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

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >
> > 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 ...

Cite, please.


> > 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.

But I'm also a Nikon owner **too**, so I have no reason to be
apologetic based on brands.



> >>> ... 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. =A0This requires near-complete disassembly
down
> > to the individual components level, replacement of all the seals, etc.
>
> Yep! =A0And you can field strip a D2x in 12 minutes and do a lube job.

Field stripping only gets the "User Serviceable" stuff, which is not
100%.  Might be good enough for you, but as per the above
Solicitation, its not good enough for NASA.

And you still also haven't provided any citations of what ruggedness
tests yet either.

I'll be passing through Maryland tomorrow...where do you want to meet
to have your D3 picked up to be drop-tested at Aberdeen to prove that
its as rugged as you claim?

-hh