The111 0 #1 April 18, 2005 I'm looking to start flying cameras and am doing my research on equipment and helmets. I've noticed the FTP-type helmets (large, full face, with a huge mounting surface on top) referred to as "professional" (and usually quite a bit more expensive). What actually makes a helmet like this superior to say, an FF2, which is smaller and cheaper but still allows use of two camera simultaneously? My guess is that with the super large mounting platform, you can mount other sorts of hardware - exactly what, I'm not sure, since I'm new to this, the only thing I could think of you would need besides two cameras would be a flash (which btw, why would you need a flash? - I've seen them on some of the crazy "pro" setups). On the downside, the big "pro" setups seem bigger and heavier, which to a newbie like me sounds like more weight on my neck and more entanglement risk. I don't need the best of the best, especially when just starting (weight and size are important to me), but I would like a good enough setup to do some sort of "work" videography (tandems, AFF, coaching, whatever) if my skills progress far enough and the opportunity presents itself. Would an FF2 type setup be good enough for this?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #2 April 18, 2005 QuoteWhat actually makes a helmet like this superior to say, an FF2, which is smaller and cheaper but still allows use of two camera simultaneously? short answer...flexability....with the FF2 your limited to a side mount video and a top mounted camers. with the FTP you can top mount both, video top and still front, add a flash, have two stills and a video, have a video a still and two flashes, two videos and a still Quotewhy would you need a flash? because you very rarely get "perfect lighting" unless its around sunrise or sunset...where the sun is directly in the face of the student......aff and tandem speaking.....the flash elimates most of the shadows in the faces....also can get some bad ass lighted up shots of BM or RW around sunset......perfectly lit up subject with the awsome sky lighting in the back ground. Quotebigger and heavier bigger ...yes...heavier....not by much....a guy at my DZ jumps the FF2 and i have the FTP...bot hhave basically the same stuff on it...and weigh just about the same QuoteWould an FF2 type setup be good enough for this? deffinatly"Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 April 18, 2005 In my opinion the difference between a freefly type helmet somebody has stuck a side-mount on and helmet specifically designed for camera work is the stability of the helmet itself. Although most video cameras have some sort of image stabilization built in, they can't really make up for a helmet that is wobbling around during freefall. Unless the helmet has a -very- firm grip on your noggin, it -will- move around quite a bit during freefall. 120 mph winds are going to do that. So, anything that makes the helmet more secure on the head is usually better. The virtue of the FTP type set-ups is that they completely surround the head and firmly lock the helmet into place. IF you choose to use something less elaborate, I would highly recommend the use of a chin cup that you can tighten firmly. So tight you can barely stand it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canuck 0 #4 April 18, 2005 I had a Flat Top Pro for three years. I bought it because it was the best helmet available, and I wanted to keep my options open for mounting whatever I wanted to it. I just sold it and got an FF2 because I can't forsee that I'm never going to have more than one small video camera and one (relatively) small still camera mounted on it, and I just didn't need to be packing around all that extra bulk. In my opinion, there are a bunch of people out there buying FTPs simply to keep up with the Jonses and have the "professional" look. Flat Top Pro helmets are awesome, but are overkill for what most people are using them for. Canuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #5 April 18, 2005 Quotebut are overkill for what most people are using them for. completely agree.....i had a narrow..for my video and still...then wanted a flash...so got the pro i pains me to see someone with a pro with only a video in a d box on top"Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #6 April 18, 2005 Quotecompletely agree.....i had a narrow..for my video and still...then wanted a flash...so got the pro There's no way to get a flash on a FT-narrow, or even worse, on a FF2? No way the flash could mount straight to the camera or anything? Thanks for the replies, everybody.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
j3zz 0 #7 April 18, 2005 I am going to a flat top style as it offers better protection for the stills camera, and at present my still costs way more than my video. Also I will mount another video ontop when I want to get better quality and keep the other for funky mounting, reverse etc, or a backup for high reliability work Jezz "Now I know why the birds fly" Hinton Skydivers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaGimp 0 #8 April 18, 2005 QuoteThere's no way to get a flash on a FT-narrow, im sure there is...but i wanted room to grow. Quoteor even worse, on a FF2 can be done....check here QuoteNo way the flash could mount straight to the camera or anything? for one...i see a problem wit hthat for two reasons.... 1. the height of it....would be huge 2. the security....not sure how the mount would hold up to the winds of freefall."Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
