Space programs prefer Nikon

The title might seem a little misleading, but Nikon says rather proudly it seems, that the Russian space program has recently placed orders for D3S and D3X bodies and Nikkor lenses. NASA also ordered a bunch of Nikon gear in 2009 but seeing as that Obama has cancelled the manned space program, the Russians' will be the only program going into space--well at least to the International Space Station, although the Chinese have plans of continuing their manned space program too. Although the press release only says that they ordered a bunch of Nikons; it doesn't say that they didn't order Canons (lawyers out there will recognize the sufficient/necessary logic test here). Here's the press release:

http://nikon.com …/2010/0614_ener​gia_01.htm

They say that the gear will not be modified for use in space as a testament to the "incredible reliability" of Nikon equipment. Does any other camera equipment have to be modified to be used in space? I'm not a space physics expert, but do conditions in space, and i'm assuming that the gear will be used within the confines of the vehicle, have adverse affects on camera gear? In the Apollo space program, they said in some part of the vehicles the only thing between them and the vacuum of space was material that was no thicker than a piece of tin foil. Conditions must not be that bad. I would think that a zero-g environment would actually be less stressful on the equipment...space physics people feel free to contradict me.

Are the Russians buying them, or is Nikon giving them for the advertising benefit? "Ordered" doesn't necessarily mean money is exchanging hands.

I'm not sure. I would think that if this was some sort of gratis gesture, all the camera companies would be throwing their gear at the Russians and NASA. You're right though, that is certainly a good advertising opportunity. I looked through the press releases from Canon and I could only find one press release relating NASA and nothing on the Russian space program. Apparently in 2007, a Canon HD video camera went up in the space shuttle for HDTV tests.

http://www.canon.com/n​ews/2007/nov12e.html

Next time I go shooting in space, I'll be sure to buy some Nikons then.

Pffft, N*kons are cheaper than Canon, hence the reason why they would order N*kon, not because it is technically more superior

It reminds me too much of "official" sponsorships. I watch baseball and hear...

XYZ Cola is the Official Sponsor of the Metropolis Mashers

...and what I want to know is... What is that supposed to mean to me? Did the Mashers conduct their own research and choose the best tasting cola? Or, did they just cash the biggest check? I'm guessing the latter, which is why I tend to ignore stuff like that as being meaningless.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #10370866
It reminds me too much of "official" sponsorships. I watch baseball and hear...

XYZ Cola is the Official Sponsor of the Metropolis Mashers

...and what I want to know is... What is that supposed to mean to me? Did the Mashers conduct their own research and choose the best tasting cola? Or, did they just cash the biggest check? I'm guessing the latter, which is why I tend to ignore stuff like that as being meaningless.

took the words right out of my mouth...or fingers, I guess...

drRex wrote in post #10370395
They say that the gear will not be modified for use in space as a testament to the "incredible reliability" of Nikon equipment. Does any other camera equipment have to be modified to be used in space?

This means the gear will be used only inside the spacecraft. If a human can live in there, the so can a camera.

All cameras have to be modified to be used by astronauts outside of the spacecraft. The biggest problem is that astronauts cannot manipulate small buttons at all. Imagine wearing a glove made of super stiff and thick rubber with is then inflated by a bicycle pump to 1 bar (15 psi). Now try to grasp and use a camera.

I am just wondering how my photos, if I went up to space, and used my ultra wide angle lens would turn out

Canon needs to make with the 1DsMKIV.... cause currently the D3x is the best camera around...

Can't blame them. D3X is the best low light camera that either company makes.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Canon's flourite lenses like to rattle themselves apart when launching on the shuttle.

ingraman wrote in post #10371868
Can't blame them. D3X is the best low light camera that either company makes.

The D3s is the real champ in low light, not the D3x.

Nikon's probably giving them the equipment for bragging rights as well as now the astronauts don't have to cover the camera's brandname with tape...

Nikon has a very long history with Gov't and space programs. Mainly because when these programs were just starting out, Nikon was the quality 35mm system to beat. Even though Leica/Leitz probably made better gear, the costs involved were astronomically different. And the lens selection was much greater for Nikon over all other makes.

During Vietnam Nikon nearly gave away systems for the PX, so soliders and airmen brought those home from Asia for a song compared to stateside prices. So NASA, the DoD and many other US Gov't departmemts have not strayed from that make. I am sure that many of you have seen the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds, who both use Nikon still to this day.

But any visit to a gov't warehouse sale will find Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax and on and on, for sale cheap. They buy everything now. I once sold several F5 bodies to NASA for testing on the rotor of an experimental helo. And when I mean ON THE ROTOR on means, attached...