The111

Ditto. Looking up (at canopy) could be just as bad as looking down, IMO. Once I got comfortable with not looking at canopy (it was strange at first), my openings actually improved a bit and I felt safer since I could continue to scan the surrounding area with my eyes while sniveling. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I posted the same question on a serious digital photography forum and at least one person not only thought it was a decent idea, but also mentioned that some DSLR's in the near future will offer this feature. I agree that it is easy to set ISO manually, but I am not sure that an "auto-ISO" would be as horrible as you think. Heck, the fully auto modes already do just that, "auto-ISO" (and "auto-everything-else"). Granted, the photos I've taken from fully auto mode are not the best, but they are not unbearably bad either. What I am suggesting is "auto-ISO" with simultaneous AV/TV priority, which is somewhere between fully manual and fully auto, just like the current AV and TV modes. Only this mode does not exist yet. EDIT: An example of "where it might be useful". For some reason or another, you really want DOF/aperture AND shutterspeed rigidly controlled. You know that most likely, the lighting conditions of your shooting environment will warrant an ISO 100 setting. However, due to dispersed cloud cover or your desire for shots from various angles, there are a few cases where ISO 200 would have worked better, with your fixed shutter settings. Now it's possible to get both in the same jump. Even in one jump lighting conditions can vary greatly based on the shot/angle. When I shoot in TV mode, the aperture settings (auto-determined) from one jump can vary from 3.5 to 11, for example. This could be due to the imperfection of the autodetection, but when the shots at both end of the scale look equally well-lit, I would think perhaps the auto-detect did a good job. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Hmm, this made me think of something interesting. On my XT... We have "AV" mode in which aperture (and ISO) are fixed, while shutterspeed is automatically determined. We have "TV" mode in which shutterspeed (and ISO) are fixed, while aperture is automatically determined. What we need (is there such a thing?) is a mode where both aperture and shutterspeed are fixed, but ISO is determined automatically. Would that be useful, does anybody think? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, that is why I was wondering if there are any products "like" it (similar but not identical) which would work on a Royal Lens. So far I have heard of none. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Anybody know of anything like this that will work on a Royal Lens Diamond 0.3x? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Leo, Come to Zhills, you will have more people to flock with!

Ha! Good luck with that... Let us know how it goes, Dave. For some reason I thought you already flew wingsuits. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

People often use statistics to try to prove how safe or dangerous an activity is. There is a problem with this. Statistics do not describe how inherently safe or dangerous an activity is - they describe how successfully it is being done. What you wrote here demonstrates my point entirely. As another example, consider driving. Very simple in principle and yet so many people fail to do it safely. So driving accidents happen quite frequently. This does not mean driving is dangerous or difficult. Piloting a jet airliner is much more complex, requires much more skill, and there is much more that can go wrong, so you could say it is inherently more dangerous. But jet airliners rarely crash, because of the level of attention of the pilots. My opinion is that tandem skydiving is inherently more dangerous than sport, but statistically there are fewer incidents (leading many people to conclude it is "safer", when it is actually just "practiced more successfully"). The line gets blurred when you consider being a passenger (on a jet airliner or a tandem parachute system). As a passenger, statistics DO actually matter since you have no degree of control over the outcome of the event. As a driver/controller, ultimate safety level is determined by YOU. Even the other stupid people on the road or in the sky are only variables that add to your role as a self-pilot. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

