 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2006pics from space taken with Kodak
This proves once again you dont need to spend much more for a Canon or a Nikon to get great pics, even from space. Dont know if it was NASA's or the astronauts' choice to bring a Kodak. [body: Nikon F5, huh?] http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/visible_from_space_031006.html > This proves once again you dont need to spend much more > for a Canon or a Nikon to get great pics, even from space. > Dont know if it was NASA's or the astronauts' choice to bring a Kodak. > [body: Nikon F5, huh?] > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/visible_from_space_031006.html Except the Nikon based Kodak DCS-760 in 2003 was usd $8000 body only for a 6.3 mp 1.3X factor FOV the D100 would have been usd $1900 at that time. The Nikon 800mm f:5.6 lens would have been usd $6000-7000 at that time... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs760/ >>This proves once again you dont need to spend much more >>for a Canon or a Nikon to get great pics, even from space. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs760/ But those are not space rated. You would not want to take an unrated camera on a multi-hundred million dollar space mission only to find that cosmic rays latch up the cpu and it won't take pictures. Cameras for spacecraft are expensive because radiation tolerant parts are used and the system is fully tested in a space simulation environment, including temperature, vacuum, radiation, and the shake of launch. Roger > > "Mr.Bolshoyhuy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>This proves once again you dont need to spend much more > > Except the Nikon based Kodak DCS-760 in 2003 was usd $8000 body only for a > > 6.3 mp 1.3X factor FOV the D100 would have been usd $1900 at that time. The > > Nikon 800mm f:5.6 lens would have been usd $6000-7000 at that time... > But those are not space rated. You would not want to take an unrated But I'd have thought that Darrell's point was that the DCS760 isn't cheaper than the "equivalent" Canon/Nikon, and the whole post is based on a misapprehension (or, alternatively, on a novel arithmetic wherein 8000<2000)... As for space rated, did they actually test radiation resistance? Things like sensitivity of the sensor to the radiation up there would be fairly easy to work out without testing; but I have no idea whether the rest of the electronics (CPU etc) were specially prepared (radiation hardened etc). >>>This proves once again you dont need to spend much more >>>for a Canon or a Nikon to get great pics, even from space. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But those are not space rated. So? That just adds to the cost. And it doesn't negate the argument that "you don't need to spend much more for a Canon or Nikon to get great pics, even from space". Incidentally, it _was_ a 760, they state that explicitly in one of the captions. > You would not want to take an unrated > camera on a multi-hundred million dollar space mission only > to find that cosmic rays latch up the cpu and it won't take pictures. Why not? So you don't get any pictures of that mission, so what? Further, the _easy_ way to do that test is to just fly the thing along with your regular film camera as backup and see what happens. While launch weight matters, it's not so hugely critical on the Shuttle (which seldom flies loaded to the design limits and most of the operating cost of which is maintenance, not fuel) that they can't carry an extra camera once in a while. Why conduce extensive tests when you can get one that is perfectly adequate by just trying it? Incidentally, cosmic rays are more likely to latch up the CPU sitting on your desk than they are in the Shuttle. Look up "cosmic ray cascade" and you'll see why. > Cameras for spacecraft are expensive because radiation tolerant > parts are used and the system is fully tested in a space simulation > environment, including temperature, If it's cold or hot enough in the cabin to break a camera, then the camera going bust is the least of your worries. > vacuum, If you've got vacuum in the cabin then the camera going bust is the least of your worries. > radiation, If you've got enough radiation in the cabin to break a camera then the camera going bust is the least of your worries. > and the > shake of launch. Which ain't crap compared to spending 6 months in the back of a Land Rover with bad shocks--sure, the max G is higher, but that's not usually what breaks things. Cameras permanently mounted on spacecraft that engage in long-duration unattended missions need to be tested extensively because there's no way to _fix_ them and if they are on such a mission then they are considered to be a necessary part of the works. But there's much less need to conduct extensive tests on something that is going to be used in a spacecraft cabin in low earth orbit--they have zillions of pictures from low earth orbit and in any case if they have a photography mission a KH-11, which _has_ had all those tests you mention and has a _big_ camera purpose made for such use will do it better than some guy shooting out a window with a handheld camera.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > So? That just adds to the cost. And it doesn't negate the argument that > "you don't need to spend much more for a Canon or Nikon to get great pics, > even from space". Except that it's actually more expensive than them, so the argument is wrong anyway. > Incidentally, cosmic rays are more likely to latch up the CPU sitting on > your desk than they are in the Shuttle. Look up "cosmic ray cascade" and > you'll see why. Why do you speak of things you don't understand? >> So? That just adds to the cost. And it doesn't negate the argument that >> "you don't need to spend much more for a Canon or Nikon to get great >> pics, even from space". > > Except that it's actually more expensive than them, so the argument is > wrong anyway. If it costs more and then hardening it makes it cost even more, then why do you take exception to the statement? >> Incidentally, cosmic rays are more likely to latch up the CPU sitting on >> your desk than they are in the Shuttle. Look up "cosmic ray cascade" and >> you'll see why. > > Why do you speak of things you don't understand? So explain it. Wait, let me make some popcorn. This oughta be good. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> So? That just adds to the cost. And it doesn't negate the argument that > >> "you don't need to spend much more for a Canon or Nikon to get great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it costs more and then hardening it makes it cost even more, then why do > you take exception to the statement? I don't take exception to your statement. I am just saying that the DCS760 isn't cheaper than the equivalent Nikon/Canon, which was the point of the original post. > >> Incidentally, cosmic rays are more likely to latch up the CPU sitting on > >> your desk than they are in the Shuttle. Look up "cosmic ray cascade" and > >> you'll see why. > > Why do you speak of things you don't understand? > > So explain it. Wait, let me make some popcorn. This oughta be good. Read this, if you really are interested: http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/CosmicRay/Showers.html In particular, "In fact, from most cosmic rays nothing comes down at all. Because the earth is hit by so many cosmic rays, an area of the size of a hand is still hit by about one particle per second. These secondary cosmic rays constitute about one third of the natural radioactivity. ". If I remember correctly, most of the secondary products that do end get to the surface are charged muons. These do interact with matter through ionisation, but the primary rays, which are ions, are so much more (and obviously more energetic) that it sounds ludicrous to me to say what you did. Please do correct me if I am wrong. > This proves once again you dont need to spend much more > for a Canon or a Nikon to get great pics, even from space. Well, they took Hasselblads to the moon, and don't even ask about the price of a 1 MPix sensor like the ones used on the mars rovers. Don't even think of Huygens (160x254 HRI, 128x254 SLI, 176x254 MRI) and the Pathfinder mission (512x512 with colour filters, actually an identical CCD). And since when was it the camera who composed and shot the pictures anyway? -Wolfgang By the way, since you appear to find your nickname amusing, were you aware that there's a city in Belgium called Huy? ok, but is it a bolshoy city or just a small little huy the size of George Costanza's when he came out of the pool? Tiny: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huy > ok, but is it a bolshoy city or just a small little huy the size > of George Costanza's when he came out of the pool? |
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.