freeflir29 0 #1 July 31, 2002 A friend was telling me about a tiny 35MM camera called a skycam. He said it's small, light weight, and comes with a remote switch of some sort for about $110. Anyone have experience with these cameras. Do they get the job done? I looked around the internet a bit but haven't found any info yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 July 31, 2002 Go HERE This -might- be ok for a number of things, but you probably aren't going to shoot too many magazine covers with it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #3 July 31, 2002 Clay, I read you're planning to start shooting for money, and those cameras aren't up to it. Bite the bullet and get a used Canon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #4 July 31, 2002 And patrons are going to be pissed when you give them that weird roll of APS film to have developed (muy precio) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverds 0 #5 August 1, 2002 What's wrong with aps film? I kinda like it myself. You get a nice thumbnail page of all your prints and the negitives stay inside the canister where they can't get dammaged in case you want them again in the future. It is still 35mm film isn't it? Skydive Radio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ERICCONNELLY 0 #6 August 1, 2002 No. It is not 35mm. The format is smaller, don't know the exact size. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #7 August 1, 2002 Nothing wrong with it at all. It's just new so some people don't know about it (C'mon, it's true) and it costs a little more to have developed, and some 1 hour places can't do it. The little lens on the camera in questions can't compete against a nice 35mm SLR lens for image quality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverds 0 #8 August 1, 2002 QuoteThe little lens on the camera in questions can't compete against a nice 35mm SLR lens for image quality. Agreed. But for under $150 it might be a nice way to start out with stills. Plus, it is probably considerably lighter as well. Skydive Radio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #9 August 1, 2002 Super Dave, I disagree with you here. When you know something is a "starter", knowing that you're moving on with the whatever, "starter" money is wasted. $150 for starter camera you outgrow in a month. Now you need the "real" camera and you're out the $150. It's like canopies. You buy a brand new custom color job loaded at .75, you're going to miss that money when you want to get closer to 1.00. My advice is just to get a beater "real" camera for $150. Anybody seen one of those skycams used? Is it because they're great and noone wants to sell them, or because they get broke? I have never seen one in person, I don't have a stake. They are probably the answer for someone who wants to take some fun pictures, but doesn't want to fly a camera. It's getting late in the week and I'm losing focus because I need and air-bath fix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #10 August 2, 2002 Scroll down the page!!! They have two models. One that uses APS and the other that uses standard 35MM. I have seen lots of people that use compact 35MM for shooting tandems. I could make that purchase price back in just a couple jumps. Which is REALLY important given my money situation lately. I'll still ask around to some of the camera guys I know and respect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 August 3, 2002 The 35mm model might be just the thing for tandems.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #12 August 3, 2002 You just got an answer from one of the camera guys that know and respect. So consider going for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #13 August 3, 2002 Well...if I know anything about Quade.....and he says it "might" be just the thing. Most people would probably rate it as very good!!! With that price....it's hard to say no. Especially when it already comes with a switch!!! Just bolt it on....sight it....and go to work!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverds 0 #14 August 5, 2002 I wonder how fast it takes pictures. 1 per second? 1 per 2 seconds? The better slr cameras can take several frames per second which is nice for exit shots. But...that price is hard to beat. Skydive Radio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverds 0 #15 August 5, 2002 I just got off the phone with Skydance. I was told that the camera takes pictures at a speed of about 1 per second. It does not have a continous mode so you have to depress and release the button between each photo(you can't just hold it down). If it can take a shot per second then you could maybe get 2 good close up exit shots. Not too bad for a price of $160.00. I was also told that the 35mm model will not be available much longer. I asked about the APS quality and was told that the negitive is only 20% smaller than 35mm and as long as you are not blowing up your photos past 8 X 10 that you will not notice any difference in quality. There is no doubt in my mind that you will get better photos and have more flexibility with a nice SLR camera But after considering the huge savings in cost and the fact that this camera only weighs 5oz and has a very low profile, it might be a good option. Skydive Radio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miller 0 #16 August 6, 2002 For a respected person's opinion, check our Robbie Culver's website or series of articles for Skydiving, and see what he has to say about these types cameras. Also, still pictures of tandem students are one of your dropzone's biggest advertising and PR assets. Think about it: the student is paying for the dropzone for pictures, and is then essentially promoting our sport (and your DZ) for free by carrying them around showing them to anyone who will look, hanging them from the fridge, and on their cube walls at work. If your major motivation in buying a still camera is how economical it is and the fact that you can just bolt it on, start shooting, and start making your money back right away, then chances are you're probably not going to take the time to run 10 or 20 rolls of film through it to make sure you're turning out a good consistent presentable product. We've had people come to our dropzone who aren't interested in video/stills because their roommate or whoever jumped down the road and their video/stills sucked, so in their mind your video/stills are going to suck, too. Don't be that shitty photographer down the street. Take pride in your work. Spend a little extra, learn all about whatever it is you buy, and most importantly get criticism from many differnt sources. Still photography is very very different from video...blah blah blah... Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshi 0 #17 August 7, 2002 I graduated in photography from herron school of art... the aps negs are much smaller than 35mm.. the resolution will be the same, but for a smaller area. as someone else said if you dont plan to blow up your pix more that 8x10 you wont notice much of a difference, but 35mm negs are much better...especially for archival reasons.. when the negs are rolled up inside the canister (on aps) they are tightly rolled in...after a few years negatives become more and more brittle and although people havent experienced it much yet because aps has opnly been around for a few years, they will not be useful in making reprints in the future. the best way to keep negs is no use 35mm and put them in 8 1/2x 11 sheets and keep them in a binder. the skycam is great for weekend jumpers bringing home some images to show off to friends, but I suggest a 35mm... I use a minolta htsi plus...retails new with body and lens for around 250-300$ very light weight and has a good lens... uses electronic shutter release and has the rapid fire option... standard zoom lens all the way on wide angle makes for great pix for tandem and freefly whatever... -yoshi_________________________________________ this space for rent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoshi 0 #18 August 7, 2002 jsut thought I would add most aps (if not all) load from the bottom..which means you have to take the camera off every time you switch film...getting a camera that loads from the back is much easier to deal with.. yoshi_________________________________________ this space for rent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #19 August 7, 2002 I used to use an APS version of the camera in question. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that it is an instamatic. Your can't adjust the f-stop, exposure, or focus. It is truly point and shoot. This is great for fun photos to show your friends, but the pictures are not professional quality. The camera's light meter is cheap, and pictures tend to be blurry from too long exposure. If you intend to get paid for your work, then you are a professional, so this is not the camera for you. If money is a problem, you can get a brand new Canon EOS Rebel X body with 35-80mm lens at Walmart for $200. You can also get a Canon 22-55mm lens (much better for tandem/AFF) for only $110 at bhphoto.com. A bite switch is $50 or so, and you can get creative at Home Depo for mounting hardware. Whole set up less than $400. Yes this is alot more than $150 for the instamatic, but you'll be able to use the Canon for years to come. Also, you can get new lenses for it as you go along. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Qweaver 0 #20 August 10, 2002 I bought a Canon Owl for $59 and a mini plug and socket from Radio shack for $3...spent 1/2 hour opening the camera and soldering in the remote wires and it works fine. T he focal length is just about perfect for a .5 to .6 wide angle. It's also very light. Will I get a 35 mm SLR later? Probably Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
