PharmerPhil

Keep in mind that megapixels is just one (small) measure of the quality of the photo. You are still dealing with a miniscule sensor (compared to even the low-end DSLRs), and a lens that just isn't up to par with what most people are putting on their SLRs. Not to mention no where near the control over how (and when) the picture is taken (shutter speed, f-stop, etc.) IMHO, the stills from these video cameras are of fairly poor quality, and are not really marketable. If it is just fun jumps with the buds, and you just want some 4x6s to put up with thumbtacks, then fine. Anything more than that and you need a real still camera.

AppleTV works with Windows machines too.

I haven't jumped any of the stuff you mention, but I am a skydiver so of course I have an opinion anyway. I used to jump a Pentax film camera with a 28mm f2.8 lens. It was a great lens, and a great little set-up. Pentax stuff is fine. Yes, good prime lenses are usually much sharper, and either lens will probably do well for normal tandems. However, for your needs, sounds like the zoom will do more of what you want. IMHO, getting good shots while taking grips calls for a very wide lens, and not to large an aperture. And the usual advantages of a fast lens (i.e. f2.8) are either in using this wide an aperture (which you aren't apt to do in skydiving), or in faster focusing and metering. And the latter isn't much of an issue in most of the lighting conditions you'll find in skydiving. Just my too sense...

I wouldn't combine an HDV camera with an analog board for editing. Particularly if you want to do slow motion. Check out this thread for more info: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2806712;#2806712 For what it's worth, I went back to my SD (DV) cam last year because of these problems. This year I will be shooting with an HC-5 (HDV), but I will probably shoot in regular DV mode when I know I will be doing analog editing.[url]

Yeah I agree. I will say I wasn't super critical about focus when I took these shots (snow was coming). I simply auto-focused on the handle in the door. But I am initially disappointed with the image from the 4500. Particularly the edge softness (that's putting it mildly). We'll see how it does in the air

Ditto. When I got my 20D the XT wasn't out yet (I stepped up from an original Digital Rebel), but if I were buying new for skydiving only, I would def get something lighter.

You could try this...

Okay, I don't really have too much time on my hands, but I got a new lens (Raynox HD-4500P) and I thought I would do a comparison of various lenses in my collection for both HDV video cameras and a DSLR. Someone did something like this a while ago, but they didn't use lenses or cameras that really interest me today. Anyway this may be of interest to other folks here: http://www.philroberson.com/lenscomp/index.htm Some notes. All shots were taken from the same tripod location, 25 feet from the door in the photo. The camera and lens used is written in the "Title" section of the web page. For the video camera shots I used a Sony HC5 and a Sony A1U (I actually took the A1U shots last year with different lenses under the same circumstances, but I believe the A1U and the HC5 have identical fields of view). All the video camera shots are stills taken in video camera mode, so they are representative of what you would see on video as far as field of view is concerned (I think). The DSLR is a Canon 20D (aps-sized sensor) Keep in mind that DSLRs and video cameras have very different aspect rations. So if you are trying to get a match, it will never exactly happen (at least not in both dimensions). Personally, I like having a slightly larger FOV on my stills. I haven't jumped the Raynox 4500, but I've jumped the HD-5050PRO a lot and I was looking for something with a slightly wider FOV that I could still zoom through. I have no idea about its resolution. I will say the 4500 is twice as heavy as the 5050, contrary to B&H's specs. I should get a chance to jump it on some big-ways in a couple weeks.

Hmmm,...sounds suspiciously like a U.S. dealer's story to try to disparage competition from grey marketers. How did you "confirm" this?

Spontaneous combustion...or vertigo...

As long as you truly have a grey market unit, and not a counterfeit (rare in this category), there should be no mechanical difference. No, they don't stop the assembly line and put plastic parts inside instead of metal just because it is going to Singapore. The differences are mostly in the distribution, warrantee, support, and in the software. Some electronics will have different firmware depending on where they are going, and many will have different power supplies (although this doesn't usually apply to portable things like cameras, check the AC plug on the charger). But they will be functionally and mechanically the same. The warrantee thing may not seem like a big deal, but if your unit goes South, realize you are SOL unless the retailer you bought it from has some moral ethic that allows them to make things good themselves (there is no "chain of command"). Manufacturers in the USA are represented by their respective distribution network. In the case of most major companies, they have a bona-fide U.S. division (i.e. Canon U.S.A.). But this division has no vested interest in helping other countries or outside distributors meet their sales quotas by dumping their products in North America, so they are not apt to help at all if you have a problem. Caveat emptor... FYI, I worked for many (many) years in consumer electronics in the U.S. Including working for both U.S. subsidiaries of major Asian electronics companies, and for a U.S. manufacturer of electronics sold worldwide. However, I do not work in that field anymore.

I have mine mounted flat on top of a Vapor next to my video cam. Nothing sticks out to the sides, the weight is lower down, and the flash beam is horizontal like my SLR. Don't know if I have a pic, but if I find one I'll post it.

