2 Cannon's?

[vincemoore88 0]

Is anyone using 2 Cannon 's on top for tandems? Didn't see anything in any searches. Feedback would be great.

[5.samadhi 0]

canon what???

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Is anyone using 2 Cannon 's on top for tandems? Didn't see anything in any searches. Feedback would be great

Are you asking about using two Cannon DSLRs, one for stills and the other for video?

If so, it sounds heavy and expensive, and neither one is good for skydiving.

[vincemoore88 0]

Yes two DSLR's.

[gearless_chris 1]

Norman Kent does. He may be a little crazy though, he was jumping a Red and a 5D at Summerfest.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

[vincemoore88 0]

It's less than a pound heavier and only $150 more. Wouldn't the quality be much better. Any pictures of any set ups? Any suggestions.

[VideoFly 0]

Please remember that your neck, no matter how big, strong, ambitious, and cool you are is a weak link connecting your harnessed and suspended body to your mounted cameras. No matter how good a flyer you are, repetitive flying, landing, and canopy deployments can easily cause your skeleton to shield itself by growing spurs in an attempt to fuse the weak link on its own. The result may either be future arthritis or worse yet, on a whacker opening, a break in the linkage. Furthermore, please remember that the neck, linking the body and cameras, is a major thoroughfare for nerves, which enable lower body movement and control.

In other words, two DSLR’s are heavy and FOR WHAT? Skydiving places inherent limitations on photography, which may be partially overcome by equipment modifications, but it is unwise to compromise your skeletal constraints.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

It's less than a pound heavier

A pound heavier than what? A CX-type video camera? You mean to tell me that a DSLR that shoots video, plus the lens, is less than a pound heavier than a CX? What kind of lens are you using in that case? Every 'nice' SLR lens I have seen is heavy, and why would you shoot a DSLR for video because of the quality and not use a 'nice' lens?

Oh yee of little camera jumps with any real weight on your head. I recall the days when there was no 'light' set-up you could jump, even just for video. Adding in stills was a significant increase in weight.

What is your final product? Are you shooting a feature film? TV show? Independant movie? In any of those cases, I might understand a purpose built DSLR set-up for the shoot, but then again, it would only be one. Why would you need video and stills for a TV show?

If you're shooting any of the above, or for a personal video project, just use the one DSLR for your video, problem solved.

If you're doing tandem/student videos for $40/jump, and doing multiple jumps per day, weekend after weekend, save yourself the trouble, money, and eventual problems with your neck, and stick with the lightest equipment that your DZO will alllow you to jump.

[dqpacker 7]

Quote

Please remember that your neck, no matter how big, strong, ambitious, and cool you are is a weak link connecting your harnessed and suspended body to your mounted cameras. No matter how good a flyer you are, repetitive flying, landing, and canopy deployments can easily cause your skeleton to shield itself by growing spurs in an attempt to fuse the weak link on its own. The result may either be future arthritis or worse yet, on a whacker opening, a break in the linkage. Furthermore, please remember that the neck, linking the body and cameras, is a major thoroughfare for nerves, which enable lower body movement and control.

In other words, two DSLR’s are heavy and FOR WHAT? Skydiving places inherent limitations on photography, which may be partially overcome by equipment modifications, but it is unwise to compromise your skeletal constraints.

Your setup in that picture probably weighs more than some
harness and containers jumped these days.
2 Dslrs on a Shark will be just fine. more people are using a 2dslr setup than you think. and base jumping too.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

2 Dslrs on a Shark will be just fine. more people are using a 2dslr setup than you think. and base jumping too.

Again, the limit of your understanding is time. DSLRs capable of shooting video haven't been available that long. Talk to any camera flyer who has been in the game for more than 10 years, and they'll confirm that 'light(weight) makes right'.

You can get away with all sorts for stuff for a while, but sooner or later it will catch up with you. I'd say that 75% of my jumps have been with one or more cameras, and that one of the reasons that's possible is that I've made it a priority to keep it lightweight and low profile. It's not about what you can do 5 times, it's what you can do 5000 times.

[vincemoore88 0]

Ok so less than a half pound is to much more weight. Then what's the best camera for video? Please do
Nt say the cx100. I have the cx560. It is very nice but the quality I want still isn't there.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

what's the best camera for video?

What kind of video? What are you shooting, how are you editing the footage? What's your overall goal?

[vincemoore88 0]

Tandem video. Editing with Sony Vegas 9. Shooting mainly tandems but use the cannon T2i for video when wingsuiting. The overall goalies to produce video that is good of quality as the pics.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The overall goalies to produce video that is good of quality as the pics

I get that, but think about how the video is delivered and watched by your customers. Does it get stepped on in the edit process? When it's burned to a DVD? When that disc is played on a DVD player? What is the customer really ending up with?

