NASA astronaut and Expedition 47 flight engineer Jeff Williams posted a video recently detailing some of the equipment he uses to capture his incredible view of the planet from the International Space Station. So what kind of specialized gear does one use in space? Turns out the crew uses 'regular photography equipment' to capture still images and videos, with the Nikon D4 being one of several cameras used. A variety of lenses are used as well, including the massive 800mm lens (with 1.4x teleconverter, no less) shown in the video.
In addition to the photography equipment, Williams introduces viewers to the Cupola, the 'window on the world' that gives astronauts a full view of Earth from a single vantage point. Other windows are used to capture handheld photos and videos as well, and Williams explains that some videos are animated panoramas made from stitched still images.
They spent $200B on that orbiting lemon. It's produced almost nothing and was a make-work project for ex-Russian scientists, who they didn't want going to make bombs for Middle Easterners. Compare it to the Hubble telescope, $1.6 billion (with upgrades and repairs) and one of the most productive scientific instruments ever.
@stromaroma: I hope you are kidding. The moon landings are a well-established fact. There's a ton of evidence. Only very ignorant people think the moon landings were fake.
I used to believe we went, thought the conspiracists were whacko. But kept an open mind. Looked into it more and it was clearly impossible. Lots of circumstantial evidence that could go either way, but thermo dynamically, they would have fried. They were there for almost 3 earth days in the frying pan, nowhere to dump the heat. No way around that. The big issue for believers in the official story is what it means to you that your government lied to you. But this is a photography website so I guess that's enough whacko discussion.
The most obvious evidence that we went to the moon is that Russia could detect our launches and triangulate radio activity in space.
Combine that with the fact that Russia had every reason to call us out on a conspiracy, but they didn't, and you're left with the second most powerful country in the world, using every scrap of intelligence they could gather with a budget in the millions of dollars, concluding that the US landed on the moon.
But keep telling me how you've got it all figured out...
Yes I wondered about that. Possibly the surveillance technology at the time wasn't good enough. Or possibly they had a reason for not squealing. But there is a saying that once you have eliminated the impossible, the remaining explanation must be true no matter how improbable. I know for a fact that they would have fried, plus there was no hint of a blast crater, plus not a speck of dust on anything despite the astronauts saying there was a cloud of dust, also the audio of him talking during the landing has no backround noise despite him sitting on a 150 db rocket engine. Those can't be explained away.
Of course Russia had the tech to do it at the time; it's simple triangulation, and we were doing exactly the same thing at NASA to tell US where the astronauts were.
Don't talk about the Van Allen belts; whatever you've read about them is incorrect.
There is and would be a blast crater, but it's going to be significantly smaller because there's no air around the exhaust gasses to blast anywhere.
There was dust on everything; there was serious concern that it would cause problems...
Yes, it certainly can be explained away: sound doesn't travel through a freaking vacuum. (Also, do you have any idea how it's supposed to sound based on experience other than what you've made up in your head?)
Thanks for the links. I look for irrefutable evidence either supporting or disproving; I tend to dismiss circumstantial or improbable evidence. As the old saying goes, "Once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Your links do not provide irrefutable evidence that could not be doctored.
On the other hand, I have irrefutable evidence that it was fake, coming from NASA itself. Every time I point this out all I get in response is silence.
Here is a post I made the other day in another forum:
Further to that the transcript at 104:42:29 states that they hit the ground at 6.8 feet per second. Now, you look at the rocket sitting an inch off the undisturbed dust and with a straight face tell me that it hit the ground at 7 fps. The landing gear is wrapped in tinfoil so it's hard to see what it's made of (cardboard?) but presumably it would have absorbed the impact by moving upwards like a car's suspension does. That means the rocket would have been forced into the ground. But there is not a single dent or scratch on it, not even any residue from combustion. It looks brand new. No marks on the ground, no hint of a breath of wind.
How much of a shockwave is there when you landed after testing out that 8 inch jump?
