>good enough for a once in a lifetime mission in space>hhhmm no thanks, I don't like its colors, my trees and pigeon snapshots need some better gear
>no need for autofocus>no need for low light performanceI mean, good for Nikon and their piece of shit cameras LMAO
>he mad his camera never been in space ngmi
>>4503341why not assmyballs this time ?
>>4503346What camera bodies do you use?
>>4503341Any camera with a metal chassis would work in space, who cares. Even the Hasselblads worked as is, they were only modified for ergonomics and weight.
>>4503355>Nikon-chad goes to a party with his gf>the other brands weren't invited>"b-but anyone can have a party we didn't want to go anyway"nerds
>>4503341when I was a teenager I really thought this style of """covert""" advertising was pointless and that nobody would give a shit about what watch this F1 pilot is using or what fucking camera this astronaut prefers, turns out /p/ is the type of low IQ targets
>>4503358What camera bodies do you use?
>>4503361RB67 why ?
>>4503362I like to ask for reasons, thank you for being one of the few honest people and answering
>>4503358you're here on /p/ too, you feggit
>>4503361This is that pot smoking corgi snaller coping because he spent 20k on niggon >>4503345>>4503341The Z9 and Z8 had multiple recalls and jared polin went out of his way to show that they have worse autofocus than the canon r8 of all cameras and worse IQ than most other cameras until ISO 400. Like I just wouldnt fucking buy one. Not because I need more but because I need exactly as much but wont be paying $3k+ for a piss poor implementation of what I need. That is a lot of fucking money for the exact same autofocus as a cheaper canon or worse IQ than everything else because nikon is retarded. Even a sony is a better choice than a nikon. Their manufacturing quality is also ass. Top screens fail early, EVFs come canted or work loose, rubber swells and peels off… made in thailand QUARITYI once A:Bd a nikon Zf and sony a7c OG (not the a7cii). The a7c had better autofocus and was only one stop behind in stabilization. I disregarded both and bought a canon because both struggled with white balance in the camera store. Space snaps arent super demanding for quality or crutches (they used entombed hasselblads last time) but they definitely had to have japanese staff, not nikons usual thai ladyboy slaves, go through and rebuild these cameras for the rigors of the mission.
>>4503341>america picks equipment that slowly falls apart for a space missionbad juju
>>4503368> disregarded both and bought a canon because both struggled with white balance in the camera store.And just like that, Canon wins again.
>>4503341test testfuck Nikon
>>4503368wow i googled for what you mentioned and nikons literally randomly fall aparthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a19yV3M14PAhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/1q8g1nh/z6ii_viewfinder_outer_glass_has_come_loose_and/Facebook: /groups/249684172560325/posts/2040895436772514/https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/evf-glass-dislodged-on-z6.4620483/
>>4503378You do know that you can find topics like this about pretty much any camera, right?
>>4503369I see nothing wrong with this pic
>>4503368What camera bodies do you use?
>>4503383Yeah but how else would they confirm their priors? Anecdote is the plural of data remember
>>4503368They’re improving but they basically admitted how bad they sucked. 17x more accurate and 3.5x faster but:This lens performs EXACTLY like its contemporaries from sony and canon. And its predecessor performed exactly like every other Z lens!Meaning nikons first wave of AF lenses are on average absolute junk and they indirectly admitted itIt may be that the body tech wasnt as bad as everyone thought and nikon actually failed at something so basic canon mastered it in 2006.
