To celebrate the 31st birthday of the Hubble space telescope NASA has released a stunning picture a giant star ‘waging a tug-of-war between gravity and radiation to avoid self-destruction’. The star in question is AG Carinae, and it’s shown surrounded by a glowing pink cloud of dust and gas that measures five light-years across.
According to NASA the star was created from giant eruptions that occurred 10,000 years ago, and which blew out the star’s outer layers. This left a constant battle between the radiation pressure from the star pushing matter outwards, and gravity pushing it back again. When the outward pressure is more powerful than gravity the star expands, and creates colorful nebula as seen here.
AG Carinae is truly massive, and is thought to be 70 times bigger than our Sun and a million times brighter. The picture was captured by the Hubble Space Telescope using both visible and ultraviolet light, which it can do as it is beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.
To read more about AG Carinae and the Hubble Space Telescope see the NASA website.
Cool photo. Amazing amount of dodgy science writing in just three paragraphs though. Even in an apparent quote from NASA.
As far as I know, stars are not sentient, so I doubt they are "waging a tug of war", nor do they have any concept of "self-destruction". They don't fight "constant battles", and while a quick google search explains gravity actually does neither, I rarely hear physicists describe gravity as "pushing", especially when it's already been used in the sentence and the literarily contrasting "pulling" is right there.
Finally, my tintypes, alt-pro photos, and sunburns indicate a presence of UV light even here in Earth's atmosphere. That isn't what distinguishes Hubble from terrestrial telescopes.
I do hate trolls in the comments, but I also get irritated by florid writing that actually does a disservice to the topic, and I really get annoyed with anthropomorphizing inanimate objects - especially with "war" terminology - in theoretically factual / scientific writing.
Oh heck, where is the "delete comment" button. Sometimes I even get annoyed with myself. Sorry, there was just too much in that short article for my pre-coffee brain to deal with, but I need to lighten up, I know.
The Fear of Science has held back humanity for far too long. The Hubble Space Telescope should have helped far more folks realize that by now. The James Webb Space Telescope will be even more amazing. Hopefully all goes well. According to Nasa, it will fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe.
"The James Webb Space Telescope will find the first galaxies that formed in the early universe and peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems. Learn more from the mission's project website."
The only people being held back by "Fear of Science" are the religious fundamentalists and the Gwyneth Paltrow tendency. The rest of us are just going along for the awesome ride, and enjoying it immensely.
Some time in the future you are seeing what will probably happen to our sun. It follows that the planet Earth will either fry or freeze as a consequence and that life here will cease to exist. Hence the drive to explore space with the hopeless aim of eventually colonising one or two other planets that rely on a different sun to our current one. In the [probable] event that humans do not succeed in this endeavour, the human species and all others currently known, will just cease to exist.
Well - yes, technically true. But we are talking about billions of years in the future. We need to get things straight here - now. We won't have viable colonies of humans in space that are not dependant on earth for hundreds of years - no need to rush off to space when there is so much work to do here.
Actually we have no idea how long we have left. Whether it is ten years or 10,000. It is very likely to be nearer 10 than 10,000 years I’m afraid, but nobody knows. Which is just as well. As a species we are unlikely to survive to see the sun expiring.
Personally I find it very hard not being an atheist. I have not found any religion that has a believable case for their claims. It is so obvious fiction.
And in this particular case. We have a rather good notion on what happens with this star. No magic. No special creation needed. Just astrophysics.
@ dpkoop I don't understand what you are trying to say. It's not hard at all to be both. Vast majority of atheist and astronomers do not believe it all came from nothing. Bless you, in the name of Vishnu.
@ Roland I believe this star's destruction is actually a disguise for the formation of the extension of our current heaven. In his mansion there, Allah (pbuh) has a room waiting for all of us.
The thing people always forget in the discussion of Gods is that being a God is all relative. In fact what is described in the Bible as the story of Jesus is in actuality descriptions of alien technology. Now, if you really want to break this down then realize that all biological life is what we would call "technology". Many people often make the mistake of assuming biology is something they have no control over... nothing could be further from the truth. We do not have total direct control over biology but breeders and geneticists have been messing with it for a long time already. Why do you think there are so many weird shapes and sizes of dogs?? It is bio-technology at work. It is a design. Humans have knowingly manipulated the biology of animals for thousands of years. From Horses and Cows to pets like Dogs, Cats, and Hamsters. Humans can manipulate and design the life that exists around us, travel to the stars, live on any planet or in space, is that not the definition of a God?
