18-50 + Follow Focus + Mattbox options?

[Matthew Rogers]

Okay, so it's now time to start thinking about the all important accessories! (Let's be honest, you can get any old camera, but the accessories are what really makes the camera;))

I know that many of you, like me, will be getting the 18-50 and using it for the bulk of your work (until we can afford something far better!) Two of the biggest accessories we can buy are a matteboxe and follow focus. However, what really are our options for these?

Follow focus
High End - $3,000+
Willytec System - Not made anymore that I can find. Supposed to be the best out there. Also, can not find a price even on a used one.
Arri FF4 - Couldn't find anything on Arri's website about it, but I've read that many people are happy with it.

Middle $2,000-$3,000
Chrosziel Studio FF - Read somewhere that people were not terribly impressed with it. It would quickly become sticky and what not.

Low end $500-$2,000
Arri Side side FF - Haven't heard much about this. Seems like it would be fine if you are doing run and gun and are not using a focus puller

Redrockmicro FF - Nice looking low end FF. However, it looks doubtful that it would work with the 18-55. Also, would the build quality and issues like back drift really hold up for the professional world?

Matteboxes

I haven't really be able to find out a ton info about the quality of different matteboxes. I know some more better about not letting light spill on the lens through the filter area, but that's about it. I also know that if you are going to get the 18-50, you will need a 4x5.6 mattebox (probably on rods) to be able to cover the lens's widest angle.


So what are you all planning on doing in these areas?

Matthew Rogers

[Ernesto Lomeli]

Ok here we Begin:

Followfocus:
The Chrosziel Studio FF : Expensive, and needs constant adjustment in the shop. The replacment parts are pricey and the Drive needs to be replaced sometimes in order to get a nicew tight FF again. not really considering this one.


Arri FF5 HD:
At the moment, very functional and well built like all ARRI accesseries, also it does come with either studio/clip-on and 15mm & 19mm options.
So this is a wonderful option, pricy your talking about $3,500 dollors.
For a two-sided (studio) config witht he right adaptors and the right gears.
http://filmtools.com/ff5hd.html

Personaly this is the best option out there, execpt its expensive.But will last Along time, Replacment parts are expesensive (arri) but built to last, although in my opinion kinda ugly.

The Willytech:
An incredable system and one that is no longer made.
This this can do anything, different gearing for lenses, reverse pulling,
can go off wither side, one rod, awsome. Sometimes with certains lens/camera/ combos this is the only way to pull focus. Problem is it's heavy,
but very well thought out. Deffinatly the FF that all other should be judged to. but is N/A and use to retail for $5,600 +, If you can find one used pick it up. Just know that replacement parts are not available.

Whats does this leave us for FF units, well bukiss at the moment.
And all the other parties dont have an evolved product for seriouse work.
So at the moment, i am waiting for someone to come up to market with something exceptable before the end of the year. Personally im looking into a used Willytech for $3,000. My assistant says i shouldnt but, i dont real;ly see a better bang for buck option.


--------------------
MatteBoxes: Now i Love matteboxes, for many reasons. But in the end how much are you actually filtering. I personally dont use CC filters and try to use as little glass as possible. A Pola, ND-Grad, and ND.
Thats about it folks, and rearly all at one time.
But i am picky and i know that i Want 4x5 filters, a rotating 138mm or 4.5rd stage for polas. and a rotating stage for the ND grade (mostly to bring down skies) I want to ba able to go HH with a clipon and swing-away when im on a Dolly. I already understand that im basically including everythng, but why not, this is my money and my work. I have to live with this gear.


ARRI MB20v2: a wonderful mattebox, completly versital, awsome build quality, and does everything I mentioned above.....at a price. Base price for a 2 stage system. w/ rotating rear filter and clip-on back is going to be $3,500 in 4x5. Not to bad considering the quality. But one you add 19mm rod adaptors, clip-on backings for a few different lenses, and a swingaway arm, you are talking about a $5,600 system. Well worth it. For a Completly versital and universal system, that works with S4's (not alot of MB do since they are so big) without needting to go 6x6 most of the time. (depends on lens).

Then there is the Vocas:
I personaly never had seen this system, but i was amazed by the attention to detail. It does everything the MB20 does, and has a few little more things, nothing really a deal closer but nice little details, like the rounded edges on the bracketry and the built in eyebrow and the, hardmatt system they use. They do, clipon, studio and swingaway in both 15mm-19mm.
price isnt revolutionary but still very competitive $4,000 or so with all the bells and whistles.