Now, if I really wanted to, we could calculate the energy of the impact of the lunar craft, and compare it to the energy necessary to cause shockwaves through a solid body [eg: earthquakes] (as opposed to the gas that caused any shockwave you saw from your 8in jump)...
And if you're looking for irrefutable proof that isn't offered by someone else (and thus potentially subject to manipulation), go buy a laser and bounce it off the range mirror that was left up there.
uh, you know that with a strong enough telescope, you can see the landing spot on the moon. the flag is still there dude. im all for a good conspiracy, and they do exist, but we went to the moon. now, whether they were alone while they were there or not, is another mystery.
@stromaroma – Entertaining but irrelevant. Scientists were able to put men on the moon because they are experts in their scientific fields, something neither of us are so scientists can continue to do amazing things, If you don't know what I mean then there is no hope for our species.
As Quisquis states, 40 years of data from the LLR unequivocally proves that the mirrors placed on the moon's surface by the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 crews really do exist.
The ISS faces the same heat problems but somehow they haven't fried a crew once yet in 17 years of operation. Is the ISS a hoax too – how about you watch it passing overhead sometime?
The thermal problems of a 275° temperature gradient are formidable but the average temperature across the whole structure is only minus 18°C (between -157° and +121°C). Thermodynamics really is an astro/cosmonaut's best friend. You need good insulators, regulation and movement but it's not rocket… what am I saying?! it IS rocket science!
Likely scratches from micro-meteoroids and particles. Not too bad for 6 years at 17,000 mph constantly. I'm sure they close the thick exterior shutter covers when the windows aren't being used.
imagine being in space looking the earth throw an EVF. ...back home, your friends and family ask you, how was that trip? -very well! i looked the earth throw a monitor.
By regular photography equipment he meant that you could buy it from any dedicated store. Some years ago, NASA used modified cameras "designed to be used in outer space" (because they didn't know if the cameras would survive or not, you know, you can't get a new replacement until you get back or someone sends a backup up there)
Probably Sony mirrorless cameras won't even survive the take off shakeup!! I am 100% sure he's smarter than you and your family combined. So I trust his decision.
It's always sad when people don't get dry humor. They end up correcting the deadpan by saying the same thing in a litteral way.
Here: "Idiot NASA astronauts, still using such outdated technology" is deadpan joke. It refers to the idea that DSLR would be outdated, so the people using them would be stupid. But we know that NASA has top scientists, top money, top gear, so the above statement is obviously false and a joke. Get it ?
If you don't get it, watch the movie Borat. People attacking Max Iso you will understand that you are very clever. Not.
I don't disagree with that statement at all. I just doubt they are worried about shooting 40 something MP vs 18 MP because of memory storage concerns. i imagine that the ISS has several means to transfer data efficiently and quickly back to earth. The data collected there (you know the important scientific data) needs to be preserved as well as made available to other scientists here.
As for their choice of cameras. I am sure they know what they are getting. These guys are involved with designing tools to observe and explore space after all. But either sponsored or paid, to me is just kind of makes sense that they would go for a top of the line flagship model. it ain't like they would be cheap about their purchase. Having a build in grip is also something that might have been part of the choice (less parts to deal with), slightly more compact than a D810 with grip perhaps? In fact they probably had a proposal for camera and why a particular one should be chosen. At least that is how it is done in the engineering firms I have worked for.
Nikon used to manufacture scopes and sights for Imperial Japanese Military. They have the good stuff. I am just not sure they are selling it in customer packages. Nobody knows if NASA are getting custom-made ones.
Sometimes the cameras that are sent up have minor changes compared to the stock cameras. Usually, this is because of the outgassing of some lubricant that has to be changed to support the environmental situation on the station.
This is probably the cheapest, simplest, most easily understood and mastered equipment that the astronauts use. Yet here we are grinding away on a website devoted to the selection, purchase and use of same.
Software and operating system reliability testing for mission critical systems is so time consuming that they just have to pick a system and stick with it all the way, instead of starting from zero every time an update is published. Mars probes still use 286 Intel processors, over 20 years old, because they WORK, and speed is not the main requirement.
