 |
 | 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 / August 2007NASA Buys 48 Nikon D2xs For Upcoming Spaceflights.
I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the high ISO performance of the Mk III. Does NASA know something we don't? <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24939> Rita On Aug 4, 9:23 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? "NASA/JSC intends to purchase the items from Nikon, Inc. NASA requires all cameras and camera peripherals be manufactured from the same lot. " 1. The backorder time for 48 1D3s from the same lot would be years. 2. Since Nikon doesn't sell too many cameras they have plenty of time to fill that order. 3. There have been stories in the news recently about rampant alcoholism at NASA so this may explain the affinity for Nikons. 4. NASA already has a bunch of Nikon lenses and they are too cheap to upgrade to the better Canon L glass. 5. They are considering sending more monkeys into space. Monkeys love Nikons. >> I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk >> III? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1. The backorder time for 48 1D3s from the same lot would be years. Sad but true! Considering the fact that a lot of the Mk III's have focusing and "error 99" issues I don't think Canon could do a production run without a high rate of failures that would yield 48 working samples. > 2. Since Nikon doesn't sell too many cameras they have plenty of time > to fill that order. Quality takes time. Like a bottle of fine wine or great steak, it takes time to properly age. Are you saying Canon is the "Boone's Farm" of the camera industry? > 3. There have been stories in the news recently about rampant > alcoholism at NASA so this may explain the affinity for Nikons. Yes, it happens when the old Nikon is so intoxicatingly perfect and produces such addictively awesome images one can develop a dependency on it. > 4. NASA already has a bunch of Nikon lenses and they are too cheap to > upgrade to the better Canon L glass. A $15 Nikkor to EOS adapter would cure that since L glass can't withstand the rigors of space. How many Canon bodies and/or lenses left earth's atmosphere in the last 50-years? A clue, not a single one. > 5. They are considering sending more monkeys into space. > Monkeys love Nikons. It's no surprise since a properly and ergonomically designed camera is so easy to use. Hell, even Ray Charles can take perfect pictures with a Nikon. Rita > A $15 Nikkor to EOS adapter would cure that since L glass can't withstand > the rigors of space. How many Canon bodies and/or lenses left earth's > atmosphere in the last 50-years? A clue, not a single one. bear in mind that if the camera is to leave the shuttle it will be used by someone in a spacesuit - an outfit that wouldn't lend itself to mucking around with manual focus and manually operating camera controls, so using nikon glass on a canon body wouldn't be very friendly to the operator. >> A $15 Nikkor to EOS adapter would cure that since L glass can't withstand >> the rigors of space. How many Canon bodies and/or lenses left earth's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so using nikon glass on a canon body wouldn't be very friendly to the > operator. AFAIK, they got along just fine with manual Hasselblads all through the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs ... plus Spacelab. >I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I >know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the >high ISO performance of the Mk III. Does NASA know something we don't? > > <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24939> Interesting, Seems you dont have to be Nikon to to get this order. But be able to build 48 Nikons to spec. I suspect these nikons have been found to be reliable in space, that is the electronics portion. Stray particles can play havoc with chips, there are special 'space hardened' components and there are components that have been found to operate reliably at different altitudes. The higher in elevation you go the more likely you will get hit by a particle. They could also have been selected for balance, weight, mechanical durability, and to fit existing storage compartments. I would love to know why 48? Short life maybe? Cheers >> I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk >> III? I know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Interesting, Seems you dont have to be Nikon to to get this order. > But be able to build 48 Nikons to spec. That's typical government procurement practices; build the specification requirements around the contractor you want to get the contract. > I suspect these nikons have been found to be reliable in space, that > is the electronics portion. Stray particles can play havoc with > chips, there are special 'space hardened' components and there are > components that have been found to operate reliably at different > altitudes. The higher in elevation you go the more likely you will > get hit by a particle. I'm sure it has a lot to do with Nikon's track record for demonstrating they have the ability to build highly reliable and durable equipment that is ergonomically perfect. > They could also have been selected for balance, weight, mechanical > durability, and to fit existing storage compartments. That too. > I would love to know why 48? Short life maybe? I'm sure most will go through extensive testing that will intentionally push them to the failure point. This is the only way they can certify the remaining equipment from that lot for use in space. Rita On Aug 5, 7:07 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > I would love to know why 48? Short life maybe? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita Why 48 out of the same lot? It seems like you'd want a cross-sample of cameras from different lots in case their were problems in that production run. > Why 48 out of the same lot? > It seems like you'd want a cross-sample of cameras from different lots > in case their were problems in that production run. Configuration and assurance that the spaceflight qualified lubricant is properly and consistently applied. It is also likely that there is either a source or destination inspection under the contract which can be used to accept or reject the lot based on a few of the 48. The "words" in the call have been carefully worked out ahead of time between NASA and Nikon. Taking this to speculation, it could also be that these cameras (lenses too?) have to be factory controlled from the start to assure that the standard lubricant is not used at all and that only the approved lubricant is applied to the systems. This would also explain the "lot" business. The above is not just because of spaceflight (a lot of cameras go up, including the personal cameras of the crews), but because of the hard vacuum of space: http://www.2spi.com/catalog/vac/braycote-vacuum-greases.html Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> I would love to know why 48? Short life maybe? