Camera Helmet Suggestions...likes/dislikes

[goobersnuftda 0]

I have been looking at various camera helmets but now I am looking into a helmet that can house a digital SLR and a DCR camera.

I have been partial to this:
http://www.boneheadcomposites.com/optikillusion.htm

Still on top and miniDV on the left. Anyone have any better suggestions?

[billo 0]

The 2K FF2 gives you a similar top-mount of the Optik with better side-camcorder protection. (http://www.2kcomposites.com/). Lots of folks on the forum like RAWA as well.

There are several threads in this forum about camera helmet choice...I recommend reading the forum in its entirety from start to finish...a couple hours and several beers later, you'll be all caught up.

Cheers,
BillOOOOOOooo

[mccordia 74]

In terms of camera-life/protection, I'd go with a helmet that houses your DV camera inside, or get a good D-box.

Seen to many ripped off visors/record buttons/LCD screens and lenses, and cameras with moisture glitches...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[Bowen 0]

PM sent

Retired Tunnel Instructor, Sky/Tunnel Coach

Former dealer for 2k Composites, Skysystems, Alti-2, Wings

[AndyMan 7]

You simply can not go wrong with the FTP. Any other helmet is cheating yourself.

I used to side-mount my PC-XXX, but once I switched to top-mount, I never went back. Having the weight centered ontop is great when you get your first super-slammer. I think you'll regret side-mounting.

Secondly, the FTP is great for stability. The helmet simply does not move on your head, which is crucial to getting well-framed stills and steady video. I was shocked at the change in my video quality when I switched to the FTP.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Zoter 0]

Another vote here for the 2K FF2.
Its a quality setup with snag protection that NO other helmet can claim to better...
Everyone is going 'wow' their own helmet.......but look at the FF2 and then look at the others ...
Its custom fit to YOU not S,M,L, has the best snag protection out there and has a great cutaway system available....none of this 'bodged' cutaway system stuff going on....
FTP vs FF2 comparison.......are you joking ???
I jumped a FTP for a while after I had got my FF2 helmet.....because thats the helmet the cam people were using....I didnt like it.....uncomfortable to wear and its a monster of a helmet.....too awkward to wear/adjust in the aircraft for recreational jumpers.....nope, plus it looks so ugly people actually fly away from you in FF ....
Nah FF2 anyday......

[Canuck 0]

Quote

FTP vs FF2 comparison.......are you joking ???

You're right, there is no comparison. The Flat Top Pro is a far better helmet for heavy duty set-ups (i.e. multiple cameras, flash unts, etc.). But if all you have is a video and a still, or even worse, all the people I see with nothing but a small PC video camera on top, then you have just made a vanity purchase even worse than getting a cross-braced canopy to do straight in approaches under. Just becasue it says Pro on it doesn't make you one...

The FF2 is a nice alternative. Small, secure, lightwieght, half the price, comfortable, etc.

Canuck

[Bowen 0]

if someone wants a Flat top then get a Azimuth by 2K Composites.

here are the features:

- Professional Top Mounting Camera Helmet
- Comes standard with Cutaway System
- Top Plate available in 2 sizes
- Thermofit Lining

Retired Tunnel Instructor, Sky/Tunnel Coach

Former dealer for 2k Composites, Skysystems, Alti-2, Wings

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

if someone wants a Flat top then get a Azimuth by 2K Composites.

here are the features:

- Professional Top Mounting Camera Helmet
- Comes standard with Cutaway System
- Top Plate available in 2 sizes
- Thermofit Lining

When I was shopping for my camera helmet I looked at this one..
What are the advantages of this one over the Flat Top Pro from Bonehead?

[Canuck 0]

Yeah...thanks for that...but the point wasn't to find an alternative flat top to the Flat Top Pro, the point was that very few people fully use the capabilities of a Flat Top Pro, and would be just as well off using any one of the "consumer line" video helmets available (i.e. FF2, Optic, etc.).

Canuck

[Canuck 0]

Quote

When I was shopping for my camera helmet I looked at this one..
What are the advantages of this one over the Flat Top Pro from Bonehead?

Price. And really nice paint. Other than that, it's pretty much an exact copy. About the only difference is the closing latch.

Canuck

[Miami 0]

Quote

Price. And really nice paint. Other than that, it's pretty much an exact copy. About the only difference is the closing latch.

And the cutaway system...2K uses a 2 ring release system that looks very nice. Not sure if any of you have tried out the cutaway system on the FTP but I have on a few different helmets. Some released just fine, others hung up and needed some jiggling before they would release. The 2 ring system is much more likely to release cleanly during a cutaway situation.

If I can I'll take a picture of mine and post it soon, or I'm sure I have a photo of other Azimuths I can resize and post...just gotta find it...


