# EOS not good for NASA?



## millan (Jan 13, 2013)

It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
Could we reveal the reason?


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 13, 2013)

See Canon, Mr. Joe Adachi, Mr. Fujio Mitarai? Make the damn 14-24 already!!!


----------



## Frage (Jan 13, 2013)

It means nothing to me.


----------



## nightbreath (Jan 13, 2013)

It means nothing. RED claim they have 21-stop DR sensor, so why not use a video camera instead? May be just personal taste, there is always someone who stands beyond decisions. The price may be the factor as well.

EDIT: I haven't seen exact number 21, but here's the topic with a screenshot: Enter the Dragon


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

It makes sense to pick one brand of Camera, after all, you want all your lenses to be interchangable. That doesn't imply that Hasseblad, Canon, sony or any of the others are not good, just that Nikon was selected, and now that the space station is full of Nikon lenses, that will not change, no matter how good other brands might be. The cost of a camera is nothing compared to the cost of sending all those lenses into space.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 13, 2013)

I'd always heard that the Nikon thing was a deal, the equipment was provided for free, or something in exchange for the exposure.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 13, 2013)

Yes for those of us familiar with the govt procurement process it is difficult to sole source many items and say I want canon or Nikon or hassleblad. You put your requirements out for bid and let the dealers and vendors respond with a product that meets those requirements. Likely Nikon came in with a reasonable bid and won. As mt Spokane Washington pointed out once you get a capital investment in lenses it's difficult to financially justify changing brands.

As an individual I chose canon because a friend who is involved with shooting cheer leading had a catastrophic Nikon failure involving three different Nikon bodies. That sealed my decision to go with Canon. That's my personal decision. I know of many others who are happy with Nikon but I am happy with Canon across the board.

The govt makes choices for other reasons and sometimes you can't make that "because canon is better" requirement.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It makes sense to pick one brand of Camera, after all, you want all your lenses to be interchangable. That doesn't imply that Hasseblad, Canon, sony or any of the others are not good, just that Nikon was selected, and now that the space station is full of Nikon lenses, that will not change, no matter how good other brands might be. The cost of a camera is nothing compared to the cost of sending all those lenses into space.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm pretty sure NASA has used Canon, but perhaps only for video. There is a glass case with cameras used in space at the National Air & Space Museum in Virginia. I'm pretty sure there is a Canon in there too, along with Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica.

Edited: here you go ... Canon camcorder used on the Space Shuttle in the background of this pic (behind the Hasselblad):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5777971567/#in/photostream/


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 13, 2013)

millan said:


> It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
> Could we reveal the reason?



Perhaps they started with Kodak digital cameras (made in USA) with Nikon F bayonet. They had experience with Nikon lenses and perhaps some special mounts and switched later to Nikon bodies. 

To bring 1 kg into space costs roughly 30 000 $ so it makes sense to keep a 5 kg 4.0 600mm lens in space and change just the body.

The ISS exists since ca. 1998 so it "survived" a vast development in (digital) photography ...


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 13, 2013)

Purchase of commercial-off-the-shelf items is rarely purchased through competitive bids. Major vendors of computers, software, furniture, and I would expect cameras, lenses, etc, usually have a negotiated schedule of government-only pricing that any government agency can purchase from. If the vendor doesn't have their own schedule/catalog, there is usually a 3rd party intermediate seller with a schedule. These schedules are usually compiled and managed by the General Services Administration (thus the term "GSA Schedule"). Any government agency can purchase from these schedule items. As long as the purchase is made from pre-approved GSA schedule vendor, there is no requirement to obtain competitive bids. The rationale is that in assembling the schedule of vendors and prices, the GSA has already conducted a competitive selection process. Therefore the purchasing agency doesn't have to run a separate competition. 

For example, B&H Photo is a vendor on a GSA contract.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/federal-gsa-contracts-gov-corporate-edu-sales.jsp

To purchase from a GSA-approved schedule, all the agency has to do is get approval of the expenditure through their own internal purchasing office. If the requestor's organization has money in the budget, and a local manager with purchasing authority agrees to sign off, the purchase is made. End of story.