One thing is for sure, nobody knows for certain one way or another. Atheists like to jab at religion but nobody knows till they die, then it's too late to tell your friends. What i do know is, im am here, im thinking, im self aware. Im something and im alive.
So that awareness came from nothing, and when i die it vanishes again? Doesn't make sense to me, what makes more sense is some form of continuation of consciousness, attach whatever wholy name you like.
Im not religious mind you, im just a science minded thinker sharing thoughts. Are those thoughts scientific? Nope, but every scientific breakthrough was at one point unproven and based on a hunch.
I think the religions are just trying to explain that which science has no explanation for yet, and they may very well be right. Big picture anyway.
KAAMBIC. Religion uses the wrong methods. It is not likely that they will find the answers. They guess and they wish and then they do no experiments or verification, just build dogmas on the guesses and wishes. And to make things worse they mix it with politics and also a plan to manipulate the followers.
I think your reasoning is mainly sound. But, do not expect any information of any value from religions. They are flawed as finders of information.
And please remember, in general atheists do not really have any strong opinions on metaphysics and higher beings. Not likely, but neither impossible. What atheism means is disbelief in religions, no matter if the religion believe in tree spirits or s son of the God that was nailed to a cross.
So, if you ask an atheist if he believes in god, then the most appropriate answer is: what is a god? Religion do not have an answer to that. Not if you look a bit deeper.
I have no offense to any religion and their God. Religion is for calming or taming human's cruelty. I have no idea that each God of religion always claim the earth/world/universe was created by them. It is too obvious IMO. However, I do support Buddha's word < everything has its life cycle: born, grow up, decay, die, and born begin again. no one can control it, it is nature/law of our universe.
@tangbunna. It is doubtful if Buddhism is a religion. It is more like a philosophy. And Buddha is no God. Buddhism is centered on the human being and what is good for him. How to behave.
I think to realize there is an existence beyond what is natural (not bound by time, space, mass/energy) is the root of religion. If we confine our realm of possibility to only what can be deducted by natural science then that would be narrow-minded.
Plenty of traits in life and an ever-growing list of observances that point to the existence of the supernatural. From the smallest of things like human DNA to the largest of things like the cosmos, our current natural science points to the impossibility of what is observed without a supernatural causality.
ipribadi, Your thinking happens when you want to believe but know how flawed everything so far about religions are. Really start to reach because your logical mind conflicts.
People want to feel special. Above and the center of things. People love being part of a group, on a team. Look at the brand fanatics here as proof. But special within that group of course.
Play any video game where organized religion is a feature. You will always coerce them from birth to be religious. It is easier to win the game. It is highly beneficial to the masters to control the peasants.
@Roland. Back in time there were many gods with different functions. War, trade, fishing, love etc. As society became more complex the gods were combined to fewer until there was only one. Later man made the law system and the gods became less important for many :-D
@ask38. Yes. There is one more aspect. Today we have access to thousands (if not millions) of books, fiction and facts. And we have an infinite of information on the net. Back in the days, the priest telling about the gods had a much more important role. That was a big part of the mental stimuli you could get. And then, of course, complicated life of gods was a necessity.
@ KAAMBIC Why would "awareness" not vanish after we die? Is that what you are saying, that after we die, awareness goes somewhere? Awareness is just you brain processing. What about forgetting things? When you forget something, doesn't that just vanish. No different that drawing a picture on paper using a marker and then it fades away in the rain. The brain is just rearranging chemical and electrical signals. Like a computer program arranging 1's and 0's (on and off).
@ KAAMBIC "religions are just trying to explain that which science has no explanation for yet, and they may very well be right." No, they just say things that cannot be explained is answered that "God said so". You know, God of the Gaps? Religion was never "right" about anything. Snakes don't talk, eating an apple doesn't make you smart, people do not die and come back to life, nobody can predicate the future, there's no evidence of a global flood, there are no gods with elephant heads, people never lived to be 800 years old and so on and so on...it's just silly
@rev32 So the more you "study the universe and look into the depths of creation" the more evidence you find for the existence of a god? Please let us know what that evidence is.