With most phones you can find a cheap 3rd party USB data cable that allows you to upload your own audio files from a PC and use them as ringtones. You will not find these cables in a retail store like Best Buy... try ebay for starters. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I did see "bowl at your own risk" on the wall at a bowling alley. I was on the floor laughing. The funny thing is I bowled a bunch of rounds and the next morning the shin on my forward foot was all sore, and hurt while I was skydiving. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Congrats... I owe beer too! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I stayed in his bus once and I didn't see any snakes in his fridge. What gives, Scott? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Wingsuits are not airplanes. Some of your assumptions do not apply. For example, "S" is not a constant in a wingsuit. As a sidenote, that is why polar curves may not be a very accurate way to describe wingsuit flight either. Airplanes change their AOA by moving small metal components at the ends of rigid surfaces. We reshape our entire bodies. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Not trying to be rude, but if you are just looking for general use, there are better places to find opinions than a skydiving forum. When I decided which camera to buy, even though it was for skydiving, since I knew any Sony would work fine, I went on Amazon.com and read hundreds of user reviews for cameras, reviews that were already written. Then I got on some major photo websites and read some more (I decided on HC90). You may get a few opinions here but they won't tell you all you need to know if you want to make a fully informed decision. Simple answer. The HC40 can do more than the HC26. It also costs more. Does the cost justify the gain, to you? Only you can answer. The video footage from neither will be horrible. But from one it will certainly be better. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The other day at Zhills some girls were watching their friend come in to land on a tandem. "Which one is she, the front or back?" www.WingsuitPhotos.com

At Sebastian they do 17, I think; the first two rows (closest to pilot) have 3 people instead of 2. This is very tight. Also the co-pilot seat is gone, I think, and somebody sits on the floor there. This is all based on my memory which may be wrong. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Why thank you. All the flockers did a great job. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Post some pictures of yours too Chuck, if you can, or maybe I can find some on the Bonehead site. I'm not really familiar with either style, but I am curious to see both because I'm in the process (very early in the process) of building a CCM from Wes Rich's plans and have been trying to decide whether to use the latches he usually does or do something similar to a FTP with cutaway, or what. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Replying to a very old thread that I just read for the first time. I think it's funny that most new camera flyers are told by "pros" (or whoever they go to for advice) that they should expect to do some work for free because their skills will not be worth money yet. But then the same "pros" who gave them this advice will be unhappy about beginners doing work for free and underselling them. Not pointing fingers at anybody in specific, but I have seen this happen. Truth is, beginners with no skills can come up with some pretty cool footage/photos sometimes. I put cameras on my head for fun, the same reason I put a parachute on my back. Although I did just get my first check from a mag and as pointed out in this thread, it is not much. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Cool, I can't wait to see it. Hopefully the BPA mag also used some shots. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Thanks Kris, it's a bigway wedge (~25 people I think) shot from underneath. I'll email you a picture... it should be on the USPA website before too long. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Whatchoo talkin' bout? I got my camera 2 months ago. And to think of all those people who told me my $90 kit lens would never take decent photos. Can somebody PLEASE scan a picture of this? I'm still in a state of disbelief and have no idea when I'll get to see a copy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'll try to answer some of the questions based on what I remember. I will repeat that it is a prototype and as far as I know Tony's just having fun with the process at this point and trying different things. The material seems thinner than the BM/PF suits, that's about the only thing I can say conclusively (repeating that it is a prototype and he may have just used what he had handy - I've seen other prototypes of his and Jeff's made from freefly suit material). I think I remember somebody telling me that it WAS canopy material, and the stuff our suits are made out of it is much thicker than ZP. I don't really know for sure. On intuition alone, I'd guess the webbed hands don't do much. But then again I haven't tried them. Not sure I'd want to either... they are sort of sleeve-integrated gloves that do cover the whole hand, and the material does seem a bit slick. I know a few people who saw it were put off by that (hackey concerns), but Tony doesn't seem to have a problem with it. I do not know if it is possible to pull through the wing, I am not sure how big of a gap, if any, there is. The suit seems to do ok with forward drive, despite the appearance of the arms. The flock was a bunch of S3's and they were all pushing it out for some reason (not too hard, just harder than a normal flock). It was Tony's 6th wingsuit jump and he was asking us for tips before the jump, but once we were in the air he flew like a pro, he was with us from exit, to about 7k where he punched it out and left us all behind. I was on my back and tried to chase him but failed and it was breakoff time by then anyway. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Those bums are always trying to take my camera. www.WingsuitPhotos.com