I'm in IT and my agency makes purchases for hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases for IT equipment and software every year without having to go through a competitive bid process because the GSA-approved vendors and pricing have already been compiled by the GSA. We just look through the catalogs, find what we need, and make the buy.

When I was in contractor/industry side, I spent quite a number of months working on bidding on NASA business so I know NASA also has its own pre-negotiated Enterprise-wide equipment catalogs and schedules with industry vendors.

Most likely someone in NASA determined that, for whatever reason, Nikon more closely met the technical requirements for NASA's mission. So it would just be matter of going to the catalog and making the buy.


----------



## zim (Jan 13, 2013)

Guess there's just too much DR out there..........

........ ok look someone had to say it ;D ;D ;D


----------



## brad-man (Jan 13, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> Purchase of commercial-off-the-shelf items is rarely purchased through competitive bids. Major vendors of computers, software, furniture, and I would expect cameras, lenses, etc, usually have a negotiated schedule of government-only pricing that any government agency can purchase from. If the vendor doesn't have their own schedule/catalog, there is usually a 3rd party intermediate seller with a schedule. These schedules are usually compiled and managed by the General Services Administration (thus the term "GSA Schedule"). Any government agency can purchase from these schedule items. As long as the purchase is made from pre-approved GSA schedule vendor, there is no requirement to obtain competitive bids. The rationale is that in assembling the schedule of vendors and prices, the GSA has already conducted a competitive selection process. Therefore the purchasing agency doesn't have to run a separate competition.
> 
> For example, B&H Photo is a vendor on a GSA contract.
> 
> ...





That. Or maybe the Flight Director just needed a new UWA


----------



## CharlieB (Jan 13, 2013)

Considering the first cameras were extensive engineering reworks of existing models.... Hasselblad and Nikon stepped up to the task asked of them. Canon was not the contender it is today. 

Now consider 50 years of space flight - with 35mm tasks being done nicely by Nikon... they had no reason to change. You had personnel and relationships between NASA and Nikon. Training considerations... big factor - because crews cross train in case a back up person is needed. Uniformity is needed. 

Nikon was just .. first... and has stuck it out with NASA all these years. I think there were some F's, F2's etc used back when, in addition to Hasselblad EL data cameras and SWCs.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 14, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> Purchase of commercial-off-the-shelf items is rarely purchased through competitive bids.
> Most likely someone in NASA determined that, for whatever reason, Nikon more closely met the technical requirements for NASA's mission. So it would just be matter of going to the catalog and making the buy.


If you have ever qualified items for use in space, as I have, you will find that they must be tested thouroughly and then receive a formal approval. They then receive a separate part number due to the fact that there will be something modified. This takes them outside the realm of off the shelf items. They have to withstand the vibration, shock, temperatures, and a host of other things. The biggest issue is that equipment often gets worn out from the testing.
I would expect that a different lubricant will be used that can take the temperatures and vacuum without outgassing. Silicones outgass, and the vapor then redeposites itself in some very nasty areas like on mirrors and the glass in lenses.

Here is a old article, but the idea hasen't changed.
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space


----------



## timmy_650 (Jan 14, 2013)

This means nothing to me. If I was using thinks logic I though think a Toyota is the best way to pull a space shuttle.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jan 14, 2013)

well... all i can say here is it is all about political things during contract bid...


----------



## Mantanuska (Jan 14, 2013)

NASA doesn't send people into space any more. This is irrelevant


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 14, 2013)

I would have thought a bigger camera (like a Hasselblad) would be easier to use. But I'm sure NASA know what they're doing. Felix Baumgartner uses Canon if that makes people feel better.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 14, 2013)

NASA also uses a different brand of toilet for their astronauts to take a dump ... oh, no we've been 5hittin in the wrong brand of toilet ;D


----------



## CanonFan (Jan 14, 2013)

NASA folks are very meticulous about making sure that what they spend dollars on will do the intended job. Could be that their criteria aren't the same as the typical consumer or even the Earth-bound professional photographer. When you're spending thousands of dollars per pound to get people and equipment into orbit, the purchase cost of the gear is only one factor in selection.

