Is the Legend 4800 enough for me?

I'm a solid (level 7) skier. I feel very comfortable skiing groomed blacks and blues. I'll ski bumps and trees when I'm feeling confident enought to tackle them. I'd like to get better and I'm willing to put the time on the hill to get better.

Based upon the reviews here regarding the Dynastar Legend 4800, it looks like and ideal ski for me. But I'm concerned that I'll easily max it out as it's been classified as an "intermediate" ski. Should I be trying out the Legend 8000 or is the 4800 the right ski for me for the next 5 years?

The 4800 has a narrower waist and would probably be better in the bumps and trees.

I've been told that the construction differences between the 4800 and 8000 are only slight, but Don't take my word for that, pure heresay. I don't think the 4800 is a pure intermediate ski but an intermediate to ez-expert.

I went through the same conundrum when I was looking at the two skis the 4800 can be had for half as much and I was stongly pulled that way but ended up with the 8000's as a more well rounded ski for what I was doing (non-ice days out east and non deep days out west). I'm VERY happy with the 8000's.

My experience of both skis are a couple of years old. I don't know how those skis have changed since (but for the new topsheet).
Both ski has a rather conservative shape and thus respond nicely to various techniques, including rather 'oldschool' tricks. both skis are versatile and swift, more ar ease on soft snow than on ice (not a great grip on both models).
I would say the main advantage of the 4800 is the weigth. It's a very light ski, probably great for touring or light skiers. I prefered the 8000, in moderately deep snow for obvious reasons, but on hardpack also. The edge grip of the 4800 was really very average and its stability at speed questionable. A good snappy ski for a ligthweigth intermediate, good in the bumps and in tight spaces.
I would say it depends of your weight and where you ski. But chances are you'll overpower it if you intend to push yourself harder.
I would also say that the whole legend line (4800/8000/8800) is getting a little old now and should evolve next year. If you intend to keep those 5 years, you may want to look somewhere else. Those are still nice skis, but I wouldn't pay full retail price for them in 2006.

Edit to say it breaks my heart to turn somebody away from a Dynastar... But I think there are better options.

I weigh 215 and ski New England exclusively. I also have powerful legs and fear that I'll overpower the 4800's. If the 4800's are not an ideal match, what other ski would you recommend for an Eastern skier that likes bumps and trees?

I'd say you will overpower the 4800. How strong a skier are you? At 215# you will have more fun on a beefier ski.

Like what...Phil?

Let's put it this way, I wear relaxed-fit pants because my thighs are the beefiest part of my body. I carry 50# computers nearly every day at work.

In this relevant thread, very knowledgable Bears advise the Dynastar 8000... (the original poster is lighter than you, but a better skier).
Hum, maybe you should demo ... ?

Trust me, I will be demo-ing. I'm going to Waterville this Sat. for their demo day. I'm posting this thread so that I can get my demo list ready.

To the 8000, I would add a Volkl XT4, a Rossi Z5/9 (carver oriented but not that skinny) or Dynastar Contact 10/11, the new Salomon XWing Fury, a Scott Aztec Pro.
And I'll wait to others to chime in...

When I looked at the legend 8000 vs 4800 the main differance was softness. The 4800 was softer. Which for me was a choice I wanted. The 4800 had better edge hold due to narrow waist. 4800 was very stable at speed. I bought the 4800 and have no complaints. I picked up a 05-06 for cheap, which is the same ski as the 07 minus different graphics.

I was in the same boat you were. Worried that I might out grow it. I have no regret. I have already improved my technique and am really having fun. It's to bad the ski doesn't get that much attention.

Oh yeah, I am 6'3 210. 178. Beefy enough for me.

It sounds like you want a ski that you need muscle around and neither of the mentioned Dynastars need that. They're very easy to ski. Maybe something from Atomic or Volkl would suit you better.

Would a Volkl S5 or AC4 be a good ski for typical New England skiing?

I'd second the Rossi Z9. I got to use mine this weekend. I'm 6', 185#, and at 176cm, it was PLENTY ski. Fairly powerful, but still a supple ride. Very quick edge to edge, while still having great hold in long turns.

Yes, both would be great. I'd say the AC4 has some beef to it.

Nordica Modified.

The AC3 would also be a fantastic choice.

AC4 in bumps and trees ? You can't get more different than a 4800.

I'd ski the AC4 in the woods any day - not ideal for the bumps I guess. It is a lot of ski for a level 7.

Nordica Modified - not too long. That's a fine ski! I'd take that ski in the woods and in the bumps in a heart beat.

What do you think of that?

I dropped off my rock skis at my local shop. The shop owner (same guy that fitted me for my new Head B9 boots) recommended that I demo the Legend 8000, Volkl S5, the Head Monster I.M 72, and the K2 Apache Stryker.

I can see myself skiing the Volkls because I have the legs for them. But I'm more of an easy-going, happy-go-lucky skier than an aggressive make-the-mountain-bleed skier. You'll never see me grandstanding under the chair of Outer Limits or White Heat. I'm afraid that the AC4's, the S5's or any Austrian-made ski will be a bit too aggressive for my personality. Or am I off-base here?

s5 is a great ski. You wouldn't need to be agressive on that one.

That's why I was thinking about the Vokl XT4, which is last year AC4 : Same dimensions (still at 82mm at the waist), less metal and more "user-friendly".