The111

I see it too. Nice shots otherwise. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I took a pic with my tripod of me and my girlfriend sitting in front of a waterfall (Canon 10-22mm at widest setting), and my lower legs are in one corner of the shot and they look about two times longer that they should be. And if you're turning your reverb up to 10, you're doing it wrong. This one goes to 11. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Please read my post. I said the Canon 10-20 does not exist. I own the Canon 10-22. Exactly what I said. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Wow, that's a pretty bleak look at our society, if you would EXPECT a lawsuit from a friend who falls in your house. What a bunch of pussies we are. Falling down, oh no. I was in a hurry the other day running through my kitchen wearing socks and tried to take a turn and ate it, hard. I fell flat on my side, and my girlfriend laughed her ass off. I'm still alive and kickin.

Yeh, that disappointed me too, fortunately I had one of his old plates from a friend to look at, so I reverse engineered it. I can help when you need it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Every few days somebody on here refers to the Sigma 10-22 or Canon 10-20. NEITHER EXIST. The Canon 10-22 is not fisheye, in fact it has virtually no distortion throughout the entire zoom range (almost unprecedented for an ultra wide zoom). The reason they can pull this off is because of the focal length multiplier and inherent cropping. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Craig, you'll be happy with your carbon fiber keyhole mounts on your CCM when it's finished. Not QUITE as fast as the quick releases on the market, but more low profile and lighter, and cooler IMO. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

By "ventilated" do they mean internal dust collector? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Ditto... the only negative in this situation is that you can't see your linetwists. I get linetwists one in 50 jumps maybe, jumping wingsuit with a LOT of camera on my head. But I remember which way they spin up, and then I spin myself in the other direction (while staring at my feet). If it ever doesn't work... bye bye canopy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Your question is not even valid, because women CAN be called cunts. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That's right folks, a full length album at no cost to you. Mr. Yorke has finally lost it. It's limited to 160kbps, but it's still free. http://www.radioheadlp7.com/ www.WingsuitPhotos.com

What if your zippers jam and refuse to open up? Even if you don't have a mal, you won't be able to reach your toggles and you'll have to harness turn yourself towards a no-flare landing. For me, this is the ONLY reason to have a cutaway (neither of the two you listed are worries to me). I've never considered a cutaway to be something I'd use because it's "faster" than zippers... only because it's more reliable. I've never used my cutaways once because my zippers haven't jammed, yet. I'd also never use my cutaways (or unzip my suit) in freefall. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Here's a pic of Mike and Nick from the weekend. BANG! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

And what is your read, or perception, on how dangerous the general public thinks driving is? As you pointed out, it's difficult to quantify. But the easy answer is that they don't respect its danger nearly enough, at least where I live (Orlando). Every time it rains, people are sliding off the highway left and right as if they've never heard of friction. I have a game, when it's raining and I'm driving home from work I count the cars that I see washed out on the side of the road. I usually average about 1 per mile. Everybody on the highway rides everybody else's bumper, and any simple 2 car collision often turns into a 12 car pileup because the morons couldn't plan ahead. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It was cloudy, grey, and wet, but there are still some ok pictures here. BANG! Thanks to everybody who showed up.

