 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006Astronauts Always Pick the Nikkor For Zero-G
Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. It's just another example of taking the proper tools with you when you have to get the job done. Sadly, Canon washed out in basic training. Why wasn't there ever a single Canon film or dSLR ever selected to go into space? Caution! This image is highly erotic due to the inordinately large supply of Nikkors. <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e08795.jpg> Rita > Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. It's > just another example of taking the proper tools with you when you have to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita Exactly where does it say with what brand of gear this photo was shot? AFAIK, there is only one named brand mentioned anywhere on NASA's website and that's "Hassi." Got the exif from this photo? Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ >> Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. It's >> just another example of taking the proper tools with you when you have to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Jay Beckman > Chandler, AZ Look again....there is some Nikon equipment in the astronaut's lap....... > Exactly where does it say with what brand of gear this photo was shot? The dead giveaway is there isn't a white lens to be found for 220 miles. Of course, one of the astronauts could have smuggled onboard the totally awesome 5D and an adapter ring to use that stunning Nikon glass. I would! I didn't see the terrestrial and celestially stunning 58mm Noct Nikkor anywhere in that image. Maybe he used it on a Canon body? Naw, the signature bokeh is missing from that image. > AFAIK, there is only one named brand mentioned anywhere on NASA's > website and that's "Hassi." Hassi made 35mm film and dSLR bodies for NASA? Rita >> Exactly where does it say with what brand of gear this photo was shot? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hassi made 35mm film and dSLR bodies for NASA? Hasselblad MF gear was used on Gemini & Apollo. >AFAIK, there is only one named brand mentioned anywhere on NASA's website >and that's "Hassi." Nikon's been supplying stuff for Nasa since at least Apollo 15. See: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/rhnc/rhnc12ti-e.htm  SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. > It's just another example of taking the proper tools with you when > you have to get the job done. Sadly, Canon washed out in basic > training. Why wasn't there ever a single Canon film or dSLR ever > selected to go into space? They didn't want to risk the good stuff. ;-) Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. It's > just another example of taking the proper tools with you when you have to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e08795.jpg> <Nikons can be dangerous in space> http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007U5M Scott I've always said that you must be high if you think Nikon is better than Canon. > I've always said that you must be high if you think Nikon is better > than Canon. It's true that one can get high from the mesmerizing and intoxicating qualities of the superior Nikon glass. I'm not disputing the facts that Nikon glass is highly addictive as well. As a new Canon owner, I was totally put out, a bit miffed, and totally pissed that NASA didn't select the totally awesome 5D for zero-G work. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > > I've always said that you must be high if you think Nikon is better > > than Canon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > totally put out, a bit miffed, and totally pissed that NASA didn't select > the totally awesome 5D for zero-G work. NASA learned their lessons. They used to use the expensive gear but they lost it when the shuttle blew up. Why do you think they call it the "Challenger Disaster" anyway? Hell, they lost 3 Fabulous EOS-1Vs that day! Nowadays, they go cheap with expendable equipment, hopefully spending a little more cash on things like heat shields and stuff. >> It's true that one can get high from the mesmerizing and intoxicating >> qualities of the superior Nikon glass. I'm not disputing the facts [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they lost it when the shuttle blew up. Why do you think they call it > the "Challenger Disaster" anyway? LOL! I believe you meant that the "expensive gear" was temporarily lost. Of course, Nikkors being the "Ultimate Photography Machine" allows them to withstand the rigors and punishment of an unscheduled Earth reentry as well as a long cooling off period 4,800' below the sea. Needn't worry since it was recovered and back in service. > Hell, they lost 3 Fabulous EOS-1Vs that day! They had the EOS-1V when they scrapped the Pershing II? > Nowadays, they go cheap with expendable equipment, hopefully spending > a little more cash on things like heat shields and stuff. Yes, I did hear that as well. They were switching to Canon for this reason, but they decided to go with disposable drugstore cameras since the lenses on these outperformed Canon's L glass. Rita > Just look at all those beautiful Nikkors floating around in zero-g. It's > just another example of taking the proper tools with you when you have to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita The real reason is that Canon use fluorite elements in many of their lenses and these cannot tolerate the freezing conditions in space. Canon does not think this is a problem however, as the vast majority of their customers reside here on planet Earth..... sales to NASA would not even rate a blip on Canon's radar. Rusty My slightly revamped gallery: http://www.pixelpix.com.au/gallery > POTD.com.au wrote: > The real reason is that Canon use fluorite elements in many of their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of their customers reside here on planet Earth..... sales to NASA > would not even rate a blip on Canon's radar. So, in other words, Canon is more secure in their confidence of their product and doesn't need to lower themselves to showy demonstrations to appeal to the easily impressed. ;-) TheDave? wrote: > > POTD.com.au wrote: > > The real reason is that Canon use fluorite elements in many of their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > product and doesn't need to lower themselves to showy demonstrations to > appeal to the easily impressed. ;-) No Canon would never go for showy demonstrations, like showing in their ads all the white lenese at a sporting event. Scott >>> POTD.com.au wrote: >>> The real reason is that Canon use fluorite elements in many of their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No Canon would never go for showy demonstrations, like showing in > their ads all the white lenese at a sporting event. If ya got it...flaunt it... If ya don't...send a couple to NASA... ;) And lets not forget...NASA isn't exactly known for it's quality control any more... :( SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.