The more I read the bible, the more I leaned that that god was not so loving. Burning in hell for simply not believing in god when he didn't even provide any evidence that he exists. Killing every living thing (except for the things on the arc) including babies in a horrible flood. And the bible says that every time we see a rainbow, it is a sign of god's promise he will never do his "do over of the world" by killing people again. This was explained in the bible because a rainbow was seen after the rain causing the flood finally ended. So...physics before this was different because rainbows never existed before this flood? I made a rainbow today by hosing my front lawn. Or did god make it?
@SteveAnderson, I think it is common to miss represent any belief or religious practice due to the practitioner's error and conclude that the belief system is flawed. A math professor can make a mistake but it doesn't mean that the math theory is incorrect. On the other hand, it does seem convenient for religion to reframe itself every time its practitioners make a mistake. I don't believe current religions, represented by their mainstream leaders, have reached that point of perpetual shape-shifting habit.
My point is, do not dismiss the possible existence of the supernatural because of poor representation or even abuse by some religious practitioners. If the supernatural does exist, then no amount of poor representation or religious fallacy would make it stop existing.
I do not dismiss the possiblilty of any unknown. No good scientist would.
People imagining what is a God creation or not are the ones dismissing and acting badly logically.
Absolutely everything in the Bible is incorrect factually using the law of large numbers and other science laws. So is it just fables or to be taken as proof as people do.
There is no proof of any God existing and until there is, people should stop believing that these Gods are doing all these things.
No one knows who or what created the Universe. I do not pretend to know either. You have to just keep doing the good work(science).
Organized religion is about psychology, sociology. In that realm it can be an interesting conversation. Only then though.
@ipribade. Of course. You shall not judge a religion by the practitioners. Maybe you can judge the usefulness of the religion by the practitioners, but not the content.
So no, I look at the content. What do the religion claim.
I would say, IMHO, that the biggest fault religion does is to describe the supernatural beings in some detail, in particular the wishes of that supernational being. This without giving any evidence whatsoever that those details and wishes have any substance.
You can take e.g. Hinduism. It has a horde of rather complex deities. All having properties that are rather perplex.
You can also consider Jews and Muslims and all their strange rules. What you shall do and what you can eat and lots of stuff. Not likely anything any God would bother with.
And ... when you shave off everything absurd in the religions ... not much is left.
So ... what is a God? A supernatural being? So ... what is supernatural? I do not know. Religions do not tell.
The Norse gods and the Greek and Roman gods are very similar. They are not really supernatural. They are, more or less, superheroes. They resemble the Marvel universe. They only live in another level of reality. And are stronger and have super powers.
The Abrahamitic god (or gods) is (are) a bit more complicated. Because it is not even certain that this god has a body and an existence. There are some mentioning of him walking the earth, but it is not common. It is also complicated with the holy ghost, not to talk about the son. And there are other beings, like angles, serafs, cherubs not to forget the desert Troll Baal. Not as clear cut as Hinduism and the Norse families of religions.
Great replies. Thank you. I believe scientific proof of God required by the scientific method that the supernatural exists will be difficult or never be found. When you mentioned bible, I suppose you are meaning the Christian bible. In the Christian bible, Jesus refused to give a miraculous sign as evidence of diety to those who demanded it from him.
Non-conclusive proof may be abundant though. When I say proof this is something that natural science can measure and collect data from. Non-conclusive meaning that it does not exclusively converge to a single conclusion.
The only people who claim it came from "nothing" are theists straw-manning atheism. The science isn't settled on this - the best we can say right now is - we don't know.
Examples of such non-conclusive proof is a cell's DNA. Most scientist agree that the function of DNA is not extrinsic as if it reacts with its surrounding but intrinsic that it simply provides information. Science explains the DNA created from natural forces in nature which over an absurd amount of time and occurrences can perhaps happen. Our latest information technology understands that information is not created from random occurrences but is designed, and the source of a design is always a mind or intelligence. The difference here is design information is never formed from the bottom-up: from basic simple nature to become complex information, but rather top-down, from an intelligent mind creating information that triggers natural forces to become living matter.
This is not conclusive of a God but by most standards point towards the improbability that life came about from non-intelligent natural things and to the great probability that life started from an intelligent designer.
@MoonMadness, are you stating that the person of Jesus existed? The context of my post was that the bible is a fable, but the fable itself confirms that direct evidence of Jesus' diety will not be given to those with arrogant hearts other than his resurrection from death. I reference this from the Christian bible not as an argument of truth but to point out that the Christian bible confirms that evidence of the supernatural is never given to those who demand it. The same text then points out that God's existence has been made unexcusably known through the natural world.