I think it's highly unlikely that you're going to end up getting video as good as your stills that your customers will be able to view in their homes. It's not about what you see dumping footage to a hard drive or reviewing your work straight from your camera/card on a laptop, it's about what the customer will see when they watch the video.

Your answer is to use the right tool for the job, and for this type of for-pay, repetitive video, look for the lightest and cheapest route that your DZO will allow. The end product the customer will get will not be all that different, and your physical workload/investment will reflect the job at hand.

If you have a way to take advantage of the better quality footage for your personal projects, where you can control the edit, media, and where it's shown, then by all means use your DSLR. Short of that, it's just extra gear for the sake of extra gear, and that seems like a waste.

[billvon 3,063]

>The overall goalies to produce video that is good of quality as the pics.

Best way to do that is to use a poor still camera. Seriously, you're not going to get HD footage that's as good as even an APS-C SLR with a good lens. And for most purposes you're wasting your time anyway; tandem customers in general are paying for a chronicle of their experience, not a video with absolutely no visible artifacts or chromatic aberration.

Best video/lens combination I've ever used was an older HDR-HC1 with a Raynox 3030 lens. The only time it was ever used to its limits was during one of the Power Play bigway camps where the organizers used an AC Ryan to zoom in on individual jumper's grips during video reviews.

As others have said, go light. A CX-100 or equivalent with a good lens is going to give you very good results without putting your neck at even more risk.

[DSE 5]

Quote

I think it's highly unlikely that you're going to end up getting video as good as your stills that your customers will be able to view in their homes. It's not about what you see dumping footage to a hard drive or reviewing your work straight from your camera/card on a laptop, it's about what the customer will see when they watch the video.

This isn't at all correct. What is edited and output can be indiscernible from the original (sometimes better) in HD. Even tho HD is dead, skydiving just doesn't know it yet.

Quote

Your answer is to use the right tool for the job, and for this type of for-pay, repetitive video, look for the lightest and cheapest route that your DZO will allow. The end product the customer will get will not be all that different, and your physical workload/investment will reflect the job at hand.

This is entirely correct, smart, and healthy.

Quote

If you have a way to take advantage of the better quality footage for your personal projects, where you can control the edit, media, and where it's shown, then by all means use your DSLR. Short of that, it's just extra gear for the sake of extra gear, and that seems like a waste.

Amen to that.

To the OP; Gamma issues alone make it virtually impossible to get the same video even from the same camera, as what stills can be.
It's a compression thing.
It's also "right tool" as Dave mentions. Two HDSLR's for specialty jumps; sure. for day to day jumps; that's just plain pain.
Put differently, I just shot a commercial for a very large ad agency. I shot HDSLR for that piece, and was paid very well to do so. A month ago, shot a piece for a very small commercial, to be aired only on the web. I had no problem using a Sony NX5, a mid-size semi-professional cam. And for another web piece, I used a GoPro with a modified lens. I like 3D, too. And have several jumps with the AG1 3D camcorder. It's huge. But if I was doing 3D tandems, I'd use a GoPro 3D rig because it's crazy lightweight, very small, and not a huge loss if I hit it on the door, or if it breaks off during deployment. It's healthy for the neck, and it produces pretty decent 3D for what it is.

Especially in the age of GoPros being used for "professional" tandem work (I won't use one)...it's terrific to see some folks still pursuing quality and excellence. But for tandems...practicality, investment/return, plus health concerns should likely be a consideration.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I think it's highly unlikely that you're going to end up getting video as good as your stills that your customers will be able to view in their homes. It's not about what you see dumping footage to a hard drive or reviewing your work straight from your camera/card on a laptop, it's about what the customer will see when they watch the video.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This isn't at all correct. What is edited and output can be indiscernible from the original (sometimes better) in HD. Even tho HD is dead, skydiving just doesn't know it yet

I added the bold to highlight the operative word. I know it's technically possible to preserve the qulaity throughout the process, but if I'm not mistaken, that relies on specific media and equipment used by both the DZ and the consumer. A failure in any of those areas will result in lost quality, and make the notion of jumping a DSLR for video a lost cause.

Not to discount the other reasons you gave, but even if the OP was willing to do 'anything' required to get the highest quality video, if the DZ and consumer are also not on board with plan, nothing the camera flyer does is going to get that image quality onto the screen in the customer's home.

[dqpacker 7]

Quote

Quote

2 Dslrs on a Shark will be just fine. more people are using a 2dslr setup than you think. and base jumping too.

Again, the limit of your understanding is time. DSLRs capable of shooting video haven't been available that long. Talk to any camera flyer who has been in the game for more than 10 years, and they'll confirm that 'light(weight) makes right'.

