Astronauts Always Pick the Nikkor For Zero-G

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Dec 13, 2006.

  1. 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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Dec 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    [BnH] Guest

    Saw this a while back.

    Now ... how many Nikon [d]SLR in that image ? :)
    I saw 4.

    =bob=

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
     
    [BnH], Dec 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:34:42 -0500, 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?
    >
    > 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


    That's cool, but I don't find myself shooting in zero-g very often. And my
    budget has limitations.
     
    ray, Dec 13, 2006
    #3
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Annika1980 Guest

    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 also send monkees into space. Monkeys love Nikons!
    >
    > <http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/iss014e08795.jpg>


    Must be an old photo. They're still using film!
    Boy, I knew NASA was strapped for cash, but this is ridiculous.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 13, 2006
    #4
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    if Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> 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.


    Funny, for the moonshots they always used to take Hasselblads. I believe
    the only mod made to them was silver finish to reflect heat.
     
    if, Dec 13, 2006
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    bluezfolk Guest

    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?
    >
    > 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



    And all this time I thought the space program was a waste of time
    and money, I guess its valuable for camera testing.


    Eric
     
    bluezfolk, Dec 13, 2006
    #6
  7. Annika1980 wrote:

    > Must be an old photo. They're still using film!


    That only proves that the totally awesome Nikkors are optimized for FF
    digital.

    > Boy, I knew NASA was strapped for cash, but this is ridiculous.


    Must be! That's why you buy great tools only once instead of warehousing
    loads of substandard ones with high failure rates.





    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Dec 14, 2006
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?


    Back in the 60s, they tried using Nikons for the Apollo program, but the
    failure rate was high, and image quality was not up to snuff. One of the
    astronauts, Gus Grissom, I think, suggest the Hasselblads. The rest is
    history. Hassy created a few special cams for the moonshots, as well.
    Trouble is, the cams are still on the moon; only the film magazines made the
    return trip.

    Why aren't Canons used? Got me. Do you really know? Is there a reason other
    than, maybe, marketing by Nikon? Don't get me wrong, the Nikons are
    wonderful cams, but maybe it's because NASA needed compatibility with some
    other branch of government, Canon wasn't on a government buy list, etc. I
    doubt the reason is anything technical.

    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 14, 2006
    #8
  9. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Pat Guest


    >
    > Why aren't Canons used? Got me. Do you really know? Is there a reason
    > other than, maybe, marketing by Nikon? Don't get me wrong, the Nikons are
    > wonderful cams, but maybe it's because NASA needed compatibility with some
    > other branch of government, Canon wasn't on a government buy list, etc. I
    > doubt the reason is anything technical.


    It could be something just as simple as Nikon donated the cameras.....
     
    Pat, Dec 14, 2006
    #9
  10. On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:45:40 GMT, Kinon O'Cann <> wrote:
    >
    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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?

    >
    > Back in the 60s, they tried using Nikons for the Apollo program, but the
    > failure rate was high, and image quality was not up to snuff. One of the
    > astronauts, Gus Grissom, I think, suggest the Hasselblads. The rest is
    > history. Hassy created a few special cams for the moonshots, as well.
    > Trouble is, the cams are still on the moon; only the film magazines made the
    > return trip.


    If memory serves, there's one of the cameras, plus a bunch of
    lenses/etc., in the Smithsonian. It could be a test version, rather than
    one that actually made the trip.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Dec 14, 2006
    #10
  11. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Skip Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> Must be an old photo. They're still using film!

    >
    > That only proves that the totally awesome Nikkors are optimized for FF
    > digital.
    >


    If that's the case, then there goes your argument versus Canon "legacy"
    glass. ;-)

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Dec 14, 2006
    #11
  12. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:48:45 -0600, Pat wrote:

    >>
    >> Why aren't Canons used? Got me. Do you really know? Is there a reason
    >> other than, maybe, marketing by Nikon? Don't get me wrong, the Nikons are
    >> wonderful cams, but maybe it's because NASA needed compatibility with some
    >> other branch of government, Canon wasn't on a government buy list, etc. I
    >> doubt the reason is anything technical.

    >
    > It could be something just as simple as Nikon donated the cameras.....


    Most likely it's that Nikons got NASA certified during the early days of
    the space program (as did Hasselblad) and so Nikon learned the
    ropes and want the market and now have an existing relationship with NASA
    and Canon doesn't.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 14, 2006
    #12
  13. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    rog7856 Guest

    x-no-archive:yes

    I see a problem with quite a few hot pixels, time to re-map that bad
    boy.
     
    rog7856, Dec 14, 2006
    #13
  14. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Bhogi Guest

    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?
    >
    > 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>


    There is some cyrillic on equipment. What does that mean, Russian
    guests or American guests?
     