Not sure how "extreme" the environmental conditions are. No gravity, purified air, controlled temperature. The only thing really extreme about it is that getting a replacement is quite a long process. Nearest repair center about 10 miles away - straight down.
Some of these cameras (not the ones shown, but other SLRs) are used on EVAs - total vacuum, and multi-hundred degree temperature swings twice every 90 minutes.
I personally find the Canon, Nikon, Sony war to be stupid. People have preferences for which camera maker they use. When you look at photos, its hard to tell which camera took it.
Most people can't tell the difference nor can they tell exactly which camera took the photo without looking at the EXIF data. So really which camera took the shoot is kind of moot point. While its nice Nikon is talked about here, little known is that Canon has some cameras up there taking photos and 4K video as well.
"Some very sensitive people here at DPREVIEW. Chillax, already. For the vast majority of us, these are just rich boy toys, nothing more. Certainly nothing to get worked up about." - gibbygoo
@ gibbygoo. Maybe the nightmare would be for those that would hire you. With an ego & attitude like that you would be last person I would consider hiring.
@gibbygoo (again). That is exactly the sought of nightmare it would be for a wedding couple hiring a photographer with your sought of arrogance. Nobody needs that! A good pro photographer has understanding as well as talent (something I wonder if you have) & while taking great photos is also accommodating of others that would like to get a nice snapshot too, although there are those that are pathetically selfish & will push in front of anybody to get their phone shot & too bad about anybody else. There is such a thing a etiquette & it also applies to professional photographers too. I hope I never have to meet you, unless you have a change of attitude over your self importance.
The U.K. Military use Nikon pretty much exclusively. Not because they have to, but because they've rigirously tested and decided they are best for the job.
Nowadays storage is so cheap I'm sure 36mp would be fine. If some of us can handle 50mp with a good laptop and an external drive I'm sure the ISS can. I'm sure NASA could get a few Western Digital passports up there. This is definitely a case where the resolution would be nice.
It's 2016, I'm guessing they have a D4 just because someone told them it was the best (most expensive) camera.
Reliability over fancy... And about storage. ISS isn't that far away. I am certain they can and do transmit their data. You guys don't really think they basically wait for someone to bring the Harddrives down do you? Heck they probably have a scheduled backup system in place to make sure there is no loss or minimal loss in case something goes wrong up there.
This is the misconception, megapixels aren't everything so having the most isn't necessarily the best thing. It all comes down to your needs. Where do these photos go... on a billboard? Highly doubt it so there is no need for 36 mp or above.
wri7913 you say that, but who wouldn't want to download a picture off their flickr and zoom in that bit further on the Atlas Mountains. I can hardly think of a case where I would rather have more megapixels to be honest. The amount of interest to be had in tiny geographical details is immense.
Honestly I almost want to donate NASA a higher MP camera.
They might not be printing billboards but higher resolutions overall makes images look much more stunning. Especially now with more 4k screens and 5k iMacs
What I was more getting at was what FodgeandDurn was saying, why do they need the most expensive camera designed for fast action? The Earth and most things in space do not move very fast, relative to the photographer. My main point was that I'm not seeing how this camera is a good fit with their needs.
And on data storage, if they can beam hi-res video from Mars they sure as hell have the capacity for a few 30-50mp stills from the ISS. It already has a 24/7 live stream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
Hmm, and what would you suggest they do with the money. Space exploration and understanding the universe is key to the survival of the Human race.
The human population is going to just keep growing and growing and use more and more resource and no matter how green we live, we will reach a limit where the planet can't handle, 20 billion? 30 Billion?40 Billion? Unless you dictate who can breed and who can't. It's not going to solve this problem. I wrote this ages ago.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime; When there are too many fisherman, find a new pond.
And NASA might be the people who ultimately save humanity, we can't stay on Earth forever, our destiny lies in the stars. Just think of the photo opportunities there!
Yep, and without all that 'wasted money' used to advance knowledge and technology, you wouldn't have all the tools available to you to post your comment, make phone calls to loved ones, save lives with modern medicine, take photos etc, etc... Of course I'm sure you are not hypocritical enough to use any of that technology yourself... Oh wait, I get it-only when it suits you.