You can get away with all sorts for stuff for a while, but sooner or later it will catch up with you. I'd say that 75% of my jumps have been with one or more cameras, and that one of the reasons that's possible is that I've made it a priority to keep it lightweight and low profile. It's not about what you can do 5 times, it's what you can do 5000 times.

yes you are talking about camera flyers that started 10 years ago with Old Heavy Setups.
These days shit's so light you will be fine, esp. since parachute opening have become softer and more predictable than your sabre or nova or fury or other old crap you were jumping with your Old Heavy Setup

[davelepka 4]

Quote

These days shit's so light you will be fine

Shit is light these days...cameras, rigs, common sense, IQs.........

[DSE 5]

Quote

I added the bold to highlight the operative word. I know it's technically possible to preserve the qulaity throughout the process, but if I'm not mistaken, that relies on specific media and equipment used by both the DZ and the consumer. A failure in any of those areas will result in lost quality, and make the notion of jumping a DSLR for video a lost cause.

We're now off on a big tangent, but to be very clear; if they're using computer-based editing (I believe the majority does) and has even an elementary knowledge of codecs, the quality (even original source bits) integrity may be retained 100% through the editing process, all the way out to delivery.

Example;
Shoot AVC or AVCHD as source
Edit AVC/AVCHD as source (no recompression)
Output AVC/AVCHD from source to AVC/AVCHD delivery format packaged in .mp4 or .mov
The only recompressions are titles and transitions. The integrity of the content may be maintained throughout the entire process, and in fact, is used by broadcast and film as a workflow most every day.

Taking it one step deeper, converting AVC/AVCHD to HNX, Cineform 4:4:4, or other high-end transport codec, the original source can be significantly improved in a 10 or 12bit workflow. All of these tools are available in the "average editor"/NLE such as Sony Vegas or Adobe Premiere CS.

Additionally, AVC/AVCHD is a 4:2:0 sample format, and may fairly easily be wonderfully enlarged to 2K without _visible_ loss (as opposed to mathematical loss).

To sum up, even the most elementary editor can maintain acquisition integrity throughout the entire editing/delivery process, even if it's just a simple tandem DVD.

[billvon 3,063]

>yes you are talking about camera flyers that started 10 years ago with
>Old Heavy Setups.

Trust me, there are a lot of New Heavy Setups out there too, especially when photographers have to get very high quality pictures. (Bigway photographers for example.) You can lighten everything but glass. And for good photography you need good lenses, and they have a lot of glass in them.

Fortunately you can get quite good (not excellent, but very good) results with much lighter stuff nowadays. A CX100 with a Century lens weighs very little and will produce very good HD video, at about a fifth of what a T3i with an EF 15mm lens weighs.

[vincemoore88 0]

DSE. Thank you for your knowledge. I didn't mean for this to go here. I just want to shoot better video. Yes the editing plays most of he clarity on the product. Am not at the level of editing yet to really understand everyone but I will be one day. I use a only 3x with a cannon T2i and a Sony 560 on the side. Someone made the bracket. It shoots good but I want better Until I can edit good stuff I am at the mercy of the video concession. If someone would like to push a green Ron in the right direction of starting out editing ( I am raw). I would appreciate it. Give me time I will be one of the best there is.
Thank You

[The111 1]

Quote

Ok so less than a half pound is to much more weight.

First it was less than a pound difference.

Now it is less than half a pound difference.

These numbers seem to be magically shrinking, and still have not been quantified despite being questioned earlier. What is your basis for this quote? Which camera/lens are you comparing to which video camera?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Your setup in that picture probably weighs more than some
harness and containers jumped these days.

Another silly numerical claim with no explanation. Please elaborate. How much do you think the setup in that picture weighs? I'd guess roughly 8 pounds... 5 for the helmet/hardware, 2 for the camera/lens, 1 for the video. Given or take 0.5-1 lbs on any of those numbers, I'd still put the final number close to 8 pounds. Disregarding exactly how much a modern harness weighs, and whether or not it has radically shrunk recently as implied by the "these days" comment, and the fact that H/C weight is grossly irrelevant to this discussion... do you really think there is a modern setup with 2 DSLR's and decent lenses which is significantly lighter than that ~8lb (guess) setup which you imply is so ancient and heavy?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[dqpacker 7]

Quote

Quote

Your setup in that picture probably weighs more than some
harness and containers jumped these days.

Another silly numerical claim with no explanation. Please elaborate. How much do you think the setup in that picture weighs? I'd guess roughly 8 pounds... 5 for the helmet/hardware, 2 for the camera/lens, 1 for the video. Given or take 0.5-1 lbs on any of those numbers, I'd still put the final number close to 8 pounds. Disregarding exactly how much a modern harness weighs, and whether or not it has radically shrunk recently as implied by the "these days" comment, and the fact that H/C weight is grossly irrelevant to this discussion... do you really think there is a modern setup with 2 DSLR's and decent lenses which is significantly lighter than that ~8lb (guess) setup which you imply is so ancient and heavy?

yes