, it may have to be cut open to see the inside (melted crust, crystaline interior) to be sure. Those sharp edges doesn't help your meteorite theory either because most meteorites are well rounded as they went through the atmosphere and burned.

So my conclusion, it is a definite MAYBE. But in all honesty, as along as you think it a meteorite and treasure it, that is all matters. I've collected plenty of worthless rocks from all around the world that are precious to me. Just don't try to sell it to recoup the camera repair cost.

--

thanks Gabbro for the insight. I'll keep you, specifically, posted.

marc

Marc,

Thank you so much for a very thorough answer. Much appreciated!

You made so many goods points that I had not thought of. And they will definitely help me with my decision whether to go on and rent a longer lens or not.

THANK YOU!

--
Nicola (mr)
http://www.nicolacammisa.com