For example, here are two factors that go into selecting equipment for space - 1) resistance to radiation (gamma rays, alpha particles, heavy ions in solar wind, tolerance to accumlate dose, etc.) and 2) how the equipment behaves in the ultra-harsh environments (shock, vibration, temperature extremes, lack of humidity, lack of atmospheric pressure, etc.).

Most of us don't have these at the top of our list as to what we look for in a camera and accessories.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jan 14, 2013)

As mentioned, Nikon has been very innovative in the past to meet the demands of NASA, like the long roll Nikon F250,
being able to keep on shooting in tight/harsh conditions was definitely a plus.
http://rturner.jalbum.net/CAMERA%20COLLECTION/NIKON/slides/NIKON%20%20F250%20LONG%20ROLL.jpg


----------



## Aglet (Jan 14, 2013)

Space is mostly dark, eh..
Don't want to be using Canons that fill all that dark up with faint reddish stripes and such, gets confusing.


----------



## dunkers (Jan 14, 2013)

NASA is an old organization that likes to stick to "tradition" or however you want to call it.

Back in the day, Nikon was the top company (film era). So back then, they used Nikon. Sticking to tradition, they still continue to use Nikon.

And don't forget that the D3s did have better low light capabilities than the 1DIV..


----------



## sanj (Jan 14, 2013)

I suspect there is one (of two) people in-charge or buying photographic gear for the organization.

I feel it's fair to say that that (those) people decided to choose Nikon.

To say NASA choose Nikon may be incorrect.


----------



## sandymandy (Jan 14, 2013)

I guess they asked several companies, compared prices and then stuck with Nikon cuz it was cheapest.
Anyway who cares what brand some people in space are using? Does it even matter as long as they get usable photos? Probably the guy who shoots the photos is just a Nikon user anyway thats why he got that camera on board.


----------



## stefsan (Jan 14, 2013)

Mantanuska said:


> NASA doesn't send people into space any more. This is irrelevant



They still send people to the International Space Station – they only need to hitch a ride with the russians. But I doubt that this influenced their choice of camera brand…


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 15, 2013)

CanonFan said:


> For example, here are two factors that go into selecting equipment for space - 1) resistance to radiation (gamma rays, alpha particles, heavy ions in solar wind, tolerance to accumlate dose, etc.)


Some cameras don't survive the radiation. According to NASA:

"The cameras that come back are evaluated for damage. Depending on the condition the camera may fly again. The space environment (both inside the vehicle and on spacewalks) is tough on the electronic cameras. The radiation damages pixels on the sensor. Sometimes the damage is so great that the camera does not fly again."

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space


----------



## emag (Jan 15, 2013)

It's been many years, but....when Uncle Sam switched the equipment I used to work on from 70mm film to 35mm, modified Nikon bodies were used. They proved to be more reliable when subjected to adverse conditions, primarily shock and vibration. Some of the data to support that undoubtedly came from NASA, but I'm sure tax dollars were spent to confirm it. Then again, we also continued to use Betamax long after it was dead in the civilian market.


----------



## weixing (Jan 16, 2013)

Hi,
I think they do use Canon EOS, but just not in space.



Zlatko said:


> http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space


 Anyway, this photo ( http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/565184main_jsc2011e040349_hires.jpg ) you mention is taken with a EOS 5D II (So they may be use Nikon to take photo of space and Canon to took photo on Earth?? ha ha ha  ). If you look at NASA image archive ( http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts135/multimedia/preflight/Image_Gallery_Collection_archive_38.html ), you'll see quite a lot of them taken with Canon EOS (5D II, 7D & ID4).

Have a nice day.


----------



## acafinecon (Jan 16, 2013)

Berretta won the contract with the goverment, Sig SAUER AND OTHERS lost. the us military now uses the M9 made by Beretta. Does that mean the M9 is better than the SIG P266 (that lost the contract)?