---------------------------------
Personally im going with the Vocas, but i will be honest, I am thinking twice about it, its not a brand i know, nor does mybe the used market.
Will producers not like a none well branded system. How is the support for parts and such??? I dont know but money talks and i like the price and the build quality was (in my opinion, better then the MB20) exelent. If you guys know of anything else out there please let me know. ... and no i dont like Chrosziel. to many reasons to list.


At the moment im leaning towards:
WillyTech FF (used if i can find it)
Vocas 4x5



Ernesto Lomeli

[Greg M]

Ok here we Begin:

Arri FF5 HD:
At the moment, very functional and well built like all ARRI accesseries, also it does come with either studio/clip-on and 15mm & 19mm options.
So this is a wonderful option, pricy your talking about $3,500 dollors.
For a two-sided (studio) config witht he right adaptors and the right gears.
http://filmtools.com/ff5hd.html

Personaly this is the best option out there, execpt its expensive.But will last Along time, Replacment parts are expesensive (arri) but built to last, although in my opinion kinda ugly.



The Arri FF5 is designed for 2/3" lenses and is not appropiate for 35mm lenses, The action requires twice the turns to focus and the gear arm does not reach the 35mm lenses properly. The better choice is the older FF4

[Ken Willinger]

Vocas is making a really nice looking matte box that looks like it is in the mid upper range of price, less than the Chroziel and Arri, will accept 5 filters in different configurations and seems quite versatile. IIRC it was in the 3K range and didn't take 4X4 glass. Build looked very nice. It was shown at the ProSource booth. I've owned Petroff (their current modular boxes look very nice too) in the past and currently have an old version of the Vocas clip on ENG style 4X4 box. I was checking out the RED Zoom today and I think a 4X4 will work with it.

[Greg M]

Another good option is the Arri LMB-5 clip on matte box, it has optional backs for various lens diameters and is reasonable priced.

[Shawn Nelson]

At NAB I personally felt and played with 5 different follow focus units: Arri, Petroff, Chroziel, Cavision and Redrock Micro. Personally, I felt the order of quality went: Arri, Cavision, Chroziel, Petroff and then Redrock. The Cavision felt awesome, less play then even the Arri ones in the Red booth. The knob system felt better than anyone but Arri. Combine that with the rock solid adjustable system and a price of under $900, that's my choice, game over. I have no affiliation at all with them, I just played with 5 different units and they spoke for themselves.

[Appleton]

I've owned Petroff (their current modular boxes look very nice too)

how did you like their products? i'm currently looking at the 5x5 stage = $1730
and the ff for = $ 1130

i wouldn't want to buy a ff for big time $ if RED is coming out with a remote ff...

edit : i kinda wish RED would make these instead of a 4K display/projector (although i'm prob. in the minority there)

[Alex Boothby]

what does the Arri LMB5 go for ?


ARRI LMB-5 Lightweight Matte Box, clamp-on, with two 4x5.65 filter trays, and rectangular wide aspect ratio sunshade = $995.00

http://cinematechnic.com/products/matte_box.html

The price is great but I really don't want to damage my new lenses with a clip on - even cosmetically. Call me crazy.

[Appleton]

ARRI LMB-5 Lightweight Matte Box, clamp-on, with two 4x5.65 filter trays, and rectangular wide aspect ratio sunshade = $995.00

http://cinematechnic.com/products/matte_box.html

The price is great but I really don't want to damage my new lenses with a clip on - even cosmetically. Call me crazy.yeah, i remembered i had a price list for that (clued just after i posted) -> gotta check the archives before i post. i agree that a clip on isn't the best solution.

ideally you want a mattbox that'll be good for a variety of shooting & lenses. that's where the cost comes in.

just want to buy one that's reasonably $'d

[Paul Leeming]

At NAB I personally felt and played with 5 different follow focus units: Arri, Petroff, Chroziel, Cavision and Redrock Micro. Personally, I felt the order of quality went: Arri, Cavision, Chroziel, Petroff and then Redrock. The Cavision felt awesome, less play then even the Arri ones in the Red booth. The knob system felt better than anyone but Arri. Combine that with the rock solid adjustable system and a price of under $900, that's my choice, game over. I have no affiliation at all with them, I just played with 5 different units and they spoke for themselves.Cheers for the info Shawn, that's the kind of good real world info I appreciate so much on these boards!

[Greg M]

ARRI LMB-5 Lightweight Matte Box, clamp-on, with two 4x5.65 filter trays, and rectangular wide aspect ratio sunshade = $995.00

http://cinematechnic.com/products/matte_box.html

The price is great but I really don't want to damage my new lenses with a clip on - even cosmetically. Call me crazy.

I use one on my Zeiss Ultra Primes and I dont have any issues...lenses still look like new.

LMB-5 is a must for handheld work.......I also have the MB20 and it is awesome too.