I am considering going widescreen on my tandem videos this year (16:9 letterboxed). However, the other camera flyers at my DZ only have 4:3 cameras. My A1U would edge-crop to 4:3, but that doesn't look like it is a feature in the HC-5, and I will still be doing a lot of linear, analog editing. I would like to hear what the customers' response has been to widescreen letterbox videos vs. standard 4:3 videos. I am particularly interested in hearing from camera flyers at tandem DZs that otherwise offer a consistent product from one videographer to the next, but where some videographers produce 16:9 videos and some produce 4:3 videos. i.e. any comments positive or negative when groups watch their videos side-by-side and there is a difference ("Why does mine have black bars on it?" "Why didn't I get the cool widescreen video?")? Just to emphasize, I am not really looking for videographers' opinions on whether 16:9 videos are better/worse intrinsically, just how the tandem customers are responding to the widescreen format at other DZs.

I completely agree. We do offer a very consistent product from one cameraman to the next for specifically the reasons stated. You definitely invite problems if the different subcontractors offer different products. Although we do occasionally get requests for specific Instructors or camera flyers, we have a standard package of stills and tandem video we offer (including the general direction of the edited video) so everyone leaves happy with their experience at the DZ. In the end, it is about what the dropzone wants to offer, not the individual sub-contractor. And yes, every photo processor I see has an option to get the images on CD-ROM. Those that want to share, print or use their photos as a screen image usually go this route. Others are happy to just have a stack of 4x6s to bring to their office/home/party.

I know this is atypical, but my home DZ is still film only for tandems. It is the only thing I still use a film camera for at all, but for the most part I love it. I hand the customer the exposed roll of film on the field before I even head in to edit, and I am done with that portion of the job. No downloading, burning, whatever. It is unfortunate that I don't get to see the majority of my tandem stills, but it is a trade-off I am fine with. Plus, my film camera/lens combo is much lighter than my digital set-up. FWIW, we have never had a single customer complain about getting a roll of film instead of a CD-ROM. When we do go digital (next year?), I sure hope we increase the price, as the costs in time and equipment for the camera flyers will go up significantly.

Top-mount, no protection. Not only do I not see any need for a box, but I find them incredibly limiting. I often need to access a lot of controls that would be covered by a box such as focus, LCD screen, zoom, etc. On a typical tandem, I use auto focus on the ground, and often use the zoom depending on the shot. On the plane, I often compose shots using the LCD screen because of tight quarters. After my last shot on the plane, I set the focus to manual. Before exiting, I turn the camera on to record using the button on the camera, and turn it to standby after opening. On the ground, I switch the camera to auto-focus, and usually zoom in on the tandem pair in the air. All this would be a PITA if I had a box covering all those controls. FYI, I usually jump Otters with occasional Casas, and rarely a 206. I have used this set-up with a TRV-900, a TRV-38, and an HVR-A1U.

More grist from the rumor mill regarding Apple and Microsoft's BD adoption: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/07/sony_in_blu_ray_talks_with_apple_microsoft.html

I use the 1650. In it I can fit my SkySystems Vapor (top-mount), my Nvertigo X (FF, side-mount), cameras for all, and lots of extra chargers, cables, tapes, etc.

Actually, the FX1 isn't sticktly speaking a 2008 model, although it is still current. But so are most of the models DSE mentioned. My money this year is on the HC5. Question for DSE, what protocol are pros apt to use for zoom/focus/record controllers on future, non-tape models? For example, what is used on the PMW-EX1 for a tripod handle controller?

A Pelican for any distance traveling, my front seat for my 10-minute ride home each day.

I have certainly noticed OIS problems while filming belly flyers with an older TRV-900. Not enough to make the footage completely unusable, but enough to make OIS an undesirable feature for any future camera purchases. This is unfortunate, because EIS is typically only used on cheaper cameras. However IMHO, the resolution compromises in EIS cameras are much, much less objectionable than shaky footage obtained using either no IS, or OIS. My too sense...

I use the 5050 for tandems (both on an A1U or a TRV-38). I agree that it is not as wide as I like, but it is a real nice lens, so I just fly a little further away. Just got a Raynox 4500PRO to try (I think it is disco'd) Haven't jumped it yet, but we'll see. I agree with DSE's comments on perspective distortion in general (which is why I hate the super wide fisheyes) but there is something about the intimacy of a video shot a couple feet away that catches a lot of excitement you miss further away.

All the above advice is good, but here's another take. It is always difficult for a camera's auto exposure to get things right when things are unusually bright (like a white car and an overcast sky) or unusually dark (outdoors shots at night). The camera wants to see an "average" amount of brightness throughout the frame. When it sees lots of white, it turns down the exposure to try to compensate. Basically, it doesn't know your car is white, and it is trying to make everything average out to gray. (This is why many amateur snow scenes look like the snow is gray.) Assuming you didn't crop the images you posted, the second image is closer and hence, more of the frame is filled with the white car. Here is a way to cheat it. Get a cheap 18% gray lens cleaning cloth and keep it with you (available at any camera store). In the light you will be shooting, fill the image with this gray cloth on auto exposure, and lock the exposure down (i.e. if it say f8 at 160/sec, set it to manual using those settings). Re-frame your shot, shoot away, and white should appear white again. In a pinch, you can use a gray sweat shirt for setting exposure. BTW, this is why good wedding photographers are hyper critical of exposure. Getting exposure right with white wedding gowns and black tuxedos can be difficult.

I think an abacus was faster than my old computer. I'm happy now.

Just got one. Dual Quads baby! Beats hell out of my old 7yo PowerPC.