Insane. Every problem on the beautiful planet we're fast destroying is a consequence of an epidemic of human over-population. Yet this never comes up in discussion of potential solutions.
Move to Mars? Utterly, profoundly, quite literally, insane.
Of course the reason no-one wants to discuss the population growth problem (which is relatively easy to solve compared to all the other possible "solutions") is that the current ruling economic model requires ever-increasing numbers of consumers. This will only be realised once it's too late. And it's almost too late now.
It's not just the the acquisition of knowledge that is crucial to humanity, but also fostering a humanity that believes in the continual quest for knowledge. Organizations like NASA play an important role in both.
so what you'll are telling is NASA research has contributed to all the things we have, they also helped cure all the disease and solve poverty issues... Come on, there so many people dying due to sickness, lack of food, access to good drinking water etc. Why not spend the money for these.
Because NASAs budget wouldn't even make a dent in those issues. To solve all of the issues that initiatives like the Millennium Development Goals and now Sustainable Development Goals focus on would cost TRILLIONS a year.
3. We are the only species not governed entirely by nature's checks, i.e we are trashing our own ecosystem, will this change just because we spread among the stars or will we be interplanetary bogeymen, locusting through the universe?
I'm all for robotic exploration of space before solving all of Earth's problems because the latter isn't going to happen.
"NASA sucks, they always waste alot of money and resources. Take all that money for better things to do here in our the planet."
The computer you are typing from and the phone you use to text your girlfriend/boyfriend all benefited from technology that was developed during the space programs...
Hmmm... more money is spent on block buster movies than what nasa spends.
Even worse if you add all of the military budget of the most powerful countries on the planet... it would make the NASA budget look like peanuts. However, you know how it will go. You pool it all together, some good gets done, but 1-2 generations later if not sooner someone will corrupt the system.
NASA also spends their budget on more than just space exploration. They also study the planet, and they also collaborate with outer institutions and space agencies around the world on their projects. So it isn't only US money that goes into these projects.
Good point as the switch is in "Active" position (middle switch next to the white dot) ???? Perhaps somebody should call them and say they are using the wrong settings...I believe somebody in Nikon said 'I'd gladly go up there and report it back to R&D how our cameras/lenses work in 0-g environment '. I know I would.
It's telling that DPR regular Christopher Michel corresponded about this piece while en route to Antarctica. He considers freelance photography his third career, one that has taken him to the proverbial ends of the earth and beyond. From a U-2 spy plane to the North Pole, he's searched all over for stories and images that inspire. See some of his work here and find out more about him in our Q&A. Read more
With nearly thirty years of photography as well as almost ninety countries under his belt, travel, editorial and reportage photographer Mark Edward Harris has dedicated his eye to capturing life. His career in photography began as a still shooter for the Merv Griffin Show, but it was a four month trek through Asia when the show ended that first ignited his true love; travel photography. Read more about Harris' photography as well as his tips on traveling light in our Q+A. See gallery
This week camera manufacturers released a number of new firmware versions. Today Sony released the previously announced Sony Alpha 7/7R update that promises faster start-up speeds, improved image quality and better AF support. There are also updates for a host of other Sony NEX cameras. Meanwhile, Nikon and Canon released updates to the D4 and EOS 6D, respectively. Learn more
We're at the (currently very snowy) CP+ show in Japan and we've been checking out the Nikon stand, getting a feel for the latest products and exploring the various demonstrations. Click through for a look at what we found. trust us - it's worth it just for the scale model of Yokohama...
As we're racing to complete our full review of the Nikon Df, we've added the Nikon D4 and Canon EOS 6D to our studio comparison tool. The studio test scene shows image quality for both JPEG and Raw files. It offers downloadable Raw samples and is designed to simulate real-world daylight and low-light shooting. As always, you can compare the D4 and EOS 6D to a number of other cameras, including the Df. See test scene
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
Comments