Ramblin' Man - Obi-Wan's Blog

OK, after nearly a year out of this forum, I'm back. I guess I've been kinda busy. Time to catch up.

January is the big month for Cub/Boy Scouts to run their Pinewood Derby competitions. For those not familiar with it, the Pinewood Derby is a race (sometimes accompanied by a aesthetic judging) for small cars made from blocks of pine. The cars are about 7" long, 2.5" wide, and weighing no more than 5 ounces. They're gravity powered, and race down an inclined track about 30' long. The kids make their cars on their own or with the help of an adult.

Anyway, here's a little bit of info that I wanted to document for posterity. The heavier the car is, the faster it will go, so you want your car to be as close to 5 oz as possible without going over (and thereby getting disqualified). Lead weights are attached to the car to add weight when necessary (putting it toward the rear of the car is better). If you don't have a postage scale that measures to the tenth of an ounce, then you may be able to find a cafeteria scale that measures in fractions of a pound. To help with the conversion to ounces, I made up this table:

Pounds Ounces
.0031 0.05
.0062 0.1
.0125 0.2
.0187 0.3
.0250 0.4
.0375 0.5
.0625 1.0
.0937 1.5
.1250 2.0
.1562 2.5
.1875 3.0
.2187 3.5
.2500 4.0
.2812 4.5
.2875 4.6
.2937 4.7
.3000 4.8
.3062 4.9
.3093 4.95
.3125 5.0
.3156 5.05
.3187 5.1
.3250 5.2
.3437 5.5
.3750 6.0

The "Pine Car" brand of Derby supplies that is sold by HobbyTown and Hobby Lobby makes a lead weight that's shaped like a long, narrow trapezoid and can be screwed to the bottom of the car. That weight has a large, solid center area and a perforated area at each end that can be broken off if less weight is needed. The entire weight is 2.2 oz. The smaller perforation weighs 0.4 oz, and the larger one weighs 0.7 oz. The center weighs 1.1 oz. There must be some rounding error in there, though, as the center alone weighs just a hair more than both ends together.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to see Eric Clapton live in concert at the Qwest Center in Omaha, NE. I meant to write the up earlier, but never got around to it. For some time now, EC has been near the top of my list of performers I want to see before they die. I created this list after missing opportunities to see Ray Charles and Jerry Garcia. But I digress...

This was the first time I'd been to the Qwest Center. For those not familiar with it, parking is a nightmare. You'll save lots of time by not bothering to find a close space. Just park a ways away and walk. You'll get to the doors much sooner that way.

I delayed ordering my tickets until about 10 hours after they went on sale, and consequently ended up with seats in the back corner of the upper deck. The balcony seating at Qwest is terrible. There's less leg room than in Lincoln's Persing Center, which is saying a lot. I'm 6'1" with long legs and a knee that tends to cramp up unless moved frequently, and I was uncomfortable up there. I vowed to never again buy balcony seats for Qwest. I'll pay what I have to to get on the floor, or I won't go.

The view from up there also sucked. I could see where the performers were on stage, but I couldn't identify them. Fortunately, there was a large projection TV screen above each side of the stage where they broadcast close up views of the performers. The production quality on these screens was amazing. I felt like I was watching a high quality concert DVD. Kudos to whoever ran that portion of the show. It really saved the performance for folks like me who were sitting over in Iowa.

But enough about the venue.

The Robert Cray Band opened the show with about 40 minutes of songs, most of which were from their new album Twenty. This is the third time (second in a year) that I've seen Robert Cray. He always puts on a good show. He's a talented song writer an guitarist, and his voice and facial features always remind me of Sidney Poitier. I've got his Live from Across the Pond album, recorder live over a couple nights in London's Royal Albert Hall while performing there with Clapton. I highly recommend it.

After a 15 minute break, EC took the stage. The first half of his set was comprised of songs which, while comprised of excellent guitar work, were mostly unknown to me. The latter half of the set contained more of his familiar hits. Of course, with a career as illustrious as EC's, he couldn't begin to play all of his hits. He did finish up his regular set with "Wonderful Tonight" and "Cocaine." The encore contained three songs, terminating with "Layla." Watching him on the screens, I was amazed at how laid back he was while blazing through his amazing guitar riffs. It didn't look like his hands were moving fast enough to be playing those tunes, but they were. That's how he got the "Slow hand" nickname, BTW. This backup guitarist and organist were quite talented in their own right, but I'm afraid I can no longer remember their names.