Throughout human history, humans have mostly been believers of the supernatural. Humans started to stop believing in the supernatural only in the past scant few hundred years at the rise of scientific education. Science even supplanted philosophy as the premier tool for reasoning.
IMHO science excludes many philosophical elements of life and surprisingly people are fine with it regardless of how commonly abundant the experience is in our daily lives. Metaphysical topics of soul, morals, love, human conscience, existence, reality, life meaning, state of being, etc are not captured be science and in fact many are made impossible or non-existent.
My assertion is that science as we know it may be an incomplete tool that can explain many but not all areas of reality and existence. Yet the current modern human has placed all eggs in this one basket called science as the sole tool of reasoning without questioning its capability.
Trivia: Did your choice to read my post a decision made by our self-being or simply a predictable scientific chain reaction of molecules and energy? If by predictable science, then you should not feel lucky or guilty for anything you or anyone does. ;)
Guys. I do realize my posts have gone severely off-topic here. Apologies to all the readers and kind moderators.
I myself am happy with the mostly well-behaved replies that I can learn from. My initial purpose was to simply point out how religion and the possible existence of the supernatural can be mistakenly dismissed by incomplete or misinformation from one's self-desire for it to not exist, flawed religious practitioners, or human culture itself, without proper deep reasoning why such notions could truly not exist.
I'll stop my posts on this topic for now, back to photography. :)
ipribadi, My assumption that you are slightly too logical to be religious is stronger now.
I have met and had relationships with people similar before. A preachers son with an IQ of 155 one example.
What I see is simply reaching and the reverse of science. I dont mean that as a put down. These people want a God or something larger than us to be true. But because they have a naturally occuring logical mind, the conflicts are very great. They must go to the far corners to find the last tiny remnant that could make God function.
Conspiracy theories work similarly. They can be very well thought and highly intelligent, but are inevitably flawed because they have decided and believe the ending. Then working backwards from it to make it function. Entirely opposite of scientific method and of course collapses under scrutiny.
You are finding a place for the belief to fit. Just because you are more intelligent than most people you have met can not cause the flawed notion to be correct.
Something good and spectacular are always attributed to god's creation - by religious zealots. Why not just attribute everything to nature and keep god to yourselves. But if you insists, then accept CoVid-19 and it's claim to millions of human lives as the work of your god.
Sometimes I look around to see all the fakaps in the world and so proud that there are still people who can create such a masterpiece of astrophysics, astronomy, optics, electronics and literally a rocket science.
Moon madness, I do not come her to defend my use of language, my faith in God or non-biblical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived. Nor do I come here to try and explain how science and religion are not necessarily opposed to each other. I for one value science and religion . I respect that your beliefs are different than mine. Henceforth I will not be rising to your bait or responding to your posts.
I had absolutely no idea why your faith came up at all in this thread. This last comment of yours is the 1st time anyone has mentioned anything about religion in this thread. "Please remind me what NASA has said about colorization of photos and videos." - this is your 1st post in this thread. It's a very strange request to me any everyone else who replied in this thread. We don't even know who you are asking to provide you with this information. Then your next reply is just as strange and you seem disappointed ("Geez") that no one helped you out: "Geez I thought one of the knowledgeable and brilliant expositors of all photographic truth on this site would just know and fill us in." You seem to have an agenda and if anything, you are the one that seems to be trying to bait us by asking these strange demands. It's just very peculiar. It doesn't bother me if you do not respond any more to me.
I do have to say with the imaging technology we have today and have developed over the past 30 years, it's amazing what these telescopes can capture. I mean some of this stuff if stuff you might see only once in your lifetime.
aerorail is quite right that we should not believe everything that we see (what we "see" is actually our brain's interpretation of reality - optical illusions show us that that interpretation is not always correct), but obviously his/her insinuation that what we are discussing here is in some way not to be trusted is way off the mark.
OK but even with everything from politics to how we see the world, it's all filtered through our brain, and each person is different. Your views and personal opinions are based on your experiences and the information you're exposed to (both real and fake).
Because there is a scientific data that supports it? You think NASA just runs a random number generator to guess the age? It amazes me that people like you question scientific data they have zero knowledge about. This is how we get all the anti-vaxxers and anti science people these days.
Questioning things is fine on a general level, but it's usually quite pointless unless you have specific reasons to doubt the accuracy of existing knowledge and/or can offer more credible new information, or disprove existing results. You can probably find some research papers giving more detailed reasoning for the age of this particular nebula after using search engine of your choice if you wish.