[Alex Boothby]

The only experience I claim is shopping for used PL mount lenses where the most common caveat encountered was "mild superficial damage from clip on matte boxes". I know camera assistants love clip-ons but they generally don't own their own lenses. :biggrin: Besides, I personally don't imagine using Red without rails. Perhaps I'm misinformed.

[Greg M]

The only experience I claim is shopping for used PL mount lenses where the most common caveat encountered was "mild superficial damage from clip on matte boxes". I know camera assistants love clip-ons but they generally don't own their own lenses. :biggrin: Besides, I personally don't imagine using Red without rails. Perhaps I'm misinformed.

I still use rails with the clip on...its just lighter and smaller and better suited for handheld work. As far as contact to the lens...its not any greater than a larger studio rig. The clip-on is very light. I have been using mine for years with several sets of lenses w/o any damage.

[Alex Boothby]

Thanks digitalfx. Good to know.

[Irri]

...The Cavision felt awesome, less play then even the Arri ones in the Red booth. The knob system felt better than anyone but Arri. Combine that with the rock solid adjustable system and a price of under $900, that's my choice, game over...

Which version did you try? There are three on their website.

There is also the Arri LFF-1 (http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/lff/lff.htm) which is suitable for cine lenses. I haven't tried one though.

[Irri]

By the way, the FF4 is still listed in Arri's price list for 1840€ plus 320€ for the adapter if you want to use it with 19mm bars.

[Martin Drew]

Have a look at the MB19, loads cheaper than the MB20

M

[Júlio Taubkin]

The only experience I claim is shopping for used PL mount lenses where the most common caveat encountered was "mild superficial damage from clip on matte boxes". I know camera assistants love clip-ons but they generally don't own their own lenses. :biggrin: Besides, I personally don't imagine using Red without rails. Perhaps I'm misinformed.

Well clamp ons are not good for camera assistants, they are a pain. Changing primes and having to disconnect the mattebox all the time sucks. BUT it helps keeping the cameras light for handheld, and small. Light cameras make for a less strain on the operator and in a very gritty productions can mean more good takes in a day. Shooting handheld is exausting depending on the camera (I'm thinking BL4's and Panavisions, but even with lighter 16mm, it gets tiring after some good hours). Making the camera small might be the difference between haviong the shot or not, for situations in cramped spaces like inside automobiles. Removing the bridgeplate can make the lenses sit lower, over the operator's shoulder sometimes making it easier to get some of the shots. So having an option to shoot without rails is also very useful. (and yes, despite common belief, you CAN pull focus without a follow focus attached... :D )

The clamp-on matteboxes are part of a kit, and are a great addition. BUT, let's be frank. Shooting digital we won't need color correction filters, and who knows if NDs will be all that much, so for some situations, god forbid, I think it's possible to think about just removing the mattebox, if it's a life or death situation. That's why if I was shopping for only one mattebox like you, I, too, would try to go for a rail mounted solution.

[Bruce Allen]

There is also the Arri LFF-1 (http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/lff/lff.htm) which is suitable for cine lenses. I haven't tried one though.



Low end $500-$2,000
Arri Side side FF - Haven't heard much about this. Seems like it would be fine if you are doing run and gun and are not using a focus puller

You guys are both talking about the same thing, right? Anyone used it? One nice thing about the LFF-1 is that you can can mount it both ways - from an earlier post I made:
"Its swing arm can be rotated a full 360°, and the drive direction can be quickly reversed by flipping the unit over. That way, the LFF-1 can be used above or below the lens, on camera right or left, with the drive direction preferred by the assistant."
...so you would be able to use it with Nikons as well and still focus the same way? Depends on gears too I guess.

I must say, I was initially looking into Nikons but now with the lower price of the Red Zoom, maybe all-PL mount is the way to go...

Another question - remote follow focus is not a reliable substitute for real follow focus in all situations because of its fly-by-wire nature, right? Otherwise, we'd need to include the Red Drive in this discussion, wouldn't we? And also the Arri remote, Preston, plus the Bartech, and the newer Foveas and RedRock ones?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Matthew Rogers]

You guys are both talking about the same thing, right? Anyone used it? One nice thing about the LFF-1 is that you can can mount it both ways - from an earlier post I made:
"Its swing arm can be rotated a full 360°, and the drive direction can be quickly reversed by flipping the unit over. That way, the LFF-1 can be used above or below the lens, on camera right or left, with the drive direction preferred by the assistant."
...so you would be able to use it with Nikons as well and still focus the same way? Depends on gears too I guess.

I must say, I was initially looking into Nikons but now with the lower price of the Red Zoom, maybe all-PL mount is the way to go...