NOBODY (who knows guns) would agree with this!














ishdakuteb said:


> well... all i can say here is it is all about political things during contract bid...


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 16, 2013)

Does anyone know what the Hubble uses...it takes some really beautiful photos


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 16, 2013)

Not sure but maybe they used a Flourite corrective lens



serendipidy said:


> Does anyone know what the Hubble uses...it takes some really beautiful photos


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 16, 2013)

You're right! I remember that they originally got a bad copy (de-centered or bad AFMA or something?) and some astronauts had to go up and fix it (still under warranty I think) ;D


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm friends with the Hadfield family and Chris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hadfield is on the ISS right now. Through his younger brother- I shot him an email and posed your question. This was his reply:

Hi Flip and Doug!

We’ve had Nikons for decades, they work well. We’ve also had Linhof, Arriflex and Hasselblad, but for simplicity we just have the one make here now. The bodies are D2 and D3, and we have a variety of lenses, from fish eye to 400 mm. Lets us take some impressive photography of the Earth. 

All the best from Mach 25

Chris


----------



## Rat (Jan 17, 2013)

Great. After lens envy and body envy, I now got location envy. Badly.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 17, 2013)

Rat said:


> Great. After lens envy and body envy, I now got location envy. Badly.


Try being friends with an astronaut. No matter what you've accomplished in life- you'll always feel like an under-achiever.


----------



## Rat (Jan 17, 2013)

I'll take your word for it, thanks very much ;D


----------



## stefsan (Jan 17, 2013)

Rat said:


> Great. After lens envy and body envy, I now got location envy. Badly.



+1


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 17, 2013)

Landscape photography from orbit...takes it to a whole different level.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 19, 2013)

That's alright. After watching a documentary it appears the CIA uses canon gear so it's all good lol


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 19, 2013)

I thought they were using Canon in the space episode of The Big Bang Theory


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 19, 2013)

The first astronaut was a monkey 8)


----------



## Arkarch (Jan 19, 2013)

EOS not good for NASA?

*Hey, wait a minute!! That I have to answer! ;D*

see http://tinyurl.com/eos-game-images

[size=8pt](and yes, the in-game logo and name was done by yours truly in 1983-84. The game released in 1987 by EA, same year as Canon's EOS line. Happy 26!)[/size]

- Karl B


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 19, 2013)

nightbreath said:


> It means nothing. RED claim they have 21-stop DR sensor, so why not use a video camera instead? May be just personal taste, there is always someone who stands beyond decisions. The price may be the factor as well.
> 
> EDIT: I haven't seen exact number 21, but here's the topic with a screenshot: Enter the Dragon



That's a 21 stop _chart_, the Dragon is theoretically 20 but they're saying it'll be closer to 18 usable stops. But that's still what the Epic does in HDRx mode at this point, so having that kinda DR native is insane.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 19, 2013)

I thought it was a dog. Russian I believe.



serendipidy said:


> The first astronaut was a monkey 8)


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 19, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> I thought it was a dog. Russian I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're absolutely correct, my bad  Laika, a Russian stray dog, was chosen as the occupant of the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 that was launched into orbital outer space on November 3, 1957. She died several hours into the flight. 

Albert II, a Rhesus Monkey, became the first monkey in space on June 14, 1949, in a U.S.-launched V2, after the failure of the original Albert's mission on ascent. Albert I reached only 30–39 miles (48–63 km) altitude; Albert II reached about 83 miles (134 km). Albert II died on impact after a parachute failure.These were just suborbital flights, though. The first animal to actually go into orbit was the dog Laika, launched on board the Soviet Sputnik 2 spacecraft on November 3, 1957. Unfortunately, Laika died during the flight.

On July 22, 1951, the Soviet Union launched the R-1 IIIA-1 flight, carrying the dogs Tsygan (Russian: Цыган, "Gypsy") and Dezik (Russian: Дезик) into space, but not into orbit. These two dogs were the first living higher animals successfully recovered from a spaceflight. Both space dogs survived the flight.