    Bhogi, Dec 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Skip wrote:

    >> That only proves that the totally awesome Nikkors are optimized for
    >> FF digital.

    >
    > If that's the case, then there goes your argument versus Canon
    > "legacy" glass. ;-)


    Not really. Canon lost what little ground they had when they abandoned the
    totally awesome FD mount.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Dec 14, 2006
    #15
  16. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:45:40 GMT, Kinon O'Cann <> wrote:
    >>
    >> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> Back in the 60s, they tried using Nikons for the Apollo program, but the
    >> failure rate was high, and image quality was not up to snuff. One of the
    >> astronauts, Gus Grissom, I think, suggest the Hasselblads. The rest is
    >> history. Hassy created a few special cams for the moonshots, as well.
    >> Trouble is, the cams are still on the moon; only the film magazines made
    >> the
    >> return trip.

    >
    > If memory serves, there's one of the cameras, plus a bunch of
    > lenses/etc., in the Smithsonian. It could be a test version, rather than
    > one that actually made the trip.


    Yeah, I've seen it/them, and I think those are the cams that never made it
    to the moon (missions that didn't land) and a few that were used for
    trainng. Really cool cams. Essentially EL70 models with no viewfinder and
    larger controls to be useful with space gloves.

    >
    > -dms
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 14, 2006
    #16
  17. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    [BnH] Guest

    Have a look again Bret.
    There is a D200 there :)

    =bob=

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...


    Must be an old photo. They're still using film!
    Boy, I knew NASA was strapped for cash, but this is ridiculous.
     
    [BnH], Dec 14, 2006
    #17
  18. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Skip Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skip wrote:
    >
    >>> That only proves that the totally awesome Nikkors are optimized for
    >>> FF digital.

    >>
    >> If that's the case, then there goes your argument versus Canon
    >> "legacy" glass. ;-)

    >
    > Not really. Canon lost what little ground they had when they abandoned
    > the
    > totally awesome FD mount.
    >
    >
    >

    Pish. All Canon lost was the excellent Vivitar 70-210 f3.5 Series One. The
    optical quality of the FD mount lenses are exceeded by most of the current
    EF mount equivalents, the only possible exceptions being the 50mm f1.2 and
    f1.8 lenses. I still have a 50mm f1.4, among others, in FD mount, so don't
    think I'm inexperienced in the genre.
    And, still, to argue that since Nikkors that were designed for film are
    "optimized for FF digital," reinforces the same thing for Canon lenses
    designed for film.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
     
    Skip, Dec 14, 2006
    #18
  19. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    George Kerby Guest

    On 12/14/06 7:07 AM, in article Y%bgh.24245$, "Skip"
    <> wrote:

    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Skip wrote:
    >>
    >>>> That only proves that the totally awesome Nikkors are optimized for
    >>>> FF digital.
    >>>
    >>> If that's the case, then there goes your argument versus Canon
    >>> "legacy" glass. ;-)

    >>
    >> Not really. Canon lost what little ground they had when they abandoned
    >> the
    >> totally awesome FD mount.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Pish. All Canon lost was the excellent Vivitar 70-210 f3.5 Series One. The
    > optical quality of the FD mount lenses are exceeded by most of the current
    > EF mount equivalents, the only possible exceptions being the 50mm f1.2 and
    > f1.8 lenses. I still have a 50mm f1.4, among others, in FD mount, so don't
    > think I'm inexperienced in the genre.
    > And, still, to argue that since Nikkors that were designed for film are
    > "optimized for FF digital," reinforces the same thing for Canon lenses
    > designed for film.

    The FD mount was impossible for the upcoming auto-everything electronic
    interface that Canon was establishing with the new bodies being developed in
    the late 80's - early 90's. Same with the nikkor glass.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    George Kerby, Dec 14, 2006
    #19
  20. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Dan Sullivan Guest

    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?
    >
    > 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>


    The astronauts didn't pick the camera and lenses.

    Where's your proof that "Canon washed out in basic training?"

    Chances are the space program went with Nikon because Nikon had already
    been supplying them with cameras for years.
     
    Dan Sullivan, Dec 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. GTABuySell
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,259
    GTABuySell
    Jun 7, 2004
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR vs. Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    949
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    462
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,257
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Bucky Breeder

    ! All The Wimmins Wannabe Astronauts Now

    Bucky Breeder, Apr 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    451
    POGO PUNY
    Apr 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page