dalemeyer 0 #26 May 23, 2008 please send some pics once you have done that... i would love to see that so that i can try and eliminate as many snag issues as possible...Take it easy... and if you get it easy, take it TWICE! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 2 #27 May 23, 2008 QuoteI'm looking at getting the Optic Illusion and side mounting it as well. But not as you did. I plan on mounting the cookie box on the side of the top platform for the still. It brings the cookie box in just over an inch. Side projection is about the same as most of the narrower PC/HC cams. I saw another cam mounted this way and it works out nicely. Sorry, no pics. That's similar to the route I took when I was using my Optik, but without a box for the camera. This one wasn't mounted to the top platform, but by moving it up and over it provided the same effect: http://www.funjump.com/photos/hdrcx7mic03.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkycndo 0 #28 May 23, 2008 I don't have my Cookie box yet. But what you did is the same configuration. I temporarily mounted my CX7 on top of the C channel bracket of my old POS side mount helmet. It looks ghetto as hell, but the camera sticks out barely compared to my HC40, which is pretty narrow. Added a piece of plate to protect the cam from riser slaps. Looking forward to seeing the difference in image quality.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #29 May 23, 2008 Great, you now have a nice camera with a (for that camera) crap lens on it. Why did you buy a HDV camera if you're gonna put a SD lens on it ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #30 May 24, 2008 Great, you now have a nice camera with a (for that camera) crap lens on it. Saskia, I've come to believe this is more the norm than the exception...I just had lunch with a reasonably well known skydiving photographer that tried to convince me that there isn't much of a difference between HD and SD. He shoots thru a Coke bottle, basically. Told him to back way up, pull off the Coke bottle, and see the difference a "real" lens can make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base_nz 0 #31 May 24, 2008 Ok ..... Would i be way off mark by saying there are no good low profile HD lenses wider than .6? If i am wrong can someone please tell me the lens name so i can go and buy it??? .....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #32 May 24, 2008 Century/Schneider has a good .5 lens. they have a KILLER .65 too, but it's not low profile. I had intended on publishing my lens tests by yesterday, but the editor has not given me feedback on the article yet, so it's likely sitting til mid week next week. Schneider's .55 wins the low profile hands down in HD, as does their Baby Death .3, but Raynox at half the price does quite well too. In SD, Royal slightly has the edge, followed by a couple off-brands, followed by the Kenko crap that a lot of guys like to use cuz they're cheap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #33 May 24, 2008 Quote Ok ..... Would i be way off mark by saying there are no good low profile HD lenses wider than .6? If i am wrong can someone please tell me the lens name so i can go and buy it??? There's none that is as small AFAIK, but you should not be sidemounting that big (long) camera anyway IMO. These cameras should be topmounted ONLY for safety's sake, I really do not like the look of that long (and fairly wide whatever other people say) box. When you topmount it you can easily put the nice lens on it it deserves. This is stupid IMO, sidemounting a long camera then putting on a crap lens bringing the quality of this very nice cam waaaay down so it's "low profile" when the entire helmet is now anything but ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #34 May 24, 2008 He's somewhat right though, if you shoot through the same crap lens on both, there IS no difference I sometimes debrief straight from my HC5 (w/raynox .3 ) onto a big plasma tv screen, using either a HDMI or RGB cable, oh boy, don't tell me it doesn't make a difference ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base_nz 0 #35 May 24, 2008 Quote Quote Ok ..... Would i be way off mark by saying there are no good low profile HD lenses wider than .6? If i am wrong can someone please tell me the lens name so i can go and buy it??? There's none that is as small AFAIK, but you should not be sidemounting that big (long) camera anyway IMO. These cameras should be topmounted ONLY for safety's sake, I really do not like the look of that long (and fairly wide whatever other people say) box. When you topmount it you can easily put the nice lens on it it deserves. This is stupid IMO, sidemounting a long camera then putting on a crap lens bringing the quality of this very nice cam waaaay down so it's "low profile" when the entire helmet is now anything but Mines topmount at the moment for that very reason. And i wouldnt put a shit lens on it which was why i asked the question in the first place. But as far as side mount.... If the box is the same size as my pc 105 with lens except for the 12cm extra length why should they only be top mounted? will that extra few cm make as big a difference as you say? and how?...Im guessing just a little more to snag? Not taking the piss serious question.....