The pride of my collection (or likely anyone's for that matter) has arrived...

[onevision1]

<p>Oh, and regarding the price I paid? Sadly no, I didn't pay $2700 for it.<br />The 'cost' listed on the stickers on the camera and the lens I suspect were the inventory costs to NASA for the equipment. Whether that is what they paid Nikon for them or that was a 'depreciated current value' for reporting purposes when the stickers were applied, well thats unknown.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Congratulations on your find. I looked up those shuttle missions; what they were doing out there, probably with your camera around, in use for something, was truly amazing. </p>

[stp]

<p>So I presume they used the flash when they were on the dark side of the earth and couldn't quite see the area they were traveling over.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Very interesting -- you must have been looking for this gem for quite a while!<br>

Do you know how the lens exactly differs from a regular 35/1.4 apart from the appearance? My guess would be slightly different mechanics, but the overall form factor looks very similar to the regular one, so I would be a bit surprised if the differences are more than just handling and maybe some special grease.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>Thanks for sharing with us Timm. That's what I call a fine work of craftsmanship from Nikon.</p>

[onevision1]

<p>Oskar - no I don't know exactly exactly what all the lens differences are. Maybe something with the coatings? Likely the lubricant. I don't know the element makeup of this guy. The minimum focussing distance is about 6 inches. According to the Roland's Nikon Lens list, the consumer model is .3m or aboiut 1 foot, so this one can focus closer and man is it sharp. Don't know how the lens performs on the edges at 1.4 in comparison to the consumer model.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>Congrats! *drool*</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>I'm drooling too. I appreciate the nice pictures of the special camera.</p>

<p><em>I'm surprised the viewfinder illuminator button was not eliminated or oversized as I would believe it would have been very hard to get to with those giant gloves.</em></p>

<p>On my regular F3HP, the finder light is hard to use without gloves. I'd guess it would be impossible with gloves. But it's pretty much useless anyway, especially in brightly lit situations. If you look at the checklists taped to the camera, they indicate standard settings, and when using those settings, there would rarely be a reason to view the exposure info in the finder at all.</p>

<p>What surprises me is that they use the standard finder for EVA use. I'd think they'd want to use the DA-2 action finder (or a special NASA variant), as it's more suited to use with a helmet.</p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>Richard, interesting point on the viewfinder and use with a helmet. I would have thought it impossible to look through the viewfinder through an EVA helmet. What would be cool Timm, is if you can find some actual photos taken with that camera on those missions .<br>

So what cameras do they use now in space ?</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>Great find! Have you taken any pictures with it?</p>

[onevision1]

<p>Andrew - looks like NASA currently has a bunch of D2XS models recording events<br>

<a href="http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16317/nikon-photography-gear/">http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16317/nikon-photography-gear/</a><br>

However I understand NASA placed and order for the D3S bodies late last year. As it seems like there can be a multi year lag after delivery before one will be trusted to go to space, they likely won't be up there this year.<br>

John - I've tested the shutter, but no, I haven't run film through it. It was designed for thin film so I wouldn't want to take a chance in harming the mechanics by sending regular emulsion film thru it. This isnt a user camera by any stretch</p>

<p> </p>

[andrew_fedon]

<p>Interesting Timm, but the D3s seems to be the more appropriate camera I suppose. On the subject of special lubricants, incase anyone doesn't realise HOW cold it is out there, I believe it is in the order of -273* C. That is VERY cold.</p>

[onevision1]

<p>All EVA cameras I believe, left the spacecraft wrapped in a white thermal cover. I unfortunately didn't get one for mine... :(</p>

[yuri_sopko]

<p>The part named "Bendix" is a connector cap to protect the pins inside the cannon plug. The "ground wire" is not a ground wire but a strap to prevent the cap from getting lost (...in space!!!). If you were to press in and turn it will pop off and then you can see the connector. And, if there is a similar connector on the consumer version in/around the same place then I'll bet that they share the same function. </p>

[jason_ganz]

<p>how does it work! does it fire, and if so, how do the pictures come out?</p>

[onevision1]

<p><strong>Yes, with the battery pack in place, it fires strong, operating like a regular camera. I won't be running any film through it since this was modified for use with 'thin' film that Kodak specifically manufactured for NASA. Putting regular emulsion thickness thru it might jam something. This is a museum piece and as such, it should not be used.</strong></p>

[jeff_morgan1]

I have one little tidbit, second hand, to contribute. When I was in collage 24 years ago on of my instructors previous job was at NASA Ames in charge of coatings and out gassing of equipment. I think he did work on the camera program. That would explain the color differences on your exquisite piece. They had a limited color pallet of coatings that worked and did not out gas. I'm sure the main body surface has a different "feel" compared to the consumer version.

 

Congratulations.

[onevision1]

<p>OK folks, I have cobbled together a white paper of sorts from all of the information I have collected thus far on the F3 small camera in the space program.<br>

Many people contributed to the information on this page so I hope you will find it an interesting read.<br>

<a href="http://www.onevisionphoto.com/nasa.htm">http://www.onevisionphoto.com/nasa.htm</a></p>