>>4503387the grip rubber in front of the memory card door is peeling offevery nikon has been prone to this ever since they started making cameras in trannyland
>>4503390>marketing is facts nowNow do the same for other brands, I'll start you out
>>4503391it won't peel off completely, it's like having patina on your classic car
>>4503391580k shots, rubber door is fineInteresting
>>4503394https://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447Surprised how many anecdotes there are from googling "canon R3 rubber peeling"
>>4503392>nikon needed to improve by 17x and 3.5x (slightly faster motor, never accurate)>sony only had to improve by 30% and up to 4xLol>>4503394It was never really used in the elements. It just sat on a tripod. Most high shutter count cameras are used in studios or machine gunned at indoor events. >>4503395>one article about a bad r5Oh no! Who cares
>>4503398>Nikon onlyThat's because Nikon was better to start with, duh! Too bad it's kind of a useless marketing metric to begin with.>you see, the used camera wasn't actually usedHoly cope>I'm too lazy too Google about canon failures because I know it diagrees with my priorsNice
>>4503399>nikon was betterWe all know that’s not trueNikon’s starting point: 17x less accurateSony’s starting point: 0.3x less accurate
>>4503341>2026>still can't display overexposure in previewno thanks.
>>4503404wut? Even my D3400 can do that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3kR2KK8TEsbros we're in space
>>4503408PREview, as in what you see in the EVF before you take the photo.Nikon has zebras in video mode, but not allowed in still photo, which is retarded.
The Nikan’t Z9s aps-c tier image quality just took a shit on human historyHybridfags, you did this>SCREW THE NOISE AND DYNAMIC RANGE, *GAG* PIXEL PEEPER>WHAT MATTERS IS UH COMPOSITION. AND READOUT SPEED IN VIDEO MODE OF COURSE!Bros… they should have brought a hasselblad again
>>4503418Flat earth tards are already accusing them of adding fake camera noise to disguise AI tellsDont say you weren’t warned, mirrorlets
>>4503341>W-w-w-well atchshully it doesn't matter that all my photos have a piss green cast over them and RAWs come out pre-rockwell'd... b-b-because some zogbot government uses them for heckin space missions!!!Nikon is genuinely the most reddit brand confirmed. They're the fedora of cameras.
>>4503418Keep in mind this is a shot of the earth at night. All the light is from the full moon.This shot would have been completely impossible with a film hasselblad.
NASA shillbots have invaded /p. Gotta keep the cattle believing in space travel, evolution and star wars.
>>4503404>taking a picture and using image review to see blinkies is too hard for me>using a custom profile that does effectively show blinkies is too hard for me>knowing how to set exposure without highlight blinkies is too hard for meSad, at least we know the astronauts aren't that photographically handicapped that it's an actual issue
>>4503425And half as noisy on a sony, or lesser nikon, because the z8 z9 and z6iii had their IQ crippled for video faggotryAnd way way way WAY less noisy on a modern 53x40mm hasselblad DSLR
>>4503427>astroturfing anti-space travel as the norm>accuse others of shillingI had a feeling this event would rattle the schizos again.
>>4503427Creationism is descended from humans and humans only being bioengineered by aliens larping as gods. Life in general did evolve. Just not us. We were created and recreated following engineered cataclysms, as part of an attempt to recreate a prior species that lived on mars and died out in an interplanetary nuclear war between the martians and the original mollusc-like civilization on earth (they used primarily organic technology and were wiped out by a genetic contagion that devolved them after they built nukes on the moon and launched them at mars). They have since been succeeded by saurans and humans. The earth is round, space is real, and jesus was an android repaired and reanimated with remote power. The lacerta files were controlled disclosure. I am a former CIA agent. Trust this or don’t.
>>4503433
>>4503428May as well go back to OVF if you are not going to use the benefits of an EVF.
>>4503341>Nikon in space>Sony in indiaSnoy sisters....
It’s mostly a marketing stunt. They go for the lowest bid and hand pick and modify some units because the brand perception gains and sales boosts are worth more than however little money they lose providing a small space program with cameras and tech support. Actual mass market nikon gear is 0% qualified to go into space.
>>4503441>I don't understand it but it looks janky to my eyesThe LEM was wrapped in (essentially) mylar, aluminum, and thermal blankets to keep the internals stable against both radiative cooling and the constant heating of the sun
Canoniggers... I don't feel so good.
>>4503347But I have a Hasselblad V
>Nikon D5, @22mm, 1/4s, 51200 ISOsorry but it looks like shit, couldn't they wait for day?
