BMFin

What makes you say so ? This is not what I have said. Please quote my words if you feel that this was my words.. Yes. Wind doesnt affect the optimal initiation altitude. Wind however affects the planeout picture and may easily cause the pilot to keep the canopy diving longer/less.

I respectfully disagree on this part. I still think that downwind causes people to end up low and headwind causes people ending up high. In other words, when landing downwind, if the recovery looks the same when landing headwind you are already too low.. When landing downwind the visual should reseble more to the visual of ending up too high on headwind. Dont you agree ?

To be honest Im suprised that there are people flying >2.0 WL without ever giving this a thought...

Im sure they will consult professionals when ever it is needed. The police is obliged to perform the prejudical inquiry, just like with any other fatality to make sure there is no crime involved.

I will try. When the recovery phase happens into the wind the ground speed is lower than what it is on zero wind for example. This causes the visual reference to look different on different winds. Swooper should always adjust the plane out phase according to visual reference. (how the ground looks like -> how fast you are moving relative to the ground and how high you are relative to the ground) Now, most swoopers are accustomed to handle the variation between "zero wind conditions" and stronger "into the wind conditions". Not that many are trained to adjust their recovery based on the visual references relative to the ground on "downwind conditions" and this causes problems when occasionally swooping downwind. To simplyfie this, think of a swooper adjusting his recovery in the end on a strong downwind. At 30 feet he feels he is going very fast horizontally and therefore it seems to him that he is at the very end of the recovery and already almost totally planed out. However the reason for this ground speed is that the downwind factor is generating more groundspeed and in reality he is not yet in the end of the recovery as the pilot seems to think. This often causes a pilot to end up low on downwind conditions. I may not be able to verbalize my self in the most explicit way, since english is not my 1st language. Maby some of the other ppl in this forum can also help explain this in a more simple way ?

To me the main reason looks to be the fact that the course was set to a rather strong downwind. Unless you really have practiced swooping downwind, it is very common to end up too low in the end of the recovery since the plane out looks a lot different when going downwind.

you cant necessarily see the ripcord of the spring loaded either. You shouldnt just "hope" the kill line is in order. You need to maintain your gear. However even if it brakes the PC will still work. It just wont collapse. and that there is enough force to pull the pin. . . The question of how much force it generates is not dependant of the PC being spring or not. Mainly the size and material determines that. The few times I have used a spring loaded caused me trouble almost every time. The spring PC can easily go over the canopy and get tangled in the lines. Very often it gets stuck in the burble and causes a delay. It is a pain in the ass to pack also. The type of ripcord that was in use on the Wings system I used had to be stowed away inside your jump suit after opening. (you can easily loose it) The type of vinyl material of the ripcord was very prone to get dented and could easily be stuck on the loop causing a mal. I cannot find a single reason for using one.

It doesnt work nearly as well as the more simple BOC.

all Spain is mandatory (as far as I recall) I think not. In empuria AAD is mandatory but not all spain. (see skydivespain for example)

Whats wrong with swooping a reserve ?

Thats a nice shot !

You are right. I was confused there. LPPM isnt the same as LW/PH This im not so sure about just yet. I agree that this is how it seems at first glance, but is it really ? I admit that Im not so familiar with the subject, so I could be wrong. The thing that makes me wonder is that when we look at the photozone test 17-55 f/2.8 @ 8Mpix (350D sensor) the maximum MTF value is measured 2126,5 LW/PH even though the theoretical maximum would be 2304 on that sensor. At first glance it would seem the lens doesnt quite utilize the whole sensor. Right ? However when the test was done with a 15 Mpix (50D sensor) the maximum MTF value at the same aperture as on the previous test was 2536. Now I would be very curious to see what the MTF values would be when the lens was tested on a sensor with even higher resolution. Lets say 20Mpix. Im almost sure the MTF value on that sensor would be even higher than 2536. Dont you agree ? What I mean is that even if you wont measure the theoretical maximum MTF value with the lens on 15Mpix sensor, that doesnt mean it wouldnt perform better on a sensor with larger resolution. Therefore it looks like that going beyond 15 Mpix is beneficial in terms of true picture resolution. Do you agree ? Sure the gain becomes smaller and smaller all the time so it is very likely that the gain is not very large beyond 15 Mpix.. Who knows ? The author of the Photozone Lens Test FAQ is guessing the limit could be somewhere around 20Mpix with the sharp lenses. " Assuming optimal conditions I would guess that a few, very few lenses may have the potential to go up to 20mp on APS-C but only with their center portion. " Intresting subject. Anyway it seems IMO that building a 18 Mpix APS-C sensor isnt just a Canon marketing strategy, but it actually is of use to those with sharp optics.

