The111

Then your contention is still that one bracket can make a 1/4" screw stronger than another bracket? A 1/4" screw is a 1/4" screw is a 1/4" screw. If you want to make it stronger spend $5 on a good alloy metal screw. The plate below the screw has no control over when the screw will fail. No matter WHAT your camera is mounted to, the screw is the final load path. You cannot "take stress off of the screw," unless you are externally clamping the camera in place, which is not the case here. Ripping a camera baseplate off is not evidence of "no stress on the screw"... the screw had to carry an immense amount of stress in order for that failure of the baseplate to happen. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

What you appear to be talking about now is the simple act of a camera screw unthreading, and the camera falling off. If that's what you were talking about all along, then I indeed misinterpreted, largely because of the words you used. When you said "failure" you meant "unthreading." To a structural engineer, failure actually means destructively breaking. A screw unthreading is a not a screw failing. It's actually performing its intended purpose by unthreading under applied torque... although the system may be failing its intended purpose now (not mechanically though). When you said "stress" you meant "torque." Stress doesn't cause a screw to unthread, stress is what causes metal to fail (break), force over area. Of course torque on a screw will cause it to unthread. That having something in place to counter-act camera twist/torque is a good idea... I agree. That something as incredibly beefy and heavy as the RRS bracket is the most suitable way to accomplish that task in freefall applications... I disagree. Not saying it's a horribly bad idea, but it's not the only one or the best. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You've said twice that we need to "remove stress from the screw" and also that "15 cent screws" aren't enough. And now you say it's not the screw strength in question. Honestly, it's not making any sense. Keep in mind that I design mounting hardware for a living. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

There is still stress on the screw. The fact that you've made the bracket stronger than the screw does not "remove stress from the screw." The fact that the camera body is weaker than the screw does not "remove stress from the screw." The only thing that would cause the screw to break is if both the bracket and the camera body were stronger than it. Clearly, the camera body is the weak link in your example... but the only way it was able to break was that stress was transmitted through the screw, to the camera body. Meaning, the screw was stressed. That is not a bad thing... screws are designed to be stressed. EDIT: A more on-topic comment, back to the whole "skydiving" thing. Speaking of "weak links" in mechanical systems... no matter how robust your brackets, screws, or camera bodies are, the weak link in every setup we use is our NECKS. If you are seriously worried about ramming your head into something so hard that it tears your camera off your helmet you should: 1) Find ways to avoid doing that in the first place 2) Think about the fact that the stronger you make those metal mounts, the more stress you will place on your neck BEFORE the metal mounts fail. We recommend putting nylon screws on ringsight mounts ($250 hardware), but when it comes to cameras we apparently want their attachments able to withstand a terminal impact. A camera's a lot more than $250, so I guess you gotta ask yourself: at what dollar value of mounted hardware does YOUR desire for a rigidly mounted system outweigh your desire to use your neck for the rest of your life? I've examined most of the quick release systems on the market and they all work. Sure, some are stronger than others, but there is such a thing as over-engineering, and in this case it can actually be a dangerous thing (the very reason we recommend people use nylon screws on ringsight mounts). I used the old cheap Stroboframe for years before I built my CCM and no it's not the strongest system in the world, but I never lost a camera, and if I hit my head hard enough to make that system fail, I would have been thankful for it failing and relieving the stress of the impact from my neck. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Seriously? Did you read all the replies? A rubber band will not hold against an immense force that would break a 1/4" metal screw. Might as well wrap toilet paper around it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I can't figure out what's going on in the pics, but in general it's not possible to "remove stress from the screw" unless there is something else other than the screw holding the camera in place. I've played with RRS brackets and no matter how solid they are, the screw is still the final link holding the camera down. That means the screw is taking all the stress from the camera's inertial load. There's no way to "remove" that. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You don't need to strengthen it. That quarter inch screw can already hold many many more times the weight of that camera. Do you think a rubber band will make a quarter inch of alloy metal stronger? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Now there's a shock... you buy hardware from a hardware store and you get it at a fair price. Buying it anywhere else is like buying Dytter batteries in a gear store... overpriced by like 4 times at least. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I know very experienced pilots who still prefer S6 over the Blade. Also... what wingsuit did you buy with only a handful of wingsuit jumps to your name? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, 1/4" OD and 20 tpi. The depth of the threaded holes on cameras can be problematic too. They're usually fairly shallow which makes length of the selected screw critical. Too long, and you won't be able to get a clamp on your hardware. Too short and you won't have any engagement. At best you'll get 2-3 threads engaged if you're lucky, but with such a large coarse thread and a small load, it's fine. On my CCM plates I had to grind my countersunk screws down to just the right length. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

A quarter inch screw with a thumbcap on the end? Go to Ace Hardware, or any other decent hardware store. Bring your camera to make sure you get the right one. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Well if you looked at the address you could see what was wrong with it. But the bigger problem is that the video is set to private. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I think it is to prevent the back side of the lens (convex) from bottoming out on either the front of the camera lens or the "shutter" (lens cover)... it may or may not be necessary. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I heard about this from Jeff a week ago and I didn't really understand or believe how it could work. But I just got my suit back in the mail from Tony, and it looks good. I haven't jumped it yet, but here are some pictures of a "ground test". Basically, I was never happy with the idea of double zips and no cutaway. But now I'm back to single zips and no cutaway NEEDED. See attached photos.

Not actually true, every picture I've had published in magazines has been on my website first, and many have been posted here too. Big name pro photographers do the SAME THING (not so much posting to DZ.com... but posting to their own web galleries). Parachutist pays for only exclusive, first-run photographs ... My interpretation of "first-run" has always been with respect to print publications. I don't like posting my stuff to DZ.com early... but putting it on your own page is no problem. I actually use my web galleries as my submission method... I tell them to look through the most current gallery and pick what they want out of it for the mag (so it's no secret that it's already publicly online). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Looks like a good start, where's the money shot? I'll wait to see it in the mags. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Where on earth does it inflate from? It's a triangle. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I've seen this happen at a few DZ's in Florida. If you are one of the most experienced camera flyers at your DZ, offer one up. If you're not, then urge whoever is one of the most experienced guys/gals to do it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

CLICK HERE You are looking at the 0.3x, I'm guessing... much more expensive. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

When I had my lens I always used the 37-to-37 "converter" (spacer) because I assumed that without it the convex glass would bottom out. Recently somebody told me that he doesn't get fog but doesn't get use the ring (and it doesn't bottom out) so I thought "shit, I wish I had tried it without the ring while I still had the lens." What you're hoping seems to be the opposite, that adding the spacer will eliminate the fog. Let me know how it turns out, but I sort of doubt that adding an extra interface will reduce air leakage. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

har har www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Why is this? Less sensitivity (twitch) at less efficient flying positions? More range available also, I'd imagine. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Damn, who has the skills to make photo-realistic icing patterns? Pretty neat! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That's part of what I meant... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Does not work with most video cards. www.WingsuitPhotos.com