>>4503469I think that "taking an image of earth" came up on their little american tally list and they are only allowed to follow the list because they can't think for themselves. God forbid taking a single image in good lighting condition, taking like 10s off their time, the list says we clog toilet so we clog toilet!
>>4503469>sorry but it looks like shit, couldn't they wait for day?They're flying to the Moon, you idiot.
Ugh... I am forgotten.
>>4503452Sure buddy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>4503479It wasn't real >Radiation (such as X-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays) exposes photographic film similarly to light, causing it to darken, fog, and lose contrast. It acts on silver halide crystals, creating a latent image that appears as graininess, streaks, or a washed-out, ruined image when developed, appearing as "background noise" or total blackness
>>4503483Several days in space has much less effect on film than an airport baggage scan. Apollo proved that cosmic rays don't exist since we can't see their impacts on the black part of their photos.
>>4503480>seething like a cartoon villain who's been foiled again
>>4503469I like the bottom o e coz you can see aurora in n and s poles
>>4503418>>4503425These are two seperate images, taken on a Nikon D5.Are you just too lazy to figure that out yourselves?https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55185633398/in/album-72177720307234654/&https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/55185622941/in/album-72177720307234654/
>>4503493Yeah they're two separate shots with different settings but they were taken at roughly the same time. My point was that it's a shot of the earth at night.
I hpe they land on the moon for real this time so that the Apollo hoax is inadvertently exposed after the inevitable AI glitch masking oversight happens
>>4503428>>taking a picture and using image review to see blinkies is too hard for methat's the experience on my dad's 2005 digicam.I prefer to have modern conveniences though.>>using a custom profile that does effectively show blinkies is too hard for mejust record the blinkies on all your jpegs!>>knowing how to set exposure without highlight blinkies is too hard for meYou only shoot RAW so getting highlights correct isn't important. You wouldn't use a RAW editor that can't show you clipping before export, while saying it's a "skill issue" to want clipping warnings in-camera.
Guide me a bit here anons. I've been eyeballing cameras for about six months now. Originally was thinking R5 for cropping, but I think I can start smaller for now and trade up later if needed. Save some money for now. Use is mainly going to be hiking and shooting, animals, landscapes, nature. First trip will be key west next month and I want to document it right
>>4503505>I'm a jpg shooterOh, makes sense then
Mission control just told them what lense they should use on their D5s and Z9It seems like they have code numbers for each lenseIt was like 7 minutes ago, you can check ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-j1uxBmis0
>>4503842>
>>4503842
>>4503842oh wait it was the other way around: the crew told Houston what lenses they'll use
>>4503469>>4503493>D5What the fuckWhat an insane waste of weight
>>4503504Go back to shitting up /pol/, germ faggot https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/531790159/#531839024
>>4503880damn, better send nasa an email to let them know
Nasa have used Nikon cameras for decades because they need quality glass and realistic colours. I mean Canon try their best, and lets not kick them while theyre down, but, you know, they tried and they failed. They can always go back to making barely functional overpriced printers.
>>4503880D5 been used extensively on ISS, basicly a tool that garentee works while they test Z9's viability in space. Better than taking a bunch of new/untested camera up and find out it does work in space.
>>4503884Holy shit, that explains his persistence in being wrong all the time lmao. Wrong side of history, wrong side of /p/. Sad!
>>4503884>>4503889That's not my post and I never claimed it was AI back then, just faked.BTW I'm vindicated by NASA itself, so much for the Apollo 8 seeing the far side of the Moon allegations.Enjoy your fake soundstage shit, muttoids.
>>4503896>first to see the far side with human eyestheyre not wrong. only unclean animal went there before. pigskin timmies
>>4503899Xiaomi snapshitter hands typed this post
>>4503899>t. jamboy extraordinaire
>>4503896They ment seeing the far side in its entierty. Apollo program have such a low lunar orbit they never get the complete view of it.
>>4503904Cope
Can a /p/ expert explain why we dont see a single star in any of these scenes?
