PharmerPhil

Sounds promising, but I am still concerned about the IS. You mention that you had it turned off. But I would assume from this that the image is "shakier" (really,...that's a word...) than a good old electronic IS. Did you try it with IS on? If so, how did that work? Personally, I always jump with IS, and I wouldn't want to do without it. Could you elaborate?

I never mentioned autofocus (I only mentioned the zoom function). But yes, you can use autofocus with this lens. I only use autofocus on ground footage though. I turn it off and set a manual focus setting right before exiting, and turn it back on when I am on the ground. I use the Raynox HD-5050PRO. I thread a second smaller screw up through the helmet that fits in the locating hole in the bottom of the cam. Also, I have a custom lens bracket that cradles my wide-angle lens and further locates the camera. Photo here: http://www.philroberson.com/skydivephotos2007/J2727.htm Finally I have a strap over the top of the camera for insurance with a quick-release clip for using the LCD screen.

Keep in mind that you can't zoom in with most single element lenses. That alone is reason enough for me to get the Raynox lens. For fun jumps it may not matter, but I use my zoom a lot when videoing tandems (ground shots, landings, etc.). Here's my two cents on the box,...forget about it. I find them useless (for top-mount), too large, a waste of money and very limiting. I screw my camera directly to the top of my helmet (no quick release), and have free access to all the camera controls, and a lower profile helmet. Just don't bash your head or helmet into things (you shouldn't be doing this even if you do have a box).

Amen.

Nice link. You gotta love this feature: "A cam is ON/OFF of the power supply at the mode of the standby state"

Hopefully someone who can jump it right away and report back...

It is not the best picture in the world, but if you look at the following link, you can barely see a deflector gaffer taped to the still camera at the bottom of the frame (you can just barely see the plug behind it): http://www.philroberson.com/skydivephotos2007/J2727.htm I have a similar one on my 20d. Basically, the idea is to put something on the camera so the risers hit that something, and transfer the force to the whole body, rather than hitting the plug and shearing it off. I just used a hunk of solid nylon I had on hand, cut it roughly to size, and shaped it by eye on a bench grinder. But you could use any wood, plastic or aluminum. I'm sure a creative mind in a decent shop could come up with all sorts of different techniques.

I'v always used clear nail polish to dress cut edges, and drilled holes.

Random Thoughts... 1. I agree on BGill's flat-top pro comment. There is no reason for that sight post to extend past the helmet post except to deflect risers from hitting the plug on the still camera. I would cut it down. 2. Make some sort of deflector (non-snagging) for the plug on the still camera (both helmets). You are just asking for those plugs to be sheared off, and you could easily destroy a camera (lost a camera that way b4). 3. That looks like a huge snag hazard on your Optic still camera. I don't know what type of quick-release you are using, but I would prefer one that is lower and wider. Or just use a screw through the helmet to the bottom of the camera. They are pretty quick to use, and pose much less of a hazard. 4. Personally, I hate side-mounting really wide cameras. Don't know why you would ever put that Optic on rather than the FTP. 5. I like the extra straps on the video camera on the FTP. They're good insurance (years ago I lost a couple of cameras on opening). 6. On the FTP, you have a 50mm lens on your still cam, and what appears to be a very wide angle lens on the video camera. Any reason for the mis-match?

One thing? Early on in 4-way, I had a team with a coach (Jack Jeffries) who asked if I had gotten permission to hit the team. It made everyone think; if I didn't get permission, no one could complain if I wasn't super steep and tight. And once I had permission, I could really push the envelope. Never did hit anyone, but just having the permission allows you to fly harder. I'm not a regular tunnel flyer, but I did spend a fair amout of time in the tunnel specifically flying someone's burble. Not flying out of it everytime I hit it, but flying in it for a while to get a better feel for flying that way. Really helps with RW. Always be ready, and have a spare everything. Video cameras, still cameras, helmets, rigs, etc. I carry a little emergency pouch in my jumpsuit that has a spare MiniDV tape, a small folding screwdriver, a CF card, and spare batteries for my still camera. In the same pocket (leg pocket so I can get to everything when I'm crammed into a jump plane) is a lens cloth, film (if necessary) and a strap for lashing my helmet to my chest strap on take-offs.

Oh c'mon. That's too easy. There must be a spreadsheet or something...

You may want to try to re-size your images, and then "save for web" next time to reduce both physical size and file size for image postings like this.

I use a 420EX, because I have had it and used it for a long time. but if I were buying today, I would get a 580EX, or (if cost is an issue) a 430EX which replaced the 420EX.

It is in the meta data that is embedded in your image file. Just open the photo in Photoshop (or, I imagine, any decent photo editing software) and check the file info. You can often learn a lot about other how other people shot their photos this way.