Miss Baker, a squirrel monkey, rode a medium-range ballistic missile into suborbital space on May 28, 1959. She returned home safely from her flight into space and has been widely (and incorrectly) credited with being the first living creature to achieve that feat.

The first living *higher* animals to survive orbital flight were Soviet dogs Belka and Strelka, who survived an August 19, 1960 launch into space.

On January 31, 1961, Ham the Chimp was launched in a Mercury capsule aboard a Redstone rocket. His mission was Mercury-Redstone 2. The chimp had been trained to pull levers to receive rewards of banana pellets and avoid electric shocks. His flight demonstrated the ability to perform tasks during spaceflight. A little over 3 months later the United States sent Alan Shepard into space. Enos the chimp became the first chimpanzee in orbit on November 29, 1961, in another Mercury capsule, an Atlas rocket, Mercury-Atlas 5.

Most of the above copied from Wikipedia.


----------



## Rat (Jan 19, 2013)

I hate to be a spoilsport, but according to wikipedia, we're talking a bunch of American flies, back in 1947, by a margin of about 6 miles :


> The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the effects of radiation exposure at high altitudes. The rocket reached 68 miles (109 km) in 3 minutes and 10 seconds, past both the U.S. 50-mile and the international 100 km definitions of the edge of space. The Blossom capsule was ejected and successfully deployed its parachute. The fruit flies were recovered alive.


----------



## jrista (Jan 24, 2013)

When NASA picked up Nikon low-light cameras for use in space, I don't think that, at the time, Canon sensors, metering, or AF systems were actually technologically as good. Today, the 1D X is a stellar camera that outperforms in every way except low-ISO DR...however I don't gather that they use low ISO much in space so that wouldn't be a factor. If NASA were to pick a new brand today, I don't see any reason they wouldn't have chosen the 1D X over the D4, especially given how much of that sweet ultra low light time-lapse photography they do. 

But...that's today...Canon's been behind the curve for a while now, and it makes sense that another brand would have been chosen in the past.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 26, 2013)

Chris has an amazing photo album posted on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/AstronautChrisHadfield


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 13, 2013)

But how does one explain some of the pictures taken from the space station with a 1200mm lens?


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 13, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> But how does one explain some of the pictures taken from the space station with a 1200mm lens?


Nikon had 1200mm f11 and 1200mm-1700mm f5.6-8


----------



## weixing (Feb 13, 2013)

Hi,


Don Haines said:


> But how does one explain some of the pictures taken from the space station with a 1200mm lens?


 May be they use a telescope... ;D

Anyway, they recent install a modified Celestron CPC 9.25" telescope with Canon 7D DSLR for the ISERV (International Space Station SERVIR Environmental Research and Visualization System) project.





(image source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/iserv.html )

Have a nice day.


----------



## azezal (Feb 13, 2013)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Don Haines said:
> ...




Sorry if I ruined ur post but all I could see was that giant lenscap


----------



## weixing (Feb 13, 2013)

Hi,


azezal said:


> Sorry if I ruined ur post but all I could see was that giant lenscap


 This is the HyperStar ( http://www.hyperstarimaging.com ) imaging configuration which made the 2350mm F10 telescope to a 540mm F2.3 imaging system.

Have a nice day.


----------



## rlarsen (Feb 15, 2013)

I prefer Canon, but Nikon will make a good picture of Uranus.


----------



## Bambo (Feb 15, 2013)

Hasselblad got in because Wally Shirra walked into a camera store in Cocoa Beach and asked for the best camera possible. He wanted something to take with him for his first space flight. The store handed him a Hasselblad and he took it back to the NASA engineers. Once Hasselblad heard about it, they provided extensive engineering support and the rest is history. When NASA was looking for 35mm cameras for flight, they approached both Nikon and Canon. They needed to have the cameras modified to run on dry lubricants and all rubber removed. Canon said no thanks. Nikon said they'd do it. They would stop their production run at the factory and do a special run of "NASA" cameras. On top of that, they provided complete access to their engineering technology so NASA could integrate special modifications for space flight. Canon never offered that and refused when asked. Over time NASA has built up quite an inventory of Nikon lenses making it very expensive to switch to Canon. With that said, NASA uses Canon XF305 video cameras and that is the prime video camera on the International Space Station (NASA now uses off the shelf items since the hardware requirements for ISS operation are more relaxed than that of Apollo and shuttle - bigger vehicle).


