BMFin

I agree with rhys. As long as you inform the customer about the increased risk factor, I fail to see a why a gear mfg, national aviaton authority or anyone else should make the decision on behalf of the customer. And night jumps are most definetly not boring..

You mean like this

Canon 14mm f/2.8 ? Wow, that is one expensive lens you had there. Did you have it on an APS-C body ?

yes. this is the lens I mentioned with the stereographic projection image. Have seen rewieves, and most likely ordering one pretty soon. It doesnt have AF, which is not a catastrofy at this focal lenght though.

I totally agree with pilotdave. Not much difference at all with the imgages taken at 18-22mm when both pics are correctly focused. There are comparison pictures availeable even 100% crops, if someone wants to google. The differences are however USM motor, which will focus fast, some other optical qualitys like flares and CA´s and colors.. However, the real difference comes into play when you compare 10mm vs 18mm. Im quite sure most of us could see this difference.

The way I understand it is that Focal lenght is only one factor determining the field of view. Image projection is another one. If every lens would produce a rectilinear image, then focal lenght would determine FOV of each lens. However different lenses produce different image projections and therefore FOV will differ at same focal lenghts for example. Also the 8mm can see 180 degrees already. It is not a suprise that the 4,5mm cannot do more than this. You need a VERY complex optics, if you want the lens to be able to see behind it self.. (such lenses exist though, like the Nikon 6mm) If you look at some of the 8mm fisheyes for example, they dont all produce the same kind of image. For example the new Samyang 8mm has a stereographic projection that differes from the Simga 8mm. The 4,5mm image projection is called circular fisheye. Explained here: http://www.versacorp.com/vlink/jcreview/sy8rv9jc.pdf Also it is not vignetting you see with the 4,5mm. It is just the edges of the image circle. Pretty much every lens will vignette. Some lenses more, and some others less. Vignetting explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting I doubt you saw 8mm on a fullframe based on your description. Fullframe + 8mm looks like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/poppy-photography/4265904738/ Im not sure if I actually answered your question since I admit Im a bit lost with this subject my self also..

I would definetly just give ´em the raw footage straight from the camera. Thats how I have done it. Any destructive changes in the format might actually make it worse. The pros at the tv-station will know what to do with it. (unless its a total micky mouse TV-station)

How about asking the TV-station instead ?

I agree that night tandems arent as safe as tandems during the day. I was merely interested on the legal side here.

Davelepka, you have so many jumps man wow. You must be very good canopy pilot if not the best, right ? Will you give me some canopy piloting lessons over internet ?

Im curious what is the legal status or these rules set by USPA ? Arent they just internal rules of a private organization ? In other words, is there any reason why wouldnt you be able to rent a cessna and make the jump as a non-USPA operation ?

I agree, this lens isnt the best option for low light situations. Personally I dont see my self giving up the canon 10-22 since I think it is the best lens in its class hands down. Im most likely getting my self an 8mm prime to go with it. Well it depends on which prime we are talking about. You shouldnt expect very good optical performance from a fisheye lens such as the canon 15mm. For example, Canon 10-22 outperforms the Canon 15mm according to the MTF charts. ( see pics) In this case the zoom lens is noticably sharper. Besides, the 15mm fisheye isnt really what its supposed to be on APS-C sensor.. The projection image of the fisheye is incomplete. On FF or APS-H it is much more usable though. Also it has slower autofocus too when compared to the 10-22 for example.. Still, merely in terms of the focal lenght, this new stigma seems very interesting. Theres no competitors in this class.

Sigma announced some new lenses a few days ago. One of them was 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC The focal lenght seems ideal for a basic zoom for skydiving for APS-C. Will be interesting so see how it performs.

Im curious, where exactly on DPP can you get info on which distance the photo was focused on ? Only thing I have noticed is the "AF point" selection on DPP which will give me the AF grid, but that doesnt really give me any info on where it was focused and which distance.. (see photo) And yes, Im strong believer of AF as long as you lens can deliver good AF. Lots of times I notice people taping their focus ring near infinity and shoot objects at any distance what so ever with the same point of focus.. (you can believe the results arent that sharp) My rough guess is that I get maby 5% out of focus, but I rather deal with this than get all my photos "somewhere around there"

I guess you could pan focus with this using smaller aperture, but just like with 35mm and other systems you need to know the distance of the subject in beforehand. But for shure this would be less forgiving in this way.. Why pan-focus anyway if you have AF lens and body ?

