Bowen 0 #1 October 28, 2007 Hey everyone, I am looking at getting a ring sight and I want to know the difference between a hyperbole pattern and a concentric pattern. I can see the huge price difference but what else sets them apart. Which is a better product line: Newton or Brent? And why a choice between ¼ inch and 6 mm? Thanks for all the help, Mike BowenRetired Tunnel Instructor, Sky/Tunnel Coach Former dealer for 2k Composites, Skysystems, Alti-2, Wings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #2 October 28, 2007 I could never see the need to spend that kind of cash for a fancy sight when the orange one works real nice and besides that after a while you use it less and less as your eye gets trained and then only really use it for tight work once you learn where your "centered spot" is. This money better spent on lenses and such, IMHO.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 4 #3 October 28, 2007 Quote Which is a better product line: Newton or Brent? Newton is not a product line, it's a phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_rings Brent is Brent Finley: http://www.brentfinley.com/ringsite.htm HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #4 October 28, 2007 Hey Bowen, not sure why the different sizes exist, you'd think in such a small market we could have only one system. I prefer the concentric just because I think the optical pattern looks cleaner. Obviously it's way more expensive... I wonder if it is actually harder to make, or it's just priced higher because of higher demand. Either way it's worth it to me. I have a Brent's, I've spoken to Brent and know he's a real person. Not saying Newton isn't made by a real person, Brent was just an easier choice somehow, and more widely available I think. EDIT: Nice info Howard! I did not know that. I'll leave my above post the same even though I look stupid now. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #5 October 28, 2007 While not as advanced as the ring sights you listed, the one I use IMO is better because it does not create a snag point and will save you a few hundred dollars.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linestretch 0 #6 October 28, 2007 My opinion is that if your serious about taking quality photos/video (like being centered), you need either one of those ring sites....and NOT a dot on your goggles or just an orange disc. I know from experience that when some dumb ass knocks your ring site in the plane, the alignment rings/crosshairs (depending on which one you have) still guide your eye to where to aim. The orange disc will have you aiming in the wrong direction. The dot on your goggles?....well, depending on how you put your goggles on and how you put your helmet on don't always line up. And not too mention, once your outside the plane, the air will hit your camera helmet and move it enough to make it NOT line up....that's another situation where the correct (yes overly priced) ring site will correct it...or at least let you know where to aim. For getting started, I would put a dot on your goggles and try that. But you'll soon see that you're gonna need something better. And look around on here, you'll see someone selling one for much less than para-gear charges. I have the one from para-gear (cheaper than brents), I think it's the newton and I'm very happy with it. It's been bumped numerous times and has saved my ass. But will admit, it's a snag hazard. As for the size difference?...I don't know the difference.my pics & stuff! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #7 October 28, 2007 the military-grade Newton style is the best, IMO, but I don't have one. I use one of Brent's, and they're exceptionally good, whether being used for tight rock climbing shots or skydiving. Concentric rings help you learnt to adjust for parallax better, IMO, but whether it's a paper butthole or a military bazooka sight...whatever helps *you* find the target works fine. I know one guy that takes stellar pix using a popsicle stick finely honed on one end and coated with flourescent epoxy. No ring, just a straight line sight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bowen 0 #8 October 28, 2007 Hey Matt, Do you know where brent operates out of??Retired Tunnel Instructor, Sky/Tunnel Coach Former dealer for 2k Composites, Skysystems, Alti-2, Wings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #9 October 28, 2007 I think Arizona maybe... I have called Terry Schumacher a few times with questions and once Brent answered, so I got the idea they shared a shop or something, but I could be wrong. Somebody else probably knows. EDIT: CLICKwww.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinjin 0 #10 October 29, 2007 another thought is what you are shooting and using the sight for. some pro's use the concentric rings to judge the size of the object they are shooting and how far away to be to keep it all in frame.. eg 4 way to 40 way and keeping the framing right.. now if you just shooting tandems or just one genre, maybe the orange popsicle will do.. me i use a ring sight and it has helped my video quality alot..dont let life pass you by Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cj1150gs 0 #11 October 29, 2007 Quote I know from experience that when some dumb ass knocks your ring site in the plane, the alignment rings/crosshairs (depending on which one you have) still guide your eye to where to aim, Huh? Not unless you realign it, right? Carlos Martins Portugal www.cj.smugmug.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #12 October 29, 2007 I have a concentric ringsight (from Brent) and it is a very nice piece of hardware that is very well built. well worth the money... I used to have an orange lolly pop and I find the concentric ring to be much better... and I've also tried the dot on my goggles but that didn't work very well for me at all... Quote And why a choice between ¼ inch and 6 mm? This is basically due to the fact that those of us in the U. S. are often using "English" units whereas much of the rest of the world uses SI units. Thus there are two different "mounting post" designs and what you get will be based on the swivel clip/post mounted to your helmet. I hope this helps... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #13 October 29, 2007 Draw a circle on your goggles with a Sharpie. Be sure to put your helmet and goggles on the same way every time, and you'll be all set. A camera helemt in itself is a snag hazzard, and there is no reason to add an additional snag point in the form of a ring sight. I did my first 150-ish jumps with a ring sight, and was resistant to the idea of not using a ring sight when I got a new helmet. 