DSE

.3 is the widest lens you'll find that has high line resolution. In the Camera forum, you can find a lens test. The Royal .2 isn't on that test, because it's a very unusual lens. Anything that wide however, won't have great resolution at the edges no matter who makes it.

Agreed, I didn't define what "testing" really means. When I bought my FTP, one of the video guys at our DZ essentially suspended me (holding most of my weight via the helmet) and had me cut it away. it was much harder than simply pulling it. Practicing the cutaway are part of my EP routines on each climb to altitude. I'm not surprised, however, reading that there are folks with cutaway systems, having more than a few jumps, that have not taken the 2-3 mins it takes to test the system on the ground. What about lubricant if your system needs it? Or clearing the foam or liner away from it so it functions as expected? Me...I'd be worried about expecting it to work when needed if not tested on the ground first.

Curious for a couple reasons; obviously the thread we see below, and additionally, a local person just getting into camera bought a helmet with no cutaway, and when I asked him about it, he felt "very confident he'll never need one." I have peace of mind having one, but wonder how many people have actually tested the cutaway systems they have, and how many even have a cutaway system on their helmets. If you do not have one, would you mind elaborating on either why you don't, or how you feel about not having one?

I wouldn't presume to think I know what Max would or wouldn't prefer. Were it me, I'd prefer one post by me over someone else telling my story, wouldn't you? I got off my ass because I wanted to know the answer to a question. I persisted with a few phone calls and emails, he called from overseas. He had an explanation that makes some sense to me, but might not make sense to you were I to explain it. I didn't ask for, nor did he offer, permission for me to share what was said in our phone conversation. When did it become my responsibility to chase him down again to satisfy someone else' curiosity? From my viewpoint, it's also rude to share a private conversation or email without asking for permission. From his email to me yesterday: Sounds to me like he'd prefer to hear from you? Last I heard, he is overseas. The number that came in on my cell was an overseas number, so I would tend to believe as much.

Then pick up the phone as I did, or send an email as I did, then you'll have your answer. Relaying information third-hand is rarely my favorite practice. It's usually distorted. What is wrong with people these days? So fast to crucify without the facts, too lazy to make a call or press a few keys? Am I the only one that thinks this is "rude?" Last year, I learned of a young tunnel rat that was doing relative work with tandems with around 100 jumps. Many people flamed that sucker, screamed that he shouldn't be in the air near a tandem. Some one was nearly killed on that jump, maybe two people, as the video showed. I still show that video to people from time to time. I guess I coulda judged him and his buds entirely by what I saw, and jumped on the "BURN HIM AT THE STAKE" group, instead, I sent him a PM and we had a great dialog. Wouldn't you think we're both better of as a result?

I respectfully suggest you have a lack of imagination. I'm not a spokesperson for Royal; it's not my place to speak on their behalf ALL I'm saying is I was presented with a reason that makes sense. Still isn't acceptable, but it makes sense.

While I agree with what I suspect is your point, the reality of it is that at a small DZ, he's probably practicing on tandems. UK is pretty stringent on how they do things, or so it seems? Anyway...if he's paying his own freight, and it's a small DZ, I'd expect he's practicing on tandems. I'd bet that most every person posting in this forum was jumping with tandems well before the manufacturer-required 500 jumps. Rightfully or wrongfully,I think that's the reality. Even if not...the advice holds true; Paper asshole Look with your head with eyes on a fixed plane rather than rolling eyes upwards. Watch out for "king shit" and "DSE's bitch" (sorry inside joke)

Try looking at the tandem instructor instead. See if that helps you. Chances are, your eyeballs are rolling up rather than looking straight ahead. It's a common thing when you're first getting started. I struggled with it for a while. Walk around with your camera on your head. You'll look goofy, but get used to locking your eyes in one plane, and moving your head to see what's going on around you vs moving your eyes. That'll help you learn eye/head coordination. In the sky, you need to get that down, and at the same time, be able to roll your eyes around (eyes on a swivel) without moving your head. HTH?

I'll say that he had a reasonable explanation that didn't stink of BS.

I'd recommend you look at the CX7, or if you can wait a few months, wait for its replacement. If you don't need remote control, the new Canon Vixia series are great, and the new Panasonic SD5/9's aren't terrible. AVCHD/tapeless is the future, no moving parts other than zoom travel, and the cams are super lightweight, almost half that of an HC series. The HC3/5/7/9 are all great cams too, of course. Just don't put a crappy SD lens on the front of an HD camcorder like so many seem prone to do. It makes HD look terrible. You might as well buy an HC52 and shoot SD widescreen