----------



## brad goda (Feb 16, 2013)

they fly on the lowest bidder...
whats the question? lol


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

rlarsen said:


> I prefer Canon, but Nikon will make a good picture of Uranus.


My what?


----------



## brad goda (Feb 16, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> rlarsen said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer Canon, but Nikon will make a good picture of Uranus.
> ...



Like I said they fly on the lowest bugger... ;D  LOL


----------



## elhajj33 (Feb 19, 2013)

Are you sure about NASA not using EOS? I photographed the VAB and Endeavour while it was being decommissioned and I have photos of KSC's photo editor Ken Thornsley walking around with 2 canon crops and a 10-22.

I wonder if it's just different folks at NASA using various bits of gear.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Apr 25, 2013)

Chris Hadfield explains how he takes photos from space:
http://petapixel.com/2013/04/22/astronaut-chris-hadfield-explains-how-to-take-pictures-from-the-iss/

Caution: graphic Nikon images...


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> But how does one explain some of the pictures taken from the space station with a 1200mm lens?



My guess is they have a 1200mm lens. Could be the Zoom-Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8.0 ED-IF or the older Zoom-Nikkor 360-1200 f/11 ED, or the Nikkor 1200 mm f/11 IF-ED Super Telephoto. Or it could be a Russian made 1200mm, or a 1200mm mirror lens, or something custom. Heck they could have a Canon 1200mm that had the mount shifted to Nikon. They are NASA, when it cost $10,000 a pound to put something up there, they can probably have anything they want.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 26, 2013)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Chris Hadfield explains how he takes photos from space:
> http://petapixel.com/2013/04/22/astronaut-chris-hadfield-explains-how-to-take-pictures-from-the-iss/
> 
> Caution: graphic Nikon images...



I saw this a few days ago, too. Very interesting and great photos (and good background knowledge for when I'm next on the ISS...). I hadn't really heard of Chris Hadfield until this, but I get the impression he must be a star in Canada.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Apr 26, 2013)

Well anyone hear?
Apparently even Nikon F isn't good enough, NASA might be switching over to GoPro, wide enough lens and weighs nothing in comparison, and takes up barely any space, in space!


----------



## nicku (Apr 26, 2013)

millan said:


> It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
> Could we reveal the reason?



very, very simple reason:

Hassy has a bigger camera body ( more easy to manipulate the settings in a space suit)

Nikon sensors have better DR than Canon.... and in space this performance is crucial.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 26, 2013)

I can't speak for NASA, but I can tell you that there are Canon cameras at the Canadian Space Agency..... and I know that they have at least one 800 F5.6 lens...... because it is on the other side of the room I am in!


----------



## Sella174 (Apr 26, 2013)

NASA uses Nikon because nearly every MF telephoto NIKKOR lens can focus beyond infinity.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Apr 26, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> NASA uses Nikon because nearly every MF telephoto NIKKOR lens can focus beyond infinity.



Don't you mean:


----------



## Click (Apr 26, 2013)

^^^Ha ha ha That's very funny. ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 27, 2013)

nicku said:


> millan said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
> ...


Yes it must be the DR. NASA has been awaiting that for years up until last year when Nikon introduced the D800...

Do you believe yourself what you're writing?


