NASA shuns Canon again
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: PM335 pendants in rhodium-plated alloy, with five patterns, 10pcs wholesalePM335 of wholesale beads
Next: Without a doubt one of the palest "Pterourus glaucus" I've ever seen...
From: RichA on 15 Jun 2010 21:47 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 15 Jun 2010 21:50 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 15 Jun 2010 22:15 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 15 Jun 2010 22:16 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 16 Jun 2010 02:34
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 |