EOS not good for NASA?

[wellfedCanuck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[wellfedCanuck]

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

Don't you mean:

 

[Click]

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

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

You.... again :-\

 

[jrista]

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.

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?

You.... again :-\

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]

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.

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?

You.... again :-\

I'd say the same

 

[Rat]

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

 

[wellfedCanuck]

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]

AND invited him to speak at my local camera club.

Location envy. Again :'(

 

[And-Rew]

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]

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.

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?

You.... again :-\

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.

hmm what do you mean in all this text?

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]

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.