As far as price, if you check the classifieds here you can find the Azimuth, custom made for you, delivered for a little more than $500, instead of $700+ for a FTP.
Hope this helps...

Miami

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Yeah...thanks for that...but the point wasn't to find an alternative flat top to the Flat Top Pro, the point was that very few people fully use the capabilities of a Flat Top Pro, and would be just as well off using any one of the "consumer line" video helmets available (i.e. FF2, Optic, etc.).

Show me a good alternate to the Flat Top Pro where I can topmount both a video camera, and a still and I'd be there with bells on. The FTP costs almost as much as a good DSLR, which is ridiculous, I'd love there to be a good alternative.

I have more than enough jumps with a sidemounted PC-xxx, and once I discovered the difference of having that weight centered ontop of my head, I'll never go back.

Until the "consumer" helmets make that change, I'll forever preach the FTP.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Canuck 0]

To each his own. I went the other way - started out with a Flat Top Pro (vanity purchase - guilty as charged) and then went to the FF2. I do way more jumps with just video than with video/stills, and find the FF2 set-up with the side mounted camera much more comfortable and easy on my neck the FTP with the top mounted camera ever was. I've not noticed any reduction in the quality of my video, but I do wear my chin-cup really tight.

Also, I do 75% of my jumps out of a 182/206, and I really find sitting in the plane with it on and getting into various exit positions MUCH easier with the FF2.

So, all told, I don't at all feel like I've "cheated myself" by not keeping my FTP. Maybe one day I'll go back to one (or more likely an Azimuth), but for now, I am very happy with the choice I made.

Canuck

[Miami 0]

Quote

Show me a good alternate to the Flat Top Pro where I can topmount both a video camera, and a still and I'd be there with bells on. The FTP costs almost as much as a good DSLR, which is ridiculous, I'd love there to be a good alternative.

Attached is a better view of the current cutaway system installed on the Azimuth...the cable is no longer exposed and the 2 ring cutaway system provides a little bit of flex...meaning more comfort while still securely strapped to you noggin.

Andy, I think this qualifies as a good alternative, plenty of room to topmount everything. Once mine is set up I'll take some pics to post, but it's going to have a trv70, 20D w/17-85mm, and a 580ex speedlight on top.
Hope this helps...

Miami

[Zoter 0]

Quote

Show me a good alternate to the Flat Top Pro where I can topmount both a video camera, and a still and I'd be there with bells on

If you had actually read the replies in the thread you will see that an alternative to a FTP has already been suggested......

[AndyMan 7]

It may be a good alternative, but I haven't seen one.

I do have issues with the company being located offshore.

The bigger issue I see in the picture you posted is from the engineer in me. There's absolutely no reason to have a 3-ring style cuttaway on it, and it's a horrendously innapropriate use of ring leverage. They'd be fare wiser to use a simpler cuttaway system, like on the FTP. Given the pic you posted, I wouldn't jump it on the basis of the cuttaway system alone.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Zoter 0]

The cutaway releases one side of the 'back' of the helmet as the other side is held in place more securely.....allowing front/top of the helmet to come away from the jumper.
If the helmet is being snagged by something on top ...(the most likey scenario) then personally I would want the cutaway to be as 'efficient' as possible under any load.....
You of course may want to struggle with it....

[Miami 0]

Quote

It may be a good alternative, but I haven't seen one.

Don't you want to be the first kid on your block with one?

Quote

I do have issues with the company being located offshore.

Why? With a US dealer who can take care of nearly all your needs is there really that much of a difference (unless you live near perris)?

Quote

The bigger issue I see in the picture you posted is from the engineer in me. There's absolutely no reason to have a 3-ring style cuttaway on it, and it's a horrendously innapropriate use of ring leverage. They'd be fare wiser to use a simpler cuttaway system, like on the FTP. Given the pic you posted, I wouldn't jump it on the basis of the cuttaway system alone.

I'm not following...how is that a miss-use of the leverage of the 2-ring system? Have you physically tested the cutaway system on your FTP? I mean put it on, cinch it down, chop it, and see how easily it comes off? I have with at least 6 different helmets...all with varying results. If you haven't you really should...it's good to be familiar with your gear. The 2-ring system is IMO a simpler system copied after a proven design.

Miami

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I'm not following...how is that a miss-use of the leverage of the 2-ring system? Have you physically tested the cutaway system on your FTP? I mean put it on, cinch it down, chop it, and see how easily it comes off? I have with at least 6 different helmets...all with varying results. If you haven't you really should...it's good to be familiar with your gear. The 2-ring system is IMO a simpler system copied after a proven design.

Of course I have. It doesn't work as well as I'd like. I'd really like to test it under load, but I'd need a 220 pound test dummy to suspend.

