3000 foot fall and still working

FretNoMore wrote in post #9216276
Why would you want to parachute into a marsh though?

According to the source, the skydiver with the camera was an instructor in Florida...quite a bit of marsh and swamp down there as it's very close to sea level, flat, and warm. They might have been parachuting into a field that had marshy (is that a word) areas around it.

krb wrote in post #9215746
Of all the things that could be argued, this is the what bothers you? Two cameras fell and "the Rebel" is faster/easier to type than "the still camera."

You're right! Makes more sense if I read it like that. Thanks!

Tim S wrote in post #9215182
The 3000 foot drop isn't a big deal. It could fall 2999.99 feet and not get a scratch......it's that last
.01 foot that really hurts!

Actually it depends on the terminal velocity of a Rebel with an 18-55 IS lens, the difference between a fall of 3000 feet and a fall of 100 feet might not be any different depending on how fast it reaches its terminal velocity...

Also depends on how it fell, nose first, ass first, etc because that would change the aerodynamic properties of the rebel and increase or decrease the attainable velocity from the fall and thus force of impact...it would also affect how quickly the body and lens would reach terminal velocity

or something like that

KenjiS wrote in post #9217288
Actually it depends on the terminal velocity of a Rebel with an 18-55 IS lens, the difference between a fall of 3000 feet and a fall of 100 feet might not be any different depending on how fast it reaches its terminal velocity...

Also depends on how it fell, nose first, ass first, etc because that would change the aerodynamic properties of the rebel and increase or decrease the attainable velocity from the fall and thus force of impact...it would also affect how quickly the body and lens would reach terminal velocity

or something like that

I agree. I would think if it "fell" the camera would be in an uncontrollable spin.

Since it occurred at 3000ft, I'd imagine his parachute was just deployed and in doing so made the camera fall off. Therefore making the camera fall straight down and have to regain all of its kinetic energy again from 3000 feet. Just my theory and in it hitting a tree is ruled out since it fell straight down. Skydivers land in open areas not wooded.

Terminal Velocity depends on quite a few variables (i.e. drag, weight, etc) and all objects will reach terminal at different speeds. But don't really feel like doing the equation for the drag coefficient of the camera but i would imagine it would hit speeds of 100 + mph before it landed.

The camera probably came off his helmet at 3,000 feet. But most people jump from 9-10k feet. The jumper would have been slowed by his drag shoot, but the moment the camera came off, it would have been already traveling very quickly, then accelerated at 32 ft per second per second until hit hit terminal velocity. This is the maximum speed the camera could travel unless accelerated further by outside forces. So, drop it from 3,000 feet or 30,000 feet, it will hit the ground at the same speed...terminal velocity. I doubt very much it would resemble a photographic piece of equipment upon impact, regardless of what kind of surface it impacted.

5 pages on this lol...

us photog's are pathetic

kompakt wrote in post #9220166
5 pages on this lol...

us photog's are pathetic

Hey man, this is nothing compared to the endless "Canon vs. Nikon" and "FF or crop" or "Should I buy EF-S lenses" topics that spin into dozens of pages of debate.

Persephone wrote in post #9220201
Hey man, this is nothing compared to the endless "Canon vs. Nikon" and "FF or crop" or "Should I buy EF-S lenses" topics that spin into dozens of pages of debate.

For sure. Almost a refreshing change (almost) ..

The big question is .. if the camera had fallen in a wood and no-one had been around, would it have made a noise ?

NaKiD EyE wrote in post #9217489
Since it occurred at 3000ft, I'd imagine his parachute was just deployed and in doing so made the camera fall off. Therefore making the camera fall straight down and have to regain all of its kinetic energy again from 3000 feet. Just my theory and in it hitting a tree is ruled out since it fell straight down. Skydivers land in open areas not wooded.

Skydivers do not open their parachutes directly over the landing area. He could have very easily opened his parachute over trees, a marsh, or a number of other things.

Bryan

Good thing he had that protection filter on it!

Persephone wrote in post #9220201
Hey man, this is nothing compared to the endless "Canon vs. Nikon" and "FF or crop" or "Should I buy EF-S lenses" topics that spin into dozens of pages of debate.

So should I buy the 24-105 or the 24-70?

Lani Kai wrote in post #9223291
So should I buy the 24-105 or the 24-70?

You should wait for the 24-70 II (with IS) to come out.

I think if it was an impack of under 3000ft then maybe... like say 2500ft sure it could be true...lol
But 3000ft and over...no way...let the buster recreate this one.....lol