I have been saying for a long time, that whether or not that is true, it still has merit because it brings attention to two important facts: 1) Skydiving is much less dangerous than the general public thinks. 2) Driving is much more dangerous than the general public thinks. I'd rather the general public start paying attention to #2, than to #1. I could care less if they deem my skydiving sane, but I wish they would start driving better around here. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Some more food for thought: If I do indeed have a "leaky lens"... it is most likely a very small leak. This would make sense. This would mean the air volume in the inside is slow to equalize. So during fast ambient changes (freefall), it cannot equalize fast enough and condensation is created. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Thanks to those who have suggested the leaky lens. This was something I've been considering too. I will call B&H and see if I can trade out for the same lens, or try to find a place locally to do it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I pretty much always flash back to The Jerk. I love that movie. They don't make comedy like that anymore. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yup, we figured this one out and I kept my helmet outside all weekend after that. The heating pad idea could work but it shouldn't be necessary as I never did it with old setup. Phree, I think your post may be very helpful. It sound like my "little circle" may be between the elements and maybe I want to go with a single element. I could also take a risk and get the Century two element and see if it's constructed well enough that there's not a gap to allow air inside. It sure would be nice to have full zoom with a WA. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For the past two years I've jumped an HC90 and Diamond 0.3x lens. This has been in very humid FL, and I have never had any serious fogging (condensation) problems. Sure, the front of the lens would fog sometimes, but only when I went through a cloud or actual fog or something. With my new HC5 and Raynox 5050 lens, I am having SERIOUS fog problems. Even on jumps where my ringsight, goggles, and still camera lens do not fog, the video frame begins fogging (a small, faint, near-transparent circle near the center of the frame) from 12,000ft down, with the small circle getting larger and less transparent throughout the freefall. I really don't know if this is on the outside of the lens or on the inside, but I suspect it is on the inside. Now, there 4 places it could be (2 element lens)... actually there are 6 places if you count the camcorder lens (and inside) itself but I don't think it is that one. I have applied tons of Cat Crap and it doesn't make a difference. I just got done with a 3 day wingsuit event where Norm Kent and I were both shooting photos and video and we talked a lot about this and he suggested I replace the Raynox 5050 with a single element HD lens like Century makes. The thing is, if the fog is occuring on the back face of the back element, it shouldn't make a different if I switch to single element, because that same face will still exist. We were both wondering if the fog was actually occuring between the elements (front of back element or back of front element) but neither of us could say for sure. One thing we both suspected was that it had more to do with lens MATERIAL than actual number of elements or anything else. For example, on a REALLY wet jump where the Tiffen filter on my still camera fogged on both inside and out (so bad that there was a residue after landing)... the actual SLR lens it was protecting (Canon 10-22) did not have one drop of moisture on it. Even though it was in the exact same volume of air as the backside of the Tiffen filter which was soaked. Obviously the glass, coating, or both, is different between the Tiffen filter and the 10-22 lens face. So I'm trying to figure out if I switch to a Century lens, do I go with the 0.55x single element, or the 0.5x two element which will allow zoom through? Norm did at first seem very confident that a single element would fix my problems, but we did both agree that material would be more important. So if Century uses a more fog resistant material, then wouldn't the two element work too? But maybe the fog is occuring between the elements, something neither of us can be sure about. Bottom line, this is a very confusing issue and the only way to solve it is by buying another expensive lens to test it out, and selling the ones that don't pass the test at a loss. I wasn't able to test my old Royal lens with the HD camera since I didn't have a converter ring (not to mention it doesn't have the resolution I need). But I am 99% sure it wouldn't have this problem... sure it would fog heavily when going through 4000ft, but never did it have that "little tiny circle in the center" starting as soon as I'm out the door. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Details of the race? Don't think I saw them posted yet.... 1. All participants lay down wingsuits in the grass, in the dark. 2. Participants run to suits, put them on, then zip up and run to a table at the far end of the field. 3. Slam a beer. The rules were not adhered to very well. One guy (Tyler from TX) took off running for the table without even putting his wingsuit on. Another guy (Robi Pecnik) grabbed his suit, stuffed it under his arm, and took off running (but in his defense he put it on at the beer table). I'm pretty sure Purple Mike stepped on somebody else's wingsuit which is a technical foul. And almost nobody zipped up all the way which means they all cheated. Here is some photographic evidence of Jeff, NOT zipped up, automatic DQ (disqualification). James Boole was the winner, although I for one have my doubts about the competition standards of this race. Some people just don't take competition seriously. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

In the middle of Burble Flyers (on my site here) there is a high speed exit. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Her back is toward the ground, but she is not "flat", rather inclined head low, spinning in a way that kind of reminds me of head down carving in a wind tunnel. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

And I have no idea who that "other wingsuiter" is, or how fast he/she is falling. I do notice, however, that the third person, NOT in a flatspin, is also falling much slower than the camera. It seems like the camera guy sunk out on both of them, for whatever reason. Also, for 90% of that video you do not have a clear view of the girl in the spin. However, from the very beginning when you can see her clearly it does appear to be a spin, but not a "flat" spin... more of an incredibly steep diving corkscrew generated by the legwing. A bit of thread drift, but I have talked to several people who say they were in spins "so intense that they could not pull their arms in." When I ask how they got out alive, they say they pulled. ??????????????????? How on earth can you pull, if your arms are "stuck out"? Yeh, I'll give you that much, it probably is possible depending on body type and suit. I don't think the average will be below 78mph, but it might be possible to hit that for some period of time, and I guess if you happen to be in the "slow" period of your dynamic fallrate as you go through Cypres activation deck, you may be screwed. I still don't think it's very likely, not enough to worry me at least. www.WingsuitPhotos.com