IMO what matters is the result, not how it was achieved. No matter how I look at it, I just see blurry pics of empty sky. I guess I could be wrong. If you give a brush and a canvas to a horse and it manages to make a few sweeps, I guess someone would pay big bucks for that magnificent painting.

LOL Large format to shoot empty sky ? Why not just take those photos from an aircraft ?

I understand what you are saying and I agree to some part, but: The way I understood the OP´s post was that he was merely seeking info on different canopies. Based on that info he may then make the right or wrong decisions. I didnt see any "seeking for justification" or anything like that. I did however notice how some people attacked him merely based on his profile, without ever even seeing him fly his canopy. I think internet is a great place to learn any theoretical information. Any practical learning is a different thing. IMO the OP´s question was theoretical and I dont see a reason why this kind of questions couldnt be discussed here. Actually I think the info here is even more objective than 1on1 info at the DZ which is always very subjective information..

pretty amazing stuff ! 7:40 -> was pretty epic ! Thanks for the link.

Bite switches have a reputation of not being very long lasting. Personally I like the bite switch because of the "feel". You can always "feel" when you are triggering it. I admit straight away that I dont have personal experience on blow switches, but I would expect they dont offer as precice "feel" of when you trigger (or start the burst and end the burst). Also with biteswitch you are able to breath more freely ? I could be mistaken naturally on this since I dont have personal experience over blow or suck switch.. The issues I was experiencing with bite switches was that the rubber cover broke down ultimately and moisture got inside the switch. This corroded the metal parts, and pretty quickly the switch was useless because as we all know corrosion doesnt conduct electricity. After I had gone through 3 switches I decided that I need to solve this problem. I could go to blow switch for its reliability, but on the otherhand I didnt want to loose the pros of the bite switch.. I solved this by peeling off the rubber from the switch. You end up having two flexible metal condutors that will short circuit when pushed together. Next step is to polish the corrosion off and finally cover the switch with durable pacifier silicone. (you dont necessarily need to include the plastic mouthpiece of the pacifier id you dont want to) The pacifier silicone is much more durable + more ergonomic IMO. After doing this mod, I have had no problem so far. I have yet to see how long it actually lasts, but Im pretty confident this is a very good solution if you prefer to use the bite switch and dont want to buy a new switch every 500 shots...

+1 to what Phree said already. I cant see any real improvement in anything if you compare the canon kit lens to this sigma. The question is are you sure you want to shoot this focal lenght ? Have you tried wider ? Personally I like shooting wider than 17mm (APS-C) for most of the times. This ofcourse is a question only you can answer... Also I try to stay away from stigma lenses. I have seen so many bad copies and focus problems that I dont think I could afford to buy one and end up buying the more expensive alternative afterwards anyway. Where I come from we have a saying "the poor cannot afford to buy cheap" and I think it applies here well. Im sure someone will disagree on this though...

Wise words from JC. Like he says asking questions and finding information is the way to learn. He also advices that being able to take advice, even though the advice might not be given in a way that seems appropriate is the way to success. The way I interprete the last bit is that not just being able to take advice is important, but also giving advice in a manner that wont cause a negative reaction in the recipient is very important. I cant help noticing how in this sport it has became a true tradition to give "advice" by quite literally starting the actual advice with this Fuck you -attitude. Not only you will upset the recipient, but you will also make sure he/she will have no motivation to listen to anything out of the actual constructive message. On the contrary this could even provoke the recipient to act contrary to the advice.. This is why the way the advice is given is very important. Giving good and needed advice in the wrong manner, might actually make things even worse.. And about the actual question in this case: My opinion is that I dont see much reason for giving advice for appropriate canopy over the net without seeing the individual fly his canopy. Why not let the friends and mentors at the DZ evaluate these questions ? They have seen him fly and they on much firmer grounds giving him the appropriate feedback.

this is classic Here we go again... However, instead of getting my pop corn ready, I think I will find something more constructive to do... Have fun !

Could you explain this more ? I always thought it wont affect the canopy at all, since when we look at the canopy from the side the canopy is attached to us from one point only (three rings) and it wont matter if we try to lean forward or backwards since in relation to the canopy our mass always mediates from the same three ring anyway. Same applies to hip turns in vice versa. The only reason doing hip turns is possible is because when we look at the canopy from the front the canopy is attachet to us from TWO points. Therefore leaning on other side will reduce the load on one side which will cause turning. If we were attached to the canopy from ONE point also from this perspective, then we wouldnt be able to make hip turns. Am I missing something here ?