The downsides are having the camera not find a point to lock focus on (result: missed shot), or finding the wrong point to focus on (result: out of focus subject). BTW, although there are seven points for autofocus, you can pick any single point, or pick all of them.

Ditto to all PhreeZone said. In addition,... It looks (to me) like your blur is a caused by both too slow a shutter speed for the flying, and improper focus. You have to fly very still relative to your subject, particularly with such a slow shutter speed. (To start, I would up the speed to at least 1/400th, with compensurate changes to aperature). In addition, it look to me like you are not focused on the jumpers in the second image. Did you use manual focus or auto? If manual, at what dstance? What resolution and compression was your camera set at? You really should be using the highest if you ever want to print any photos, and it looks like it is set to a lower res and greater compression. (The background in the second photo is very blocky, and these images have obviously been cropped, so it is hard to say what the original resolution was.) If you had to crop a lot of the image out to see the jumpers, that could definitely have something to do with the bluriness as well. If so, you need to fly much closer. But given the orientation of these jumpers (what exactly are they doing?), it might not be safe to get much closer... FYI, your image data says these shots were taken at f11, not f9.

Just one videot's experience but... I jump Tony Suits' "C" wing (exit weight 195-200lbs, 2500 camera jumps, mostly belly) which is their mid-range wing. Although my exit weight is only a little lighter than yours, I have no problem staying with even very light tandems. My experiences with 4-ways are that they usually fall very fast (or at least they try to, check with your team). The "D" wing is pretty large, and I think of it as being for heavier jumpers and/or slower fall rates (i.e. smaller tandems and the like). IMHO you would be better suited (no pun...) with the "A" or "C" wing, but I have never actually jumped a "D," and it really depends on your flying. Just my too sense...Short of borrowing/demoing suits, gets lots of opinions.

I may be stating the obvious, but did you try plugging it into a power supply? If not... A while back I used a place called Macie Video Service in Dedham, MA (not too far from you?) http://www.macievideo.com They primarily deal with broadcast equipment, but they had a guy that worked on consumer cams too and fixed my TRV-900. Fast turnaround, and all their work is in house.

Not to beat a dead horse but... It now sounds like (contrary to your original post) you will make an evaluation about whether you "think it's entangled" before deciding whether to cutaway your helmet. (Re-read your original post where you said "...Screw that, i'm not even thinking twice, i'm cutting the helmet away, then the main and deploying my reserve"). So if you don't think it is entangled before you cutaway your main, what happens after you cutaway your main? Do you then make a second evaluation? At that point I hope so, but it sounds like you're burning a lot of altitude and time. Particularly for someone who jumps camera and dumps at 2500 feet. You should really re-read your own multiple posts here such as: This sounds like a lot of bravado rather than a well thought out plan, and sounds like you haven't really thought through a step one, step two, etc. I guess I am encouraging you to re-think your procedure, despite the fact that you seem more interested in a pissing contest than an honest evaluation. I don't think I will change such a mind, but hopefully others that read this thread will think these things through more completely and learn from them.

My guess is that isn't a dirty lens, but it is dust on your sensor. Check the original images. If the specs are in the same place, even at different zoom settings or with different lenses, it is probably your sensor.

I really like the first one. I do think you could lose ten percent to the left and to the top of the image (either crop it out, or aim the camera a little right and down). Leave just enough of those clouds to see the swirls in them. And get rid of those dust specs on the sensor. If I was being real picky (aren't I?), a little more saturation might bring out that sky and strip of grass better, but still leave the jumper in silhouette. Nice shot though.

But again, why would you cut a helmet away if you don't even know if it is hung up? You can't tell until you cutaway the main (even if there is a line on your helmet, it is quite possible it will clear when you cutaway the canopy). Using rwieder 's argument, every cutaway main involves a cutaway helmet regardless of whether it is necessary or not. That is just foolish. And again, it is not only a waste of helmets and cameras, but of time and altitude as well. I had never heard of anyone using this as their standard EP.

Ditto. At least you are thinking about it. My point is to do just that. IMO, there are lots of if/thens in your emergency procedures. One of mine is "if" my camera helmet is not tangled, "then" go right to the reserve without jettisoning the helmet. This saves both time and altitude (as well as helmets). I couldn't know whether it will be tangled until I have cutaway my main. And while I wouldn't hesitate to cutaway a helmet if it is tangled, I wouldn't waste time on it if it is clear. On a lighter note, jettisoning an untangled camera helmet precludes getting shots of the cutaway... http://www.philroberson.com/Image%20Pages%20Folder/J715b.htm

TV is an auto setting. In TV (shutter priority) you set the shutter speed, and the camera automatically adjusts the aperature for the correct exposure. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The majority of my freefall photos are taken using TV, but that is very different from manual mode where you pick everything.

Check out this string: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3064258 Most info there applies to your situation.