Despite the annoying venue, it was a really good show and I'm glad I went. If you enjoy good guitar work, EC is somebody you should make a point of seeing in person.

I'll be returning to the Qwest in a few days (four weeks after the EC concert) to see Billy Joel perform. This time, we're on the 18th row of the main floor. We'll see if it's much better.

When Stacy & I got married in 1997, we bought a decent 35mm SLR camera (Canon EOS Rebel G) and a couple lenses to document our life. It served us well, and I enjoyed the creative control that the SLR gave me over the photos I took. We probably took a dozen or two rolls a year for the first five years.

Just before Noelle was born in January 2002, we joined the digital revolution and bought a 2 megapixel Canon S200 digital Elph that was hardly larger than a deck of playing cards. At the time, it was the smallest digital camera available, and easily fit into my front pants pocket or Stacy's tiny purse. We LOVE the freedom and convenience of that Elph, and have taken an average of over 4000 photos per year since then. We replaced the 2MB S200 with a 4MB S400 in late 2003 because the S200 got dirt in the lens and stopped focusing. The S400's going strong, although the original batteries are starting to show their age.

In those last five years since we got the first Elph, we've probably only taken a half dozen rolls of 35mm film. Although I love the control of the SLR, the convenience of a pocket-size digital was just too much. During the last year, however, I've grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of control that the Elph affords. This is aggravated every time my brother, a semi-pro photographer with a nice digital SLR, comes to town and I see the kind of photos he's been taking.

Well, I finally got fed up and ordered myself a digital SLR tonight. Actually, I ordered a lens & spare battery tonight. B&H Photo's online ordering site is down for 24 hours for maintenance, so I can't order the camera until tomorrow. Anyway, before the weekend's over, I'll have a 10MP Canon EOS Rebel XTi (aka 400D) en route to my house. With luck, it'll be here by Friday. I decided to stick with Canon's EOS line so that I could use the 75-300mm lens and other accessories that I (and occasionally my dad & brother) already have. I'm also familiar with how Canon's work, and I've always been happy with the quality of the photos they produce.

The stock lens that comes with the XTi kit is, frankly, crap, so I chose to order just the body and then buy a different lens of much higher quality. Why not keep the 28-80mm short lens that's on my 35mm Rebel G? Because it's too long for a digital. The image sensor on most digital SLRs is much smaller (22mm) than the active area on 35mm film. The same lens settings that fill the frame on a 35mm SLR will cover an area much larger than the active area on a digital SLR. The net effect is that you can multiply all your focal lengths by 1.6 when moving the lens to a digital SLR. So, my 75-300mm becomes a 120-480mm, and my 28-80mm becomes a 45-128mm. 45mm is nowhere near wide enough for the kind of shots I like to take. Besides, that 28-80mm was also a cheap kit lens, and I wanted something nicer.

I chose to splurge (for me) and go with a Sigma 17-70mm macro lens. That equates to about a 27-112mm, which is similar at the wide end to what I was used to with the 28-80mm on my 35mm SLR. I'm excited to have the macro capability, too. The Sigma will focus as close as 8" from the mirror, which is less than an inch from the front of the lens. This will make tiny wildlife and other small objects much easier to photograph.

If you know anybody that wants a well cared for Canon EOS Rebel G (35mm SLR) and its 28-80mm lens, let me know. I need to sell it to make room in the closet and my pocketbook for the Rebel XTi. It still works beautifully.

I'll get to put this camera setup to the test at the end of March when my family heads out to central Nebraska to gawk at half a million Sandhill Cranes when they stop on the Platte River to bulk up for their long trip to the arctic. We went out there last year, and I was constantly cursing the short range of my 300mm telephoto lens. The equivalent 480mm range should be much nicer, and I'll certainly like the freedom of digital photography. You can see the digital photos we took last spring with the Elph at http://tatooine.jedi.com/digicam/2006/20060310/ and http://tatooine.jedi.com/digicam/2006/20060311/.

As soon as the equipment arrives, I'll post some test photos. The ones I've seen online from other people with this camera/lens combo are simply amazing.