From: RichA on
On Jun 15, 4:59 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <m4td16lmsrlibrngmbiokaj2n5ghrig...(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe
> says...
>
> > Why should it matter to any of us what equipment NASA uses?
>
> Perhaps NASA only chooses the very best cameras?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site

They go for reliability when they can. Which is why (apparently)
there were still using 486 processors up until a short while ago,
because they knew them inside and out.
Besides, with the problems Canon has had, would you risk it when it
costs $50k to put 1kilo into orbit and you might not come back with
any usable shots?
From: LOL! on
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 15, 4:59�am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <m4td16lmsrlibrngmbiokaj2n5ghrig...(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe
>> says...
>>
>> > Why should it matter to any of us what equipment NASA uses?
>>
>> Perhaps NASA only chooses the very best cameras?
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site
>
>They go for reliability when they can. Which is why (apparently)
>there were still using 486 processors up until a short while ago,
>because they knew them inside and out.
>Besides, with the problems Canon has had, would you risk it when it
>costs $50k to put 1kilo into orbit and you might not come back with
>any usable shots?

You mean just like those that depend on automatic phase-focusing methods?

LOL!

From: Rich on
On Jun 15, 3:31 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> RichA  <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1006/10061402nikoniss.asp
>
> Odd.  I didn't know that the "Russian segment of the
> International Space Station" was NASA.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer        
> rfisc...(a)sonic.net  

Americans paid for most of it. The ISS was created to act as a make-
work project for out of work Russian nuclear scientists to keep them
from building nukes for Arab countries. $180 billion down the
drain....
From: Rich on
On Jun 15, 9:50 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jun 15, 4:59 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article <m4td16lmsrlibrngmbiokaj2n5ghrig...(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe
> >> says...
>
> >> > Why should it matter to any of us what equipment NASA uses?
>
> >> Perhaps NASA only chooses the very best cameras?
> >> --
>
> >> Alfred Molon
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photosharing site
>
> >They go for reliability when they can.  Which is why (apparently)
> >there were still using 486 processors up until a short while ago,
> >because they knew them inside and out.
> >Besides, with the problems Canon has had, would you risk it when it
> >costs $50k to put 1kilo into orbit and you might not come back with
> >any usable shots?
>
> You mean just like those that depend on automatic phase-focusing methods?
>
> LOL!

Contrasts tend to be high on objects in space. They won't be taking
P&S's.
From: Ray Fischer on
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <m4td16lmsrlibrngmbiokaj2n5ghrig50b(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe
>says...
>> Why should it matter to any of us what equipment NASA uses?
>
>Perhaps NASA only chooses the very best cameras?

It wasn't NASA. It was Russia.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net