10+ years and 4000 jumps later, I am sure that the ring sight was a waste of time, and the handful of guys who have gone in due to a line snag on the ring sight died for no reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linestretch 0 #14 October 29, 2007 QuoteQuote I know from experience that when some dumb ass knocks your ring site in the plane, the alignment rings/crosshairs (depending on which one you have) still guide your eye to where to aim, Huh? Not unless you realign it, right? not really. The site can pivot out of the way very easily. put the helmet back on and reposition it. Even if it's been knocked a little, you can see that the crosshairs aren't in the middle and know that the site has been moved. As for the comment above with the mark on the goggles, I disagree. It may work for some, but I think it's a half-assed way of doing it.....really depending on what your looking to get....and judging by how your work looks. The relative wind WILL hit your helmet differently and move the aim of the camera while your goggles stay in one place. No arguement about the ring site being a snag hazzard though.my pics & stuff! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #15 October 29, 2007 I agree. I own one of those fancy ones what I don't even use. I prefer my ORANGE one. In the other hand no doubt about the need of use of a sight. It's just like using a view finder on any camera. Also it's lot more effective on full face helmets 'cause they always sit on the head the same way (at least they should sit the same way). -Laszlo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #16 October 29, 2007 QuoteAs for the comment above with the mark on the goggles, I disagree. It may work for some, but I think it's a half-assed way of doing it.....really depending on what your looking to get....and judging by how your work looks. The relative wind WILL hit your helmet differently and move the aim of the camera while your goggles stay in one place. I assure you I'm anything but half assed about my skydiving or my video work. If you have a camera helmet that moves around on your head due to the wind, you need a better fitting helmet. However, in that case, yes a sight attached to the helmet would be more effective. If your cameras move around on your helmet, you need a better way of mounting your cameras. If this situation, neither sight would be alaigned with the cameras. While it may depend on a secure fitting camera helmet and goggles, marking the goggles is an effective reference point for shooting video. Seeing how having a secure fitting helmet and goggles should be a prerequisite for any camera jump, those factors really become a non-issue in terms of choosing a sighting method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #17 October 30, 2007 I've found that there is a difference in the need for video vs the need for stills. Video with a wide angle lens a mark on the lens can work but if you want to bet centered stills at anything past 35-40mm there is no choice but to go to some sort of ring sight. At that distance there is little choice since the effects of even the bite action on the switch can throw you off slightly, once you get past the 50mm range its almost required.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #18 October 30, 2007 I'd go along with that. I'd also have to say that the majority of stills taken in freefall are with wide angle lenses, generally ones that closely match the lens on the video. If and when a camera flyer is at the level where experimenting with long lens shots is the thing to do, then maybe a ring sight is the way to go. Otherwise, it remains an added risk with very little benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linestretch 0 #19 October 30, 2007 sorry, that wasn't directed at you....it's more the "oh this will do" aspect. Really, whatever works for you. And yes, my helmet does move some. It's a hawkeye and I hate it, but I've had it for a long time and will most likely stay with it. Not too mention, I don't fly in one orientation. Filming RW, shooting tandems on my back, sitflying and head down....yes, it does move enough to where the dot on the goggles would be half assed.my pics & stuff! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cj1150gs 0 #20 October 30, 2007 Quoteonce you get past the 50mm range its almost required. Sorry for the off-topic, but what's the usual skydiving use for that range? canopy work? I've been toying with the idea of flying a 50 mm (Canon's cheap, lightweight 1.8) but my camera has a 1.6 crop factor so it would work as an 80 mm.... Carlos Martins Portugal www.cj.smugmug.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #21 October 30, 2007 QuoteI don't fly in one orientation. Filming RW, shooting tandems on my back, sitflying and head down....yes, it does move enough to where the dot on the goggles would be half assed. Just to clarify, for the newbies, a properly fitting non-moving camera helmet can be flown in any and all orientations with a mark on the goggles and no sighting problems. I'm trying to avoid newbies reading this post and thinking that they need a ring sight if they want to sit or fly head down. Also, to add to what I said before about long lenses, if and when you want to shoot with long lenses, THEN set up a ring sight. Leading up to that, save yourself the trouble, risk and money, and go with the mark on the goggles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
avenfoto 0 #22 October 30, 2007 a mark on the goggles works if youre not terribly concerned with whats in frame. and you always have the same goggles. and they are always in the same spot. (which never happens) taking pictures without a sight is like shooting without looking through the lens. close, maybe... but if you want to KNOW what is in frame, then you need a sight. there are just too many variables... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #23 October 30, 2007 A concentric ring site also helps compensate for parallax, which is why I selected a concentric over the "X" or cross-type ring sight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #24 October 30, 2007 I actually draw a box on my goggles, so I can look through the box. As far as what's in or out of frame, that's a function of what length your lens is, and what distance you are from the subject. No ring sight will tell what is in or out of frame. Again, I have years of shooting video covering 1000's of jumps with a box drawn on my goggles. I have no problem with framing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
avenfoto 0 #25 October 30, 2007 QuoteA concentric ring site also helps compensate for parallax, which is why I selected a concentric over the "X" or cross-type ring sight. absolutley... i jump with the concentric as well, for the same reason. ive got around 3000 dollars on my head on a camera jump.. why blow the shot because a 50.00 ringsite moved an eighth of an inch? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