The problem with the picture posted above, is that by looking at it - it's likely that it will perform even worse than the FTP. it's simply not an improvement, and from the looks of it, it's a monumentally worse design.

3 rings work because the load vector matches the direction of the rings. In the picture posted above, the load vector is (+-)90 degrees off the direction of the rings. It completely misses the point of why rings work.

Remember that even on main risers - where the load vector perfectly maches the direction of rings, we still need to disconnect our risers and massage the webbing to make sure they'll release, because there sometimes isnt' enough load to bend the webbing. Now take that load, and turn it 90 degrees off the direction of ring travel... well, I'd bet against it working.

From a distance, it looks like anyone with that helmet would be wise to have the rings removed. From here, it looks like they hurt, not help.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Miami 0]

Quote

The problem with the picture posted above, is that by looking at it - it's likely that it will perform even worse than the FTP. it's simply not an improvement, and from the looks of it, it's a monumentally worse design.

3 rings work because the load vector matches the direction of the rings. In the picture posted above, the load vector is (+-)90 degrees off the direction of the rings. It completely misses the point of why rings work.

Remember that even on main risers - where the load vector perfectly maches the direction of rings, we still need to disconnect our risers and massage the webbing to make sure they'll release, because there sometimes isnt' enough load to bend the webbing. Now take that load, and turn it 90 degrees off the direction of ring travel... well, I'd bet against it working.

From a distance, it looks like anyone with that helmet would be wise to have the rings removed. From here, it looks like they hurt, not help.

It looks to me like you are thinking the back piece of the helmet must travel (in relation to the vertical plane relative to the rear of the helmet) up or down, or maybe even side to side, in order to achieve a release. It must simply travel away from the head... identical to the normal ratcheting closure method, only on the opposite side. This puts the 2-ring cutaway system nearly perfectly in line with the direction it needs to travel to achieve smooth release.

I'm really surprised you would make such a harsh statement about this type of cutaway system...one that has a greater degree of flex and if anything would allow a clean cutaway even if the angle of separation varied slightly...when the system on the FTP/FTN is a solid state system and allows absolutely no deviation in the angle of the cutaway system...

Miami

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

It looks to me like you are thinking the back piece of the helmet must travel (in relation to the vertical plane relative to the rear of the helmet) up or down, or maybe even side to side, in order to achieve a release.

No, that's not what I think.

Maybe the attached images will illustrate.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[flypunk 0]

The azimut's cutaway is a very similar system to the retrofit from bonehead for the old flat tops that do not have a cutaway hinge.

...

[Miami 0]

I don't see how you can think that the design with the 2 ring system will perform worse than the latch design used on the FTP. Where exactly do you think the direction of leverage is on that design?

I have taken the liberty of adding to the illustration you provided, hopefully this will help. Despite the vectors of force from whatever on the helmet, there will always be outward force applied to the rear closure piece on the helmet when it is tightened on the head. This is what allows the cutaway system to work on either set up. The only way for force to be applied in the direction you displayed all the way down to the cutaway system would be if the helmet were completely loose (and if you had no chin!)...that would be the only foreseeable instance I could see the cutaway system not working...but I still have not seen how the 2 ring system is worse.

edit to add: Wow, that picture came out very small! You can see the arrow but the text reads "Direction force is applied to rear helmet closure, regardless of force applied by outside sources"

Miami

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

s "Direction force is applied to rear helmet closure, regardless of force applied by outside sources"

The problem is that the amount of force applied to the rear helmet closure is going to be considerably smaller than the force applied by the hung main. I can't do the math because I don't have numbers, but the force applied to the rear would be radically smaller, even if the chincup wasn't taking any load, which it probably is. The nutshell is that force vectors don't make 90 degree turns.

I've never heard of anybody having a "hard cuttaway" on a FTP for this very reason. Simple cuttaway systems work well without rings. This leads me to my first statement: Cuttaway rings are not required on a rear entry helmet.

Secondly, it's possible - even likely that the back of your head will be applying forces up or down on the back of the backstrap. I have a ridge at the back of my head at the bottom of my skull. On my FTP, the back "bone" site below this ridge, which is part of what gives it stability. In the event of a hung main, before cutting away the helmet will be pulling up against this ridge, applying a downward force to the back.

This means that the rings will be loaded crosswise, and rings generally don't perform well when loaded crosswise - they get twisted or just plain jam. We know this from watching how risers work. Rings work best when loaded in a straight line. This leads to my second statement, that cuttaway rings in this arangement actually decrease safety.

I'm not going to try to convince you of this anymore, but I think I've explained why I think it's so. Feel free to buy one for yourself. I'd rather not. It's a moot point, since I'm happy with the one I have, which BTW - I bought new with "bonebonds" for less than the price of the Azimuth.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.