It's literally just simple math based on the distance to the object and the speed of light as calculated by Einstein. That tells you how many years it takes for light to reach here. So if we're looking at it now on earth, then the image we're seeing is 10k years old based on the distance.
To calculate distance, they use stellar parallax which is simple triangulation based on our known distance to the sun and where that object intersects in the night sky when we're on opposite sides of the sun as the earth rotates around the sun. From there, it's just simple geometry using the angles and a known reference distance to the sun.
The size of the nebula caused by the blowing out of the surface of the star, the speed it is moving, and the distance it is from here. It's no less reliable than for a rangefinder Leica to get the focus right on an image. Stop listening to ignorant people who don't know how science works who think it's cool to throw out uniformed questions that make you ask such things.
i guarantee months or years later it will be totally debunked or a different explanation. practically everything i learned in school was wrong because those 'in the know' were just guessing
> practically everything i learned in school was wrong because those 'in the know' were just guessing
That largely depends on school and discipline. Nothing I learned in school was "debunked" - despite its been 40 years.
Things like "did Neanderthalensis and Cromagnon evolve completely separately?" - or "what food is best for health?" wouldn't have been taught to us as absolute facts. Not in my school and era ...
Science is extremely precise in differentiating between speculation, hypothesis, theory and "standard theory". Only the latter should be taught.
Standard theory includes that "sex may lead to kids" and "stars may explode" - so both is safe for school ...
@aerorail, you wrote, “ practically everything i learned in school was wrong because those 'in the know' were just guessing”
Can you give a few examples?
At least during my school years we learnt a few things “wrong” because of teachers and examiners simplifying complex theories like the atomic theory. Also you have to understand the age of the kids in school. Would you advocate for teaching quantum mechanics to 9 year olds?
But I wouldn’t say ”those in the know” were just guessing. It was based on the best evidence available at that time. As scientists have access to more sophisticated and sensitive instruments, the previous hypotheses are tweaked.
@aerorail: where did you go to school? Can you provide examples of what you learned in school that were debunked later in life? Sorry, I find that statement truly bizarre!
'According to NASA the STAR was created from giant eruptions that occurred 10,000 years ago, and which blew out the star’s outer layers.' - I assume this should actually state: 'According to NASA the CLOUD/NEBULA was created from giant eruptions that occurred 10,000 years ago, and which blew out the star’s outer layers.'
The narrator of the audio adopts an unusual pronunciation of the constellation of the exploding star (Carina, from Latin, meaning keel of a ship, in reference to Jason and the Argonauts). Wikipedia offers it phonetically as kah-rye-nee. In the US, most astronomers would pronounce it kah-ree-nah or kah-ree-neh, differing only slightly in the sound of the genitive form "ae."
Scientific Latin is based on ecclesiastical Latin, which follows pronunciation rules laid down in mediaeval times. For this reason it is not subject to accents or dialects - not supposed to be at least. Many (most?) scientific binomial names are not actual Latin, they are Latinised versions of other languages, especially Greek, and also discoverers' names, place names and so on, all turned into pseudo-Latin.
So for the correct pronunciation we can just go to church Latin to get the answer? Er, no, not necessarily. Firstly, the pronunciation of church Latin has evolved to be more like modern Italian so it's not 100% consistent, and secondly the church has no opinion on how to pronounce Buchwaldboletus or stokesii.
Based on what I've seen, astronomical names are much more likely to be actual Latin words so church Latin would be a pretty good guide.
The rule of thumb for pronunciation of words from languages that died or is only life support is something like: an intelligent educated person makes their best good faith guess. It’s kind of funny, but as an American who studied high school Spanish I always tended towards a Spanish accent when pronouncing Greek and Hebrew in academic settings.
I have listened to some BBC bird records. many years ago. And I more or less could not constraint from laughing out loud (LOL). The chap reading the latin names had a very strong and noble English accent. I am no expert on English accents, but lets call it Oxford, just to have a notion on what I am talking about. It was so wrong! So totally wrong. I had no idea that anyone could even consider to pronounce latin that way.
@rev32 - church Latin is not a dead language, it is spoken every day. What's more, the pronunciation is laid down by the church so it's not subject to the vagaries of regional dialect. Scientific Latin is not based on classical Latin (where the 'expert linguist's best guess' rule might apply), it is based on ecclesiastical Latin (as I said).