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It seems like you'd want a cross-sample of cameras from different lots > in case their were problems in that production run. Nope! You have greater control over a single production run, especially if you know the end product is going to be highly scrutinized. Cross-sampling increases the odds of getting more duds and increase labor costs to do proper QA, something that unfortunately seems to be escaping Canon at the moment. Rita On Aug 5, 11:23 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I > know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita I once read that Canon's are not used in space because they use fluorite lens elements. These tend to shatter/crack in the deep cold of space. >I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I >know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the >high ISO performance of the Mk III. Does NASA know something we don't? > > <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24939> Looks like the "same-lot" and the braycote lubricant are the 2 factors that have excluded anyone else from the supply. I note also that they have ordered less lenses than bodies, which makes me wonder if possibly they have some custom lenses or possibly other imaging equipment they need to connect the cameras to. > Rita >> I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk >> III? I know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if possibly they have some custom lenses or possibly other imaging > equipment they need to connect the cameras to. I'm sure a lot has to do with NASA's strict requirement to follow the 18-month rule. They already have an impressive inventory of lenses that should last them a lifetime if they don't lose them in space or get destroyed in a shuttle accident. The only thing that perplexes me about all this is why would they use the 12-24/4 Nikkor when it really isn't a great lens? Rita >>I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? >>I know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Rita Yes....They probably went with Nikon for the same reasons that I did....They already had a lens set of Nikkors.....:^) - I think they started to buy Nikons way back in the 60's when Nikon's body worked well in the vacuum of space, and the Canon's they tested didn't. I don't know why this was true, but they went with the bodies that failed the least, and now they are pretty well locked into that choice. They used to use Hassy's too........ > I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I > know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the > high ISO performance of the Mk III. Does NASA know something we don't? > ... We already talked about it, Rita. Remember that post of yours about some special effects rig or something consisting of large number of Nikon cameras arranged in circle? Every time someone needs a relatively large number of cameras, they go to Nikon simply because they can get it dirt cheap there. (Think about it, Rita: 48 cameras at once! That's probably as many as Nikon sells in a year!). Canon on the other hand is far from being as desperate... >> I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk III? I >> know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it doesn't have the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 48 cameras at once! That's probably as many as Nikon sells in a year!). Canon on > the other hand is far from being as desperate... Actually, that special effects rig was for the Matrix movies as I recall, and they used an array of Canon manual focus film cameras - F1s IIRC. >>> I wonder why NASA would select this ancient beast over the Canon Mk >>> III? I know that the D2xs is very robust and bulletproof, but it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > recall, and they used an array of Canon manual focus film cameras - F1s > IIRC. That made me think of the claymation movie about the graveyard people or whatever it was a couple years ago, where they used a bunch of Canon full frame DSLRs for their dynamic range. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > That made me think of the claymation movie about the graveyard people or > whatever it was a couple years ago, where they used a bunch of Canon > full frame DSLRs for their dynamic range. The movie was 'The Corpse Bride', and it was shot entirely witn Canon bodies using Nikon glass. http://www.stopmotionworks.com/articles/cbrdstrpdbare.htm It wasn't the dynamic range they cared about, but the way the inevitable sensor noise manifested itself. Apparently the Nikon D2H exhibited inconsistant (and thus, unacceptable) hue noise while the Canon 1DMk2's did not. - Solomon SignatureSolomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. ICQ: 1318344 >>That made me think of the claymation movie about the graveyard people or >>whatever it was a couple years ago, where they used a bunch of Canon [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inconsistant (and thus, unacceptable) hue noise while the Canon 1DMk2's > did not. Ah, thanks... “ We originally selected the Nikon D2H because of the wireless ftp, the chip size, and the fact that we owned $90,000 of Nikon glass [lenses],” notes Watts. However, random noise was visible as pixilation in dark areas when the shots were played back as a movie. This pixilation effect was only visible in stop-motion photography, an application the Nikon hadn’t been designed for. The Canon EOS-1D Mark II, which uses a CMOS sensor and DIGIC II processor chip, was one of the most expensive still cameras tested, but the image quality was amazing, according to Watts. A way had to be found to mount Nikon lenses on the Canon EOS body. With the NEOS adapter, focus and aperture must be set manually, but that’s fine for stop-motion photography. ... The production bought 24 of the Canons. ... SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com |
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.