>>4504020exposure differencesame reason you don't see stars in the daytimesame reason astrophotography with a moon in the frame often has it show as bright white
>All of the images from the mission are going to be digital snapshits
>>4504030and they don't even have blinkies to get the exposure right!
>>4503888>>4503469If there is ONE thing a fucking space research institution should take seriously, it's fucking optics!Sending a D5 is like programming the rocket on a floppy disc. How can anyone take these clowns seriously?
>>4504020Dynamic range
>>4504036They have Hubble, James Webb, LRO, and plenty of other resources for actual research. The Z9 photos should be better but the real compromise is the 80-400, not having some kind of mount, and the windows. For photography purposes, the kit they brought was pretty mediocre. Hopefully they have something better for Artemis IV.
>>4504020Official reason? Dynamic range. It's admittedly plausible. Real reason? It's done in a soundstage and they don't put stars in the dark background because there's so many in space they couldn't possibly get them all right simultaneously and some autist with a telescope could possibly deboonk them. The dynamic range explanation would be technically correct if it were an actual celestial body so there's plausible deniability thanks to that.
>>4503345Why couldn't it be a dog doing this ;_;
>>4503439Love the blatant schizoposting (perhaps schizobait even). Don't know anything about camera, just love reading posts like this. Also, what the fuck is this new captcha I've failed it 15 times
>>4504053Why?
>>4504059It would make me happy c:
>>4504060If you like dogs and Nikon then you need this Nikon FM2/T Year of the Dog
I will never understand the Nikon hate. Its always been the choice of professionals. Get over it.
>>4504065Basedo When I think Canon I think of proles, when I think Sony I think of nerds, and when I think Nikon it's the guys like pic rel
>>4504049It's only the first ever shot of the far side of the moon, who gives a shit right?I don't understand why they didn't just snapshit it with their phones instead.
>>4504093>It's only the first ever shot of the far side of the moonit isn't you newfag. Soviets did it in the 1950s and 60s with Luna and Zond, the US did it on several missions in the 60s on medium format film and prime lenses without the compromises using a zoom lens through capsule windows. There's LRO and other imagery from other agencies. They probably got plenty of snapshits with their iPhones as well which I think would be cooler since video would give a more immersive view of how close they were. When SpaceX takes over, imaging quality will probably be way better since they will have a lot more room.
>>4504065>Its always been the choice of professionals.Your experience with professionals must be very limited if you think that's a good thing.
>>4503418>>4503493>>4503425Y'all are retarded. These pics were taken with iphones. They haven't transmitted any of the Nikon images back to earth yet
>>4504124this, you can see the far side of the moon on google earth from many years back
>>4503341Art who?I don't get it...Some old jew likes some camera? big whoop...
>>4504150if you can send iphone files what's stopping you from sending files from Nikon?Did you know Nikon has SnapBridge?
>>4504191just think about it: someone actually saw it with his own eyes, this object is real, someone took a picture of it, it is just as real and normal as a seeing a sparrow
Thoughts on Solarigraphy?
>>4504192It looks simultaneously real and fake, like 2001.
>>4504065Nikon is the best option for hobbyists because they have the best colors out of the box. Sony's image quality is objectively the best, you just need to shell out extra for Cobalt presets to get rid of the vomit-inducing colors
>>4504065I'll just keep using Minolta like my hero John Glenn.
Project Hail Mary (he's literally me)
Should've taken the newest Hasselblad.Basically a night vision device with 100mpx HDR.
>>4504065nikon is still the most common camera in laboratories, which is probably why it gets the nasa nod
Nikon is okay.
>>4503439>>4503427space deniers are manufactured posts created by ZOG and the CIA in order to muddy the waters and cast all "conspiracy theorists" as retarded schizos in the minds of the cattle so they don't question anything when in reality most common "conspiracy theories" are in fact completely true and perhaps even worse than people believe
>>4504940>Sony Pictures Releasing International>Nikon
