Would a regular Digital/SLR camera work in space or on the moon?

If so, why dont they take some pictures using those?

If not "for technical issues"... what would some of those issues be?


I have seen some crazy things in some of the detailed pictures that my camera has picked up before (extreme detail).

Why are the pictures they always send back so blurry and not very detailed?

Dont get me wrong, I've seen some VERY detailed pictures of the moon, but it always seems like they are "re-touched" or almost photoshopped at least. Do you know what I mean? Like TOO perfect.


I mean, if they're trying to find hidden "bases" on the moon or whatever... why dont they just take a nightvision HD camera up there... haha



I also might not know what I'm talking about, so I was just wondering what you guys thought?

Yes, they would work, and I know for a fact that the crew of the ISS always carry at least one DSLR with them. There are some stunning photos available if you do a little bit of searching.

I believe they have a special sealed housing so that the camera can be used outside the ISS, otherwise some components in the DSLR would explode when exposed to the vacuum of space.

In terms of photographing the lunar surface, that job is usually done by automated probes using specialized cameras, which now adays would probably do a much better job than an ordinary DSLR. We may not always necessarily get to see the full resolution images though...

Apollo moon missions were equipped with versions of he Hasselblad 2.25( 6cmx6cm "120" film size) film cameras .These have far better quality than any 35mm or digital camera. You see fuzzy shots because that's what ct folks use to "prove" their conspiracy findings,. I have never seen one clear image from hoagland; et al, showing exactly what they claim. Mostly highly-pixelated digitally zoomed images by "civilian "researchers" seeing things in camera artefacts. Published Apollo landing images are sharp and crisp..

Weren't the great majority - if not all - of the space and moon photos shot with the large format Hasselblad?

It wasn't as large as some of the old time view camera's, but larger than 35mm.


If you want to see some fairly high resolution photos from times past, take a look at some of Ansel Adams work in B&W.
View camera's use a very large film format which means you can enlarge quite a bit more than you can even with a high quality 35mm without hitting the 'overly grainy' barrier.

I read some old posts here some time ago about the Apollo missions and also reviewed some of the photos taken on the Moon and in space using very expensive Hasselblad cameras of the 1960-70's tech. I am a bit confused aswell, a majority of the photos from the moon surface were very bad quaility and even blurred out. How could that be ?

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Weren't the great majority - if not all - of the space and moon photos shot with the large format Hasselblad?

Very true... those hassies were left behind on the moon (minus film of course) and are probably still there providing they have not been obliterated by meteorites