Congress originally enacted the Lanham Act, including § 43(a) (which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), in 1946 and amended it in 1988, but in both instances provided scant guidance on how courts should construe § 43(a). This provision prohibits any use of a false or misleading description or representation in commercial advertising or promotion that "misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of. . . goods, services, or commercial activities." Courts have formulated the following elements for a claim under § 43(a): The defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising. That statement must have actually deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of the audience. The deception must have been material, in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decision. The defendant must have caused its goods to enter interstate commerce. The plaintiff must have been or is likely to be injured as a result. United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1180 (8th Cir. 1998). To obtain monetary damages - as opposed to simply injunctive relief - a Lanham Act plaintiff must also demonstrate actual consumer reliance on the false advertisement and a resulting economic impact on its own business. Finally, although § 43(a) appears to be aimed at protecting consumers, the Lanham Act provides no cause of action to consumers, only to business competitors. Barrus v. Sylvania, 55 F.3d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1995); Serbin v. Ziebart Int'l Corp., 11 F.3d 1163, 1169-70 (3d Cir. 1993). Lanham is separate from any action that may arise from tarnishing a name, blurring the association of a mark/tradename, or diluting a trade name. "Cyber-squatting cases have used dilution protection laws as part of their foundations and won. I've moved this to Bonfire in part, so that Lawrocket or TheCaptain may read and comment upon it. I'm not a lawyer, I merely pay a couple of them and sometimes actually learn something in the process. And who knows....maybe the lawyers in our bunch will find me way off the mark here.

True enough, but I was more focused on Monkey's comment relating to skydivers in general. side note, no one is allowed to call me "king shit" unless they're my bitch. I didn't get the notice that you're on that list I wonder...if you took a stick, shoved it down your back beneath the rig, had the stick long enough that it went past your eye....it could point at the tandem student. Maybe they could even do RW with it. That might be cool! Paint the stick green, so it can be keyed out later. To the OP, not only with a ringsite, dot, or paper reinforcer help when getting started, it'll help you learn to move your whole head, rather than moving your eyes. Norman Kent teaches this very nicely in his video and his live classes. he's doing one at Summerfest, BTW.

"High road?" Skydivers??

Otherwise known as "a paper asshole" for purposes of searching.

Skymama is another year bolder. Congrats and wishes for the happiest day yet to you, Andrea!

You're welcome to disagree. You might change your position if you were to read case law related to the Lanham Act. had I not had a dishonest person do exactly this to my business, I would never have had need to be in a court of law, nor hired an attorney, nor learned the process involved. It's piracy in a unique sense. You see a ship with a US flag on it, you follow that ship. You cross the gangway, because you're boarding a ship known to be familiar because of the flag (brand) she's flying. Once you're over the gangway and on the US-flagged ship, the US flag comes down and the flag of Umudica Cadinsuza is raised and you realize you're not where you thought you were. That's not lawful. Not according to ICANN, and not according to US law.

A-not sponsored by Royal. B-if you thought about it as well as you thought out your earlier post, you'd probably realize that leaving the thread locked would be in Royal's best interest, not opening it. I opened it, because I did take the time to speak with Jason and Max both. I've also made my position on this sort of a situation very, very clear, as it's happened to me. I'd urge you to actually consider the implications and inferrences you've made in your edit, Gary.

So, you've spoken directly with the people at Royal lens? You know first-hand why/what/how this occurred? I'm equally disgusted with how quickly folks will crucify. I'm impressed as hell with Cookie's silence on the matter. Your examples don't ring similar, IMO, to this particular discussion. Everready vs Duracell doesn't lead the consumer down a false road to a different destination, nor does it trade on the reputation of one product to switch for another. And yes, in America the same cell and battery ads air. Regardless of whether you believe Jason would "have a leg to stand on" it is an indication of your lack of knowledge in this matter. It's an international issue, and even were it not, Cookie, as a registrant with ICANN, is protected in the US by the Lanham Act. End of story. Jason already knows this. I've spoken with all parties concerned. Can you say the same? If not, then comments like "My Royal Lens is going in the trash." You've got a fair number of posts exhorting why people should talk to manufacturers before crucifying them on the web. Since I know of several of those posts, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've spoken with Royal lens (who happen to have been outside their office and USA for the past 2 weeks) somehow. Took me a while, but I did speak with Royal directly. Even though he was out of the USA.

I disagree, and if Cabela's were to surreptitiously divert a road that indicated a turn to BassProShop, they'd be in serious legal trouble, aside from the obvious issues of deceptive intent with regard to a trademark. The law is pretty clear on this, actually. If you read the link I provided to the legal action my company was forced to undertake when this was done to us, you'd be aware that there is a very broad legal precedent that could turn this into a very big issue. If I think I'm going to Walmart and walk in and find that it's really a Sears...I've been mislead and a victim of fraud.

Hang out more with Purple Mike

1. Purple Mike 2. Lurch 3. DSE 4. QuietStorm ( a.k.a Space Cadet & LT Adderall ) 5. Jeff Donohue (a.k.a, the retarded skwrl)\ 6. Steve H. 7. Justin Shorb 8. Jeff Nebelkopf 9. Rick Huff 10. Jason Carter 420. Avery

After having spoken with both parties concerned, I've reopened this thread. I'd encourage anyone with questions to contact Royal Lens via their website, or via GenFreefly here on DZ.com.

Details are for her to share, but she did very well. And...it was a bit of a long spot for her, too. But she made it back, albeit to the experienced landing area.

For handling a cutaway very nicely, landing fairly well (in spite of flaring the reserve about 30' too high It was a lot of fun having you and your crew at SDU this weekend.

http://www.cartoonbank.com/CapContest/CaptionContest.aspx?affiliate=ny-caption Self explanatory