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 27, 2013)

Another reason to dislike nikons... If you watch mythbusters, the cameras inside red light traffic cameras are nikons, so next time you get a ticket for running a red light, blame Nikon lol


----------



## nicku (May 7, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > millan said:
> ...



You.... again :-\


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2013)

nicku said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



Well, factually speaking, DR is NOT the most important thing in space. NASA bought into Nikon a few years back because at the time Nikon was the king of HIGH ISO. You don't shoot the dark side of the Earth from space at ISO 100...you shoot it at ISO 6400, 12800 and at high shutter speeds to freeze the motion of 17,500mph! At High ISO, DR is physically limited. You lose about 1 stop DR per stop of ISO increase...you have only 7 or 8 stops at those high ISO, so the most important thing is the total electrons per pixel at maximum saturation. The higher the charge, the lower the noise.

Today, Canon rules the high ISO/SNR realm. By a relatively small margin compared to how much Nikon rules the low ISO/DR realm, but enough to give them an edge now. I believe the only reason NASA currently uses Nikon and has not changed to Canon is there really isn't any reason to. They are invested. They have the gear, have the lenses. Why change? They don't need the compelling features of the 1D X...it was built for sports, so it has an AF system and frame rate to match. I'd figure the most compelling Canon camera for NASA would be a 40-50mp FF monster with good ISO 25600 performance...which doesn't exist quite yet.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 8, 2013)

nicku said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...


I'd say the same


----------



## Rat (May 14, 2013)

Aaaaaaaaaaand he's back - say thanks for the pics on our behalf, would you, Canuck?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (May 14, 2013)

Rat said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaand he's back - say thanks for the pics on our behalf, would you, Canuck?


Already have. AND invited him to speak at my local camera club.


----------



## Rat (May 14, 2013)

wellfedCanuck said:


> AND invited him to speak at my local camera club.


Location envy. Again :'(


----------



## And-Rew (May 16, 2013)

and hear comes another reason - you're not gonna like it - but it's a fact...

just over a year ago, we were given a talk by one of the UK MOD photographers, with a demonstration of his kit, and what he actually does etc.

Any way, his kit was all Nikon - why? some one asked.
"Simple" came the answer - "we done a side by side test in Afghanistan and found the Nikon's to be more robust, and more capable of withstanding the wide range of conditions in weather, temperature and humidity that Afghanistan offers"
"What about the white lenses? Aren't they supposed to overcome that?"
"It overcomes Nikon's marketing quite nicely  "

And so, on that basis, all of the UK MOD's togs are equipped with a kit that would require its own 'white van' to transport around.

As i said, you may not like it - but if the UK Military have done side by side tests and found the Canon stuff wanting in a host of situations, then why wouldn't NASA.

Space is like a war scenario - it's hardly appropriate to expect a courier to pop over/ up and pick up your kit to get repaired and returned... Once Virgin Galactic is up and running, that might be possible...


----------



## jrista (May 19, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



If you brush up on your English, you might understand it. Everything you need to know, my entire meaning, is in the text above.


----------



## jrista (May 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"



Please, take a look at my "real life shooting":

http://jonrista.com/photography/

Everything here is taken with a lowly 7D with its utterly crappy sensor and excessively inferior technology. Put a 1D X in my hands, and I'll do and order of magnitude better. But, of course, my work can't possibly be better than anyone's work shot with a Nikon camera...oh, no! Not a chance!

Oh, and regarding "real life"...show me some real-world D4 photos that exhibit better high ISO performance than the 1D X. ISO 25600 and 51200 are both digital boosts on the D4...that results in more read noise intruding into the image, and it is usually quite apparent. I've seen near-noiseless photos taken with a 1D X at ISO 51200...stuff that compares to my 7D at ISO 800!!! I've never seen anything even remotely resembling that from a D4, D800, or any other Nikon camera.


----------



## Skulker (May 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"



since you only seem to like stuff originally writen in Swedish you might like to look at this

_"If we score the cameras would 1D X to get a little higher total than the D4. It can be anything that a D4 may, but is a bit faster, the autofocus is a little rapper and you get a little more detailed images. The difference is not great, but pretty easy to see and feel when running the cameras side by side."_

http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Fvi-har-provat-canon-ef-200.htm&act=url

The funny thing is its from a link you gave ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Skulker (May 20, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> have I said anything else?



yes all the time


----------

