Re: The D3 Is Indestructible! Don't Try This At Home!

-hh wrote:

>> Nonsense! I'm just pointing out the facts.
>
> And the facts are also that none of the readers here have ever been in
> outer space, and that none of are are likely to do so within the next
> 25 years.  As such, your "truthful" statement has no relevance.

More asinine assumptions on your part.  There might be a few people in
here
that have enough coin to have the Russians take them to the Space Station.

>>> In terms of ruggedness claims, NASA has also flown Kodak DSC460
>>> dSLRs too, which used the notoriously expensive and fragile PCMCIA
>>> type III disk drive for storage. Thus, Rita is claiming that a D3
>>> is at least as rugged as a DSC460...gosh, how impressive.
>>
>> Now there's a slice of bull****! PCMCIA type III HDs were more
>> durable than you want to believe. True, they had glass platters, but
>> that didn't make them any more fragile than their aluminum alloy
>> counterparts.
>
> How about versus solid-state memory being used today?

It's great, but it wasn't a viable option for that era.  Any "solid state"
memory at that time would probably be as large as a two gallon bucket. 
Sure
twenty years from now they will be laughing at us fools carrying around a
pocket full of 32GB CF cards.

>> I never made the claim that the D3 is anywhere near the ruggedness
>> of the DCS460.
>
> Your claim was that "if its good enough..." includes Kodaks with wee
> spinning little glass disks, which are clearly less robust than
> contem****ary solid state.

Sure, NASA did the tests and if they were happy with glass platters that's
good enough for me.  Again, they would be better off with dilithium
crystals, but Captain Kirk wasn't born yet.

>> I'm sorry if it bothers you that Canon isn't rugged enough
>> to leave the earth's atmosphere.
>
> Actually, I'm happy that neither company (Canon or Nikon) is wasting
> their time (& my money) on "gold-plated" overbuilding for a capability
> that I do not need.

You sound just like the typical Canon shooter being content with second
best.

>>> And the irony is that if NASA were to shoot Rita into space tomorrow
>>> (tempting for all of us, I know), they wouldn't allow Rita onboard
>>> with their personal Nikon dSLR (or Canon either) equipment, even if
>>> it was the same brand/model as what NASA was flying themselves.
>>> Reason is that off-the-shelf commercial gear isn't built to NASA
>>> standards and requires modifications (Cite: NASA Solicitation #
>>> NNJ07210375Q).
>>
>> That's just it; the only modification the D3 would require for space
>> travel is an "E" type screen with gridlines.
>
> Only if you ignore the NASA requirement for the body & lenses needing
> to be cleaned of all Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) lubes and
> replaced with Braycoat.  This requires near-complete disassembly down
> to the individual components level, replacement of all the seals, etc.

Yep!  And you can field strip a D2x in 12 minutes and do a lube job.  The
Canon might be disassembled but it aint going back together easily.

> The citation was already provided, above.
>
> Do you have any more announcements of your ignorance that you wish to
> share with us today, Rita?

Absolutely!  Keep spurting your uneducated bull**** and all keep blowing
it
out of the water.





Rita