CP+ 2018: Nikon's space cameras

This is a typical example of NASA making sure its budget is used up so that next year's budget is not reduced.

> Was Glenn the first with a stills camera ?

Quite probable. He was most certainly the first with Minolta stills camera. ;-)

Interestingly, Alexey Leonov also only had motion picture camera with him during his first-ever spacewalk.

Speaking of Leonov's spacewalk... Its effect on mental health was also feared to be potentially huge. Soviet cosmonauts had guns with them as part of the "survival package" (in case they'd land in taiga etc.; 9mm regular pistols on first flights, specialized TP-82 guns later), and commander of the Leonov's ship (Pavel Belyaev) had pretty gruesome instructions in case Leonov wouldn't be able to re-enter the spaceship. Which BTW nearly happened... but not because Leonov lost his mind (as was feared), but because his spacesuit got inflated.

We sometimes forget that these first Cosmonauts were every bit as brave as our Astronauts, although apparently our space explorers and theirs shared an immense mutual respect for one another, borne out of understanding and empathy that only they had for what the others experienced.

> I could be wrong, but I'm not even sure Gagarin had a proper window

He did. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1 :

"...the flight is continuing well. I can see the Earth. The visibility is good.... I almost see everything. There's a certain amount of space under cumulus cloud cover."

photomedium:

Inertia be kind of important too. Being hit by a car going 15 miles an hour is more damaging than being hit by a bicycle going 15 miles per hour.

Now, if you'd limited your comment to the weight of things one has to carry (walk around with) you'd sort of have a point. However no one is taking long walks in space--long duration spacewalks not being walking around on the ground.

In short, in your attempt to be "smart" you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of how mass functions, in space or on the ground.

I have two possible explanations:
1- you got hit by a car when you were young, probably doing 15x2=30mph in a school zone. You and your family got a whole bunch of money from the insurance and that has allowed you a free ride through life.
2- someone dropped the pointy end of a Leica from 20 ft over you head and that's why you like them and know so much about gravity and inertia.

Both hypothesis fit the data.

ROFL.....

photomedium:

So indeed you don't have a valid answer to my point, but feel the need to attempt to demean and disparage. Cool, sarcasm.

What point was that? The one you got from watching Bill Nye the science guy video and that you felt the irresistible need to re-vomit on this thread?

He was traumatized by Pinocchio.....

Howaboutraw,
Weight is the effect of gravity. So, the OP is right when saying they are (almost) weightless in space... And if it is also true that the mass does not change when in orbit or at sea level, this is not the point, here.

Karroly - Watch out, Howaboutraw will try to drag out this thread for the next 6 months, telling us all how clever he is.

ento....
It's just Howie the Hijacker...
Pulling another heist.....
:=)

"The mass point stands."
Yes the mass point is factually correct but it does not stand in the contest of the OP, that is, except in your head. That is the problem.

"Still can't resist personal insults I see."
HAR, but you have to admit, with you is like fishing with dynamite...in a barrel.

Guys. Don't you realise that Howaboutraw is playing games with you?

HAR is the ultimate troll, he gets his nuts off by winding you up.

I'll bet right now he's killing himself laughing at the way you all fall for it.

...and you just keep coming back for more

Dark triads don't tend to laugh....
And you might just be mixed up about who is playing who....
Just like a fiddle....
How be it an out of tune one....
Hit those strings with a bow....
And that baby sings....
Not an ounce of control....
:=)

Like I said guys, he's winding you all up and having a good laugh.

You keep coming back but you'll never get the better of the master troll.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's talking sense, don't worry about it dudes.

Resistance is futile.

Na...
He's not a troll...
Schmuck????
Yes....

HAR, Yes, I agree, it's good to be me. Or at least better than being you. ;-)

The hijack continues....
:=)

FLruckas
I am running an experiment, I want to see if he puts quotes around my quotes.
I have no idea of what he has been talking about for the last 10-15 posts and I am proud of it! ;-)

I think some Gemini missions used modified Leica IF/1G cameras, too.