Latin a "dead" language? News to the ecclesiastic researchers who have Latin in common and happily converse. Latin is also a deeply subtle language. Hard to translate into the rather pidgin dialects that devolved from it and that we currently speak. I only studied Latin seriously for three years, can still read reasonably well and speak passably. I wish I'd spent more time with it. American astronomers appear to pronounce Latin as badly as American tourists pronounce French, but I applaud her astronomical work.
All stars are a constant battle between the radiation pressure from the star pushing matter outwards, and gravity pulling it inwards. For most of a star's life, this struggle is usually in equilibrium. Eventually gravity wins as the fuel burns out and the radiation pressure decreases, creating a white dwarf, a neutron star, or a black hole. Sometimes a nebula is created in the process.
So glad they were able to correct Hubble's mirror so we can see these AMAZING images and for scientist to make new discoveries. Especially impressive they could fix it after it was already launched into orbit. I can only imagine what new discoveries will be made once the Webb Telescope will be put into use.
I remember the day that it was discovered. It was all confusion. The new telescope should show some fantastic first images. But, they were not sharp. And then came lots of fud. It was not a camera, it was a scientific instrument, yada, yada, .... but it did not take many hours before the bubble did burst and they had to confess, it is not sharp. This was wrong.
Then came the next confusion - why? After some investigation the fault was discovered. When polishing the mirror they had forgotten to mount a distance piece. So, it was faulty polished ... and .. horror ... horror ... the backup mirror on earth was correct polished.
But now, when they knew exactly how it was mispolished, then they could compute a correction optics. And, as we know, that was a success.
@v-v-p At least we know that you have no idea how scientist use simple things like the speed of light and the red shift to determine celestial object's age and time of formation. And not just "Because NASA said it" It's people that believe in their holy books "just because it says so"
A star, like an inflatable bubble, is held up by a balance of internal pressure against gravity. In the normal course of its life, this pressure is provided by the energy produced in nuclear reactions deep in the center of the star. When those nuclear reactions stop producing energy, the pressure drops and the star falls in on itself.
🤔 depends on the audience. Pulling it in again suggests returning to its prior state and there's no going back. In larger stars gravity crushes the star into new states
I’m looking forward to the James Webb telescope as well, but it may be beyond the reasonable reach of a service mission, and I don’t believe it’s designed to be serviced. That will give it something like a five year life. I wish they would launch an updated Hubble visible light telescope (bigger!) designed from the start to be robotically serviced and upgraded. Modular so that it can be refurbished robotically - new cameras, computers, gyros, fuel, batteries, solar panels, you name it, the while back half of the scope. Just retain the basic mirror and structure. 31 years is a great investment, still going strong.
Old Cameras, apparently the Chinese are planning to launch a Hubble class telescope around 2024 that's meant to be serviced. I guess they figured since NASA won't do it, someone should.
James Webb Telescope will be in orbit about a million miles from earth and always in the earth’s shadow. Such a cool idea. But yes out of the reach of a service mission.
@MikeRan: JWST will not be positioned in the Earths shadow since it relays on solar cells! Yes its positioned close to the L2 point 1.5Mkm outside the earth orbit as seen from the sun but not exactly on the line but in an some 100.000km orbit around L2. We also had our Herschel telescope there, where my group was responsible for on-board data compression. By this all "brighter" IR sources like sun, earth and moon are on one side and one can look undistrubed in the outside direction.
The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is an entry-level mirrorless camera that's feature-packed, and will appeal to beginners as well as more experienced users. Read about the ins and outs of this image-stabilized, low-priced camera here.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 (G110 in some regions) is a mirrorless camera designed for vlogging. Its 20MP Four Thirds sensor is paired with clever tracking audio technology, but we have our reservations.
The GFX 100S fits most of the capabilities of the GFX 100 into a smaller and more affordable body. We've tested what the camera offers to see who it might make sense for.
The Sony Alpha 1 is Sony's flagship mirrorless camera for, well, just about anything. With a 50MP sensor, it gives you tons of resolution, but it also lets you fire off burst images at 30 fps for fast action sports. Add in 8K video capture and you have a really impressive package.
The DJI Air 2S is exactly what many drone enthusiasts have been asking for: a consumerdrone with a 1"-type camera sensor that's budget-friendly. Does it live up to the hype? In our opinion, yes.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional productions or A-camera for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera costing over $2500? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2500 and recommended the best.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Why are modern 50mm lenses so complex? Lens designers didn't add all that extra glass just to charge more money and make the diagram look cool, explains Roger Cicala.
