Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 27 of 27
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermoon View Post
    Anyone have issues getting to their beacon if needed with those chest harnesses? Any worries about interference with the signal?
    Good questions. Both of the snowboarders above carry their beacons in the thigh pocket of their pants. There are many arguments both pro and con for this, but that's a different thread. In this case though the pro is that the camera doesn't inhibit beacon access at all.

    In my case I also carry my beacon in a pants pocket but have two pairs that I regularly tour in. One pair has more of a high thigh pocket (which the camera is not in the way of) and the other is a bib that carries the beacon in pretty close to the same spot as a harness would, so with those yes I have to move the camera. The way I attach the camera bag is running the sternum strap through the loop on the bag (that's designed for waistbelts) and buckling as normal. Then I also have a small carabiner on each side that attaches to the camera bag d-ring. So getting the beacon out involves unclipping carabiner, unbuckle sternum strap, unzip jacket. The only extra step due to the camera is the carabiner. I've practiced and I would estimate that it costs me less than 5 seconds - so not a big deal.

    As for interference - in my own practicing I have noticed no interference from the camera when I'm in search mode. I have not tested for interference in transmit mode, and I should, but typically search mode is much more sensitive to problems. I did briefly see an article that suggested that the mirrors in a DSLR can cause issues but didn't have a chance to fully read it and can't find the article right now.

    Here is a paper from ISSW in 2014 on electrical interference: https://arc.lib.montana.edu//snow-sc...aper_P4.13.pdf
    My takeaway from it is that metal objects need to be at least 30mm away in transmit mode (which all of ours are) and electronics need to be turned off or 50+cm away when searching (cameras would be turned off).
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bethel, Maine
    Posts
    665
    So I see several references to "protecting the camera" while skiing.

    I think I already said it, but I'll say it again:
    Fuck the camera, protect your body.

    Pro-grade gear (and I include prosumer bodies in that) is pretty damn rugged. If you're skiing or cycling or doing something else in a manner where you feel the risk of crashing is high enough to worry about landing on the camera, worry first about what the camera will do to your body and second about what will happen to the camera.

    I'd like to claim I'm smart enough to have figured that out without injuring myself, but I was skiing with a DSLR and smallish zoom around my neck, moving to the next spot in the glade to shoot, caught some funky snow and hugged a tree at something like 10 MPH. I had a tripod plate on the camera and a matching black-and-blue mark on my chest for a week. (The camera was fine.) Not a serious injury, but a little more momentum and I don't like to think about the result.

    Not saying you can't damage a camera or lens in a crash, but damaging yourself is likely to be a lot more expensive, and it's harder to get through security with spare body parts when compared to an extra lens or two.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •