camera falls 3000 ft and still works

[kamekaze]

A photographer strapped a Canon Rebel XT to his helmet while skydiving, but instead of capturing some great airborne shots, it fell off his helmet and plummeted 3,000 feet to the ground. Unbelievably, it survived.

According to a friend of the photographer:

Amazingly, the Rebel survived the fall and my friend is still using it to this very day. It has a crack in the plastic body and the kit lens is a little jerky when zooming, but functional. I'd like to know if there is a similar story or something close to this but I doubt. It might be a world record indeed (for the height of a camera drop which survived).

Photos show that the camera is remarkably intact—the viewfinder is still functional, both the camera body and lens are pretty much fine. Not that we recommend you heave your DSLR out of a low-flying plane, but it's nice to know that if you do, there's a chance it'll be just fine.



Canon DSLR Suffers 3,000-Foot Fall, Camera and Lens Still Work - Canon 3000 foot fall - Gizmodo

cliffs - canon > nikon

[Crashoran]

Now that's what I call a Canon

[venchka]

It doesn't weigh enough to hurt itself. It also appears to have landed in a very soft place.

[MrBeta]

Originally Posted by venchka

It doesn't weigh enough to hurt itself. It also appears to have landed in a very soft place.

Yeah, it wouldn't have fare the same against concrete!
Probably landed in a nice pile of soft dirt.

[zebulus]

Originally Posted by venchka

It doesn't weigh enough to hurt itself. It also appears to have landed in a very soft place.

Thats what I was thinking as well. If it had landed on concrete there wouldnt be anything left. I think even a D3 would have been damaged in a 3K foot fall on concrete.

[Rson]

Well that is great marketing, I can see it now...."Good enough to survive a 3000ft fall, that is if you don't get a ERR99 first"

:)

[RKDauph]

"Can take a licking and keep on clicking."

My apologies to Timex.

[CaptainTom]

I'm wondering since it was on a helmet he likely had a remote shutter release.
Wonder if he got any photos on the way down?

[johnastovall]

It would have had a relatively low terminal velocity.

"This is because air resistance is proportional to the falling body's velocity squared. For an object to experience terminal velocity, air resistance must balance weight. An example that shows this phenomenon was the classic illustration of a rock and a feather being dropped simultaneously. In a vacuum with zero air resistance, these two objects will experience the same acceleration. But on the earth this is not true. Air resistance will equal weight more quickly for the feather than it would for the rock. Thus the rock would accelerate longer and experience a terminal velocity greater than the feather." The Physics Factbook

[Colyn]

Originally Posted by MrBeta

Probably landed in a nice pile of soft dirt.

Or a cow paddy....

[CaptainTom]

Terminal Velocity

about 26 mph/ give or take.

[ChristopherCoy]

What the article DOESNT tell you is that it wasn't an accident at all.... he MEANT to do it.









He wanted to switch to Nikon...

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

What the article DOESNT tell you is that it wasn't an accident at all.... he MEANT to do it.









He wanted to switch to Nikon...

God won't let you throw a Canon away....

[toverman]

If it had been a Pentax, it would have magically bounced back from the ground into his hands!

Wondered myself about the remote shutter release. I imagine that watching it fall would be enough of a shock that I'd forget to set off the shutter at least while the thing was still in range. The money shot would be the camera pointed at you, fired and capturing the look of horror on your face.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Terminal Velocity

about 26 mph/ give or take.

You may have to 'give' a lot more than 'take'. My experienced guess would be somewhere closer to 60MPH. I've jumped from many different aircraft, both fixed and rotating wings, using equipment that measures fall rate. An object with the relatively cubic shape such as a camera is going to have very little drag. You're also most likely forgetting that it didn't start out at zero velocity, but more likely at the rate the skydiver was falling before deploying his parachute. When you de-arch to slow as much as possible before deployment, you hope to slow to around 60-70MPH. Depending on the style of pack you did (open or covered nose) and the type of parachute (7, 9, or more cells), opening at a higher rate can potentially snap your neck. I've had more than my fair share of hard openings, and speak from experience... So if the camera came loose from his helmet at 3000' (average deployment starts anywhere from 3K down to 2K or less for those wanting a real thrill), then it's starting velocity would have been the fall rate of the skydiver, not it's terminal velocity. I doubt the drag would have slowed it significantly from 3K to ground level.

A small sacrifice for a safe deployment IMHO