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #36 May 24, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Ok ..... Would i be way off mark by saying there are no good low profile HD lenses wider than .6? If i am wrong can someone please tell me the lens name so i can go and buy it??? There's none that is as small AFAIK, but you should not be sidemounting that big (long) camera anyway IMO. These cameras should be topmounted ONLY for safety's sake, I really do not like the look of that long (and fairly wide whatever other people say) box. When you topmount it you can easily put the nice lens on it it deserves. This is stupid IMO, sidemounting a long camera then putting on a crap lens bringing the quality of this very nice cam waaaay down so it's "low profile" when the entire helmet is now anything but Mines topmount at the moment for that very reason. And i wouldnt put a shit lens on it which was why i asked the question in the first place. But as far as side mount.... If the box is the same size as my pc 105 with lens except for the 12cm extra length why should they only be top mounted? will that extra few cm make as big a difference as you say? and how?...Im guessing just a little more to snag? Not taking the piss serious question The only sidemount I'll use is a nice small pc106 with a low-profile lens. Adding a few cm here and there shouldn't make much of a difference but the difference between a pc106/107/109 and a cx6/7 is HUGE. I'd only consider it a maybe (a BIG maybe and I'd still not prefer to have to jump it) it if it were a one-piece molded helmet with the end of the box in no way sticking out, so no lines/riser can get behind those 12 cm. How come a few years back when the choice was between a TRV and a PC style camera noone thougt it was a good idea to sidemount the TRV cameras (TRV 16, 25 etc, all comparable in size to the CX6/7) and now all of a sudden it seems like it is safe to do?!?!?!?!?!? Mostly it seems by people with just a few hundred jumps and with no previous camera flying experience? I'm thinking we'll see more and more riser strikes and worse this year ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base_nz 0 #37 May 24, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Ok ..... Would i be way off mark by saying there are no good low profile HD lenses wider than .6? If i am wrong can someone please tell me the lens name so i can go and buy it??? There's none that is as small AFAIK, but you should not be sidemounting that big (long) camera anyway IMO. These cameras should be topmounted ONLY for safety's sake, I really do not like the look of that long (and fairly wide whatever other people say) box. When you topmount it you can easily put the nice lens on it it deserves. This is stupid IMO, sidemounting a long camera then putting on a crap lens bringing the quality of this very nice cam waaaay down so it's "low profile" when the entire helmet is now anything but Mines topmount at the moment for that very reason. And i wouldnt put a shit lens on it which was why i asked the question in the first place. But as far as side mount.... If the box is the same size as my pc 105 with lens except for the 12cm extra length why should they only be top mounted? will that extra few cm make as big a difference as you say? and how?...Im guessing just a little more to snag? Not taking the piss serious question The only sidemount I'll use is a nice small pc106 with a low-profile lens. Adding a few cm here and there shouldn't make much of a difference but the difference between a pc106/107/109 and a cx6/7 is HUGE. I'd only consider it a maybe (a BIG maybe and I'd still not prefer to have to jump it) it if it were a one-piece molded helmet with the end of the box in no way sticking out, so no lines/riser can get behind those 12 cm. How come a few years back when the choice was between a TRV and a PC style camera noone thougt it was a good idea to sidemount the TRV cameras (TRV 16, 25 etc, all comparable in size to the CX6/7) and now all of a sudden it seems like it is safe to do?!?!?!?!?!? Mostly it seems by people with just a few hundred jumps and with no previous camera flying experience? I'm thinking we'll see more and more riser strikes and worse this year You are seriously comparing a TRV to a cx7 in size?????? There is no way i would even think about putting one of them on the side but the cx7 is a lot different...Thats why a lot of people are thinking about side-mounting....And when i put my cx7 box and pc box together There is only a very small difference in size. But add my HD lens and no chance im wearing it So topmount for now .....And you thought Kiwis couldn't fly!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dalemeyer 0 #38 May 25, 2008 i honestly didnt know about the lenses until after i had purchased mine... might be looking at the raynox hd5050 now?Take it easy... and if you get it easy, take it TWICE! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 2 #39 May 25, 2008 Quote i honestly didnt know about the lenses until after i had purchased mine... might be looking at the raynox hd5050 now? That may allow you to be third user in this forum to get a 5050 knocked off a CX7 . I'd go with the Century .55x, which is same size as your diamond, or possibly a Century .3x. The 5050 will add length to your setup, and it fans out from the camera, asking to get caught by a riser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #40 May 25, 2008 Quote You are seriously comparing a TRV to a cx7 in size?????? Yeah, my old TRV25 is about the same size as a CX7. Slightly heavier though. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #41 May 25, 2008 Quote Quote i honestly didnt know about the lenses until after i had purchased mine... might be looking at the raynox hd5050 now? That may allow you to be third user in this forum to get a 5050 knocked off a CX7 . I'd go with the Century .55x, which is same size as your diamond, or possibly a Century .3x. The 5050 will add length to your setup, and it fans out from the camera, asking to get caught by a riser. Not if you topmount it ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dalemeyer 0 #42 May 26, 2008 i will definately be doing some more research before hand from now on...Is that century lens HD also??? or is that just a better SD than the royal i currently have...??? Take it easy... and if you get it easy, take it TWICE! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 2 #43 May 26, 2008 QuoteIs that century lens HD also??? It's HD. here's a thread about it: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3072302 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