The first camera in space with which images were taken manually was Konvas, a Soviet movie camera made by the same plant (KMZ) that produced Zorki rangefinders.

The first man to photograph Earth from space was Gherman Titov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherman_Titov

Sample image can be see here:
https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/the-first-photographer-in-space-44654847/

@DrWu

"Gherman Titov" is how "Герман Титов" is spelled in English. I can tell you that "German" does not sound as "Герман" at all; "Gherman" is much closer.

Also, you may want to have a look at the articles I linked.

DrWu - you are joking I am sure, but if not, German Titov was a hockey player and Gherman Titov was a Soviet cosmonaut - the second man to orbit the earth.

Howaboutraw: “One” is correct though. There’s a V3 still in occasional use around here. Not a bad little camera.

Michiel953:

Nikon 1 is the line name. And note I wrote "mirrorless digital line".

The OP more than implied there is not one Nikon mirrorless--didn't say "it would be nice if Nikon updated the 1 (or One) line.

I lost count of the number of Nikon 1 bodies that have shipped.

The point is Nikon still has a mirrorless line in 2018 and has had. It hasn't been added to recently, and of course it's not APSC or full frame sensored.

However, the line was well ahead of other manufactures with on sensor phase detect AF. And the AW1 remains the only interchangeable lens waterproof digital camera system.

nikon's 1 line of cams are long discontinued. Dead.

RedFox88:

Nope, the Nikon 1 series is still shipping new in 2018.

You're repeating rumor as established fact.

Now true, Nikon hasn't updated the 1 series in a while.

@HowaboutRAW: Nikon 1 was made in Nikon's Wuxi China factory. Nikon closed that factory.

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/inside-the-nikon-1-factory-in-china/

http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/1030_01_e.pdf

“New, old stock” might describe Nikon 1 cameras shipped in 2018.

@HowaboutRAW - Yes, most people really don't want to invest in an ILC system limited to a 1" sensor. That's why the 1 system sold so poorly and is basically off the radar amongst camera systems. It's not an issue of whether the cameras are still working. And yes, we are "debating" (i.e.. talking about) whether the camera system is still even alive. I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of conversation any camera system wants people to be having!

By the way, I can still buy a Samsung NX new:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HV6KGNM/ref=asc_df_B00HV6KGNM5391639/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B00HV6KGNM&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198070155062&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2962848368108574551&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031523&hvtargid=pla-385574431817

and the NX system is still on Samsung's website:
https://www.samsung.com/us/showcase/digital-cameras-and-lenses/

But that doesn't mean the NX system is alive and kicking! LOL

T3:

But where can you buy a Samsung NX-Mini body new?

Mr Bolton:

Waterproof, for use underwater. I believe there are 2 lenses.

No, not simply weatherproof like say the Olympus EM1.

T3:

"It is likely that Nikon has suspended any future development on the Nikon 1 system to pursue a more viable mirrorless strategy: FF and APS-C mirrorless, which are clearly more popular ILC formats than 1". I just can't see them fully supporting a 3-format mirrorless product line: CX, DX, and FX. Not in today's market."

Right, that's perfectly legitimate speculation. And still one can purchase the J5--and as far as I know the AW.

Br Bolton:

There are plenty of excellent cases (I imagine most are polycarbonate--the generic name for Lexan) for all sorts of ILC cameras and a some highend point and shoots like the Sony RX100.

The cases can often cost more than 1000 usd.

Right now, there is one waterproof digital ILC system sans an external case, it's the Nikon 1AW. Now true, you can dive deeper with your Canon 5DIV in case than with the bare 1AW.

Mr Bolton - That would be good, try dpr and see if they are interested in publishing it. Best to ask first, rather than submit without first checking what style and word count they would want.

It makes sense to send the absolutely most rugged bodies available.

Better handling, can't imagine mild DR improvement is particularly relevant.