yes. Agreed. But when we talk about HD-video resolution (1920x1080) this has no effect at all. You are right.. I was a bit off there..

My previous answer was a bit quick.. so I add some more. No. 8 megapixels is 8megapixels on both FF and APC-C regardless of the pixel density. Density doesnt give more resolution. The smaller sensor will utilize only smaller area of the lens, but still take the same amount of pixels. Therefore the lens should have better sharpness to produce the same IQ. However this isnt as simple as this since lenses are always sharper on the centre which is good for the APS-C. Resolution is resolution. 18 megapixels is 18 megapixels regardless of the sensor size. Sharpness may be different but resolution just means the amount of pixels, nothing else.

How is that? The advantage of less pixel density is less noise. More pixel density gives higher resolution. This is the big advantage of a cropped sensor over a full frame sensor. Given the same lens and the same number of pixels, the cropped sensor will have more pixels per square inch of the picture, giving it a higher apparent resolution. You forget that the LLPM (line pairs per millimetre) of the optics will play part in here and therefore FF has more effective LPPM. If the optics were "infinitly sharp" then you would be right.

Correct me if Im wrong: the resolution is of the 7Dis 5184 x 3456 5184px would require roughly >2600 LPPM lens. Acoording to this even the non-L zoom lens 17-55 2.8 will deliver 2536 LPPM, which means it could utilize the 5184px of the 7D Now if you would take some prime L-series lenses im sure they preform even sharper. If you want SHARP then you can always use Zeiss optics and they are even better. Even if the LLPM of the cheaper glass X isnt enough, it doesnt necessarily mean that the absolute quality wouldnt be a little bit better when the sensor has better ability to separate each "line". (regardless of the lens not being able to) This IMO could mean better use of sharpening. I agree that this amount of pixels with APS-C size is perhaps near the limit what is reasonable with the optics availeable. This rough calculation of mine doesnt actually take into acount Bayer filtering and other factors, but it should be "somewhere around there" Also you can always shoot sRAW if you dont want to shoot 18 Mpix

Very nice !

BTW. What exactly would make FF better ? From what I understand the 7D sensor is very close to a 35mm film camera size anyway. The FF stillcamera sensor size is larger. I understand the featured film 35mm film frame is 24.89 x 18.67 which is actually closer to the 7D sensor size than 5D. IMO a cropped sensor can produce more than enough DOF for video when shooting with a large aperture.

Also 60fps 720p sounds real nice.. Oh, and check out this video

I dont have a 85mm f/1.2 so I havent shot skydive with one. I have shot some with 50mm f/2.0 and I can show some of those. The DOF with this lens is also quite shallow and I dont think it is possible to use hyperfocal technique. AF is the only way to go IMO.

Oh, Im not saying that. "AI servo" and "one shot" are AF-programs developed by Canon. The switches we use have nothing to do with those names. I totally undestand the function of the switch. I agree its a good idea to have when using a mono type of switch that utilizes constant focusing. Its easier since you dont have to turn on the camera and open the memorycard lid to stop focusing before exit. Im sure it makes it more convinient..

Not even if you are shooting 85mm at f/1.2 for example ?

In fact its not really a new concept. For example conceptus has been offering both mono and stereo type of switches since they started their business..

I have been in a one engine situation onboard a twin otter. We lost other engine right after take off. We had pretty much a full load and the plane was climbing ok. Pilot flew us all to about 2500k and where we all left the plane. After that the plane took off to another airport for maintance. No need to panic. The plane has two engines.

Yeah, but then the photos are only reasonably sharp. AF will yield sharper results.