Since the dawn of recorded time, Pentax DSLRs has been known for being well-designed, rugged and full-featured. In this episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan share their thoughts about Ricoh's latest DSLR, the Pentax K-3 Mark III.
Surely you've already watched our video review on the Pentax K-3 Mark III. Now it's time to take a closer look at some of the samples from its 25.7MP sensor.
Apple has teamed up with Incite for many great 'Experiments' videos showcasing the latest iPhone model's camera capabilities including its latest, which shows off the slow-motion and time-lapse performance of iPhone 12.
If camera companies want to truly compete with smartphones for relevance, they need to offer models that are as easy to use as a phone, but offer substantially better image quality.
The lens remains the widest shift lens for full-frame cameras, with the new Leica L and Pentax K mount versions rounding out the Canon EF, Canon RF, Nikon F, Nikon Z and Sony E mount options from launch.
The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is an entry-level mirrorless camera that's feature-packed, and will appeal to beginners as well as more experienced users. Read about the ins and outs of this image-stabilized, low-priced camera here.
Canon's Larry Thorpe has seen lot of changes over his 60-year career in the industry. We spoke to him after his recent retirement, and in this interview he highlights some of the technological advancements he's seen during his career and discusses the convergence between stills and video.
Nikon's Z6 II is a really pleasant camera to use – so pleasant, in fact, that one of our editors took it on a road trip vacation down the west coast to the California redwoods. Check out some coastal scenes in our updated sample gallery here.
Leica has introduced its Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm F2.8 ASPH lens for full-frame L-mount bodies. The lens has three aspherical elements, a stepping motor for autofocus and an 11-blade aperture. It's now available for $2795.
Days Inn by Wyndham has brought back its 'Sunternship' program for 2021. This August, a selected photographer will be paid $10,000 and have their travel expenses covered during a customizable two-week trip within the United States.
DPReview TV's Jordan Drake thinks the iFootage Cobra 2 is the best monopod ever created in the history of mankind. Find out why he calls it 'the monopod that changed my life'.
Photographer Andy Mumford believes his landscape photography would've progressed faster if he had learned a few key things early on. To help other photographers avoid the same pitfalls, he's shared a new video outlining three things he wishes he'd learned sooner.
We've updated our 'best cameras for videographers' buying guide, with the Panasonic Lumix DC-S1H being our choice for high-end video shooters, and the Sony a7S III selected as the best "run-and-gun" option.
Sony’s three remaining A-mount DSLR cameras have disappeared from its website, suggesting the cameras have been discontinued, rendering the A-mount system all but obsolete.
Law firm Hagens Berman has filed a suit against Samsung in US District Court. The lawsuit alleges a widespread defect in Galaxy S20 smartphones that causes the glass covering the rear cameras to shatter.
In this video, we head into the heart of wine country in the company of photographer James Joiner and the Fujifilm X-E4. James is meeting vintner Charles Bieler to shoot some imagery for a new wine label.
The fully-manual lens, which offers roughly a 50mm full-frame equivalent field of view, is available for Canon RF, Fujifilm X, Nikon Z and Sony E mount camera systems.
The Panasonic Lumix DC-G100 (G110 in some regions) is a mirrorless camera designed for vlogging. Its 20MP Four Thirds sensor is paired with clever tracking audio technology, but we have our reservations.
Brian Emfinger from Live Storms Media got close to a tornado with his drone before losing it. Here is some footage he managed to pull from the DJI GO 4 app.
The video was captured by a photographer/pilot duo who used an Insta360 Pro 2 attached to a DJI Matrice 600 drone to capture the close-up visuals of Iceland’s Mt. Fagradalsfjall volcano.
Canon's EOS M50 Mark II is a compact, easy-to-use mirrorless camera. Check out our sample gallery for a large selection of tulip photos, with a few other subjects thrown in for good measure.
The Olympus OM-D E-M10 IV is a compact, stylish and low-priced Micro Four Thirds camera with a 20MP sensor and in-body stabilization. Chris and Jordan put it through its paces in the latest episode of DPReview TV.
Our team at DPReview TV just wrapped up their review of the Olympus E-M10 mark IV. As Chris explains, it's now 'third winter' in Canada, so don't be surprised to see some snow in this sample gallery.
Comments