Water and dust are indeed not a problem but ruggedness is more than that.

nasa tends not to uprgade mission specific technologies when they are part of system meant to meet mission critical standards , thus during the entire life of the shuttle missions a really ancient cpu was used , simply because its testing and certification for the mission didnt allow willy nilly upgrades because of very carfully crafted mission specs , and testing and certification
protocols that were unmutable

probably went for cameras too

refraction index from air to vacuum never occurred to me .... "facinating captain "

Yokohama is in Japan, to be fair. You don't see much Japanese on signage at the Javitz Center at Photo Plus Expo....

They are not insecure, they just feel a little paradox: they know their cameras should stay as far as possible from water, and this might have been their perfect placement, except nasa chose nikon...

Never.
Except that A7s mounted outside of the space station.

@uswr9362 wrong, I'm an enthusiastic Sony hater because I really dislike the equipment and Minolta heritage it's nothing to do with reassuring myself, it doesn't matter how much money i have I will never buy one. Not keen in Ricoh either

the A7SII is on the International Space Station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1T9DwnCuo&vl=en

Very few Sony comments except in response to baiting like was done here. And as has now been pointed out, the baiting OP, yeah, you RadPhoto, are simply wrong.

Just the sensors... mounted on nikon bodys

What kind of person says, "XYZ brand will *never* be considered for..." Sounds like an *insecure* person who says that! Never is a long time. And you can't predict the future. You simply can't rule anything out.

I remember when Canon dumped their FD system and introduced the EOS system in its place. There were a *lot* of people like you who said, "Canon will *never* be trusted or be taken seriously by serious photographers because Canon abandoned their previous camera system! No one will ever want to invest in the Canon EOS system because Canon may abandon all their users just like they did with all their FD system users!" Geniuses like them, and like you now, thought they could predict the future. Stupid!

What's even more stupid is that what he said could NEVER happen, already happened..

I loved Canon Eye Control Focus (ECF) back in the day. Back then, they used an array of infrared lights to track your eye position. It was a very primitive system. These days, they could put a tiny digital camera inside the viewfinder to see the location of your eye. It would potentially be much more precise. And it wouldn't have to be Canon who does it. For one thing, if there were a patent on the original ECF, the patent is probably expired by now. Utility patents last 20 years. Canon ECF was first introduced in 1992. And the second point is that if a manufacturer used a tiny digital camera inside the viewfinder instead of an array of IR beams to track the eye, it would be using an entirely different technology. So anyone could come out with a new version of Eye Control Focus.

@MikeRan - Canon's Eye Control Focus worked by selecting the focus point that you stared at for a moment. Your eye had to actually pause on where you were looking before the system selected the focus point that corresponded to that location. That meant that you could look all around the viewfinder, and the system would simply ignore your eye movement until it saw that you paused and stared at something for a moment. (It's like the equivalent of a long press on your smart phone screen that activates other functions.) And secondly, it would only select that focus point if you were half-pressing the shutter button at that same time. So if you want to having your eye wander around the viewfinder without the Eye Focus system selecting focus points, just don't have the shutter button half pressed, and don't stare at a location for longer than a certain period of time that would trigger the Eye Focus system.

After about a dozen shots, it felt seamless and it learned dynamically how your eye moved. At least that's what they said back then.. siiigh.. one of the few "good old days" ideas that really were good enough to compare to what we have now.

Ι think the implementation derived from military targeting systems.

@Mr Bolton - No, I don't think it was dynamically learning anything. We're talking about a fairly rudimentary, primitive system. No real brain power. It's nothing like the computers and processors we have today. You could do multiple manual calibrations in different lighting situations to help it improve its effectiveness. But I highly doubt it was actively learning as you were using it. With today's technology, with an embedded digital camera in the viewfinder and today's processing power, it might be able to do that.

@dynaxx - Seriously? And, Boeing should have refused to produce bombers that could cause civilian collateral damage, fire bomb civilian areas, drop an atomic weapon on civilians, etc.? It was a war! In a war you do what is required by your nation to be the victor, and survive. Yes, things look different in hindsight, particularly if you're the victor. But, are we to hold a grudge against Toyota, Minolta (makers of the Dynax camera), Lieca, Volkswagon, Fiat, and all the other manufacturers that aided the war efforts of enemies in a conflict that ended almost three quarters of a century ago? And, then ignore any good those companies have done during the ensuing years? If so, that war has never ended. Besides, can you imagine that Nikon actually made a huge fortune being required (it was Imperial Japan, so yes required) to service the military in a wartime economy. Don't mistake the Japanese economy, and the profitability of military manufacturing, with that of the US during World War II.

@WGVanDyck - your emotional response has got in the way of you reading my post carefully - Nikon was a small optics company with, I believe, a single factory before they supplied gun-sights, periscopes, binoculars etc. etc. to the Japanese military and became a large-scale company by the end of WW II - this is not true of any of the companies you mention and certainly not true of any other optics/photographic companies - I reminded the readers of this thread that the prestige they rightfully get from their contribution to space photography is just one part of a more checkered history.

@Edmond
Hasselblad. The iconic photograph of Buzz Aldrin on the moon was taken with a modified ELM with the 70mm cassette. I don't think they took any 35mm to the moon - but I might be wrong.

The Space race was chronicled by Nikon and Hasselblad. As you say it is history.

Didn’t NASA buy a bunch of Nikon D5’s last quarter?
Your point?

Actually, is it really going to be NASA on Mars? Or is it going to be Elon Musk's SpaceX? NASA is a bit decrepit right now. Like a lot of their equipment :) Just because NASA chose Nikon decades ago doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX (or some other entity) will too! Times change. It isn't NASA that is launching re-usable rockets that can land themselves autonomously back on launch pads! It's SpaceX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBA7su98v3Y

So it's the old vs the new. NASA/Nikon vs SpaceX/Sony?

SpaceX is only the transport provider, NASA will most likely buy the rocket to get to the Moon and also Mars, as well as develop some kind of base. To be honest you need colaboration of both public and private sectors like it's happening with taking astronauts to the ISS.

T3
Spacex is not profitable. None of Musks companies (boondoggles) are profitable for that matter. Not one.
If NASA chooses them for launches they can break even. Bezos builds rockets too, very successfully.

@Old Cameras - Hahahahaha. You realize that ventures such as starting a car company or a rocket company take YEARS to reach profitability, don't you!?!?! We're talking massive R&D and startup costs! Wow, you are extremely short-sighted. You must have the attention span of a gnat. Some people think short term. Other people (Musk) think long term. I'll take Elon Musk's judgment and intelligence over yours any day. What have you done in your life, compared to Elon Musk? Have you started a car company that makes amazing cars like the Model S? Have you launched rockets that can land themselves? Have you started a company as ubiquitous as Paypal (which eBay bought from Musk for $1.5 billion)? Musk made his first millions by starting a software company called Zip2, which he sold for $307 million in 1999 when he was still in his 20's! Yeah, sure, Musk's companies are nothing but boondoggles. Hahahaha.

Let's not forget the seventy years of taxpayer funded, publicly available research and development on which SpaceX was able to base their designs and/or learn from past mistakes. John Q Taxpayer's Grandpa paid for a whole lot of the profit soon made by private firms venturing into space.

The 'Cut my taxes' crowd like to point at SpaceX as an example of private sector innovation-and it is-but don't like to remember how much they sit on the shoulders of giants like Werner Von Braun and NASA, who envisioned and made reality much of what they do now-before I was born.

Drumpf doesn't see it, Republicans don't see it, Libertarians don't want you to see it, but we need a publicly funded, not-for-profit space program. Our country is better today because of the one we have.

While they're at it, astronauts should wear swimsuits to space because spacesuits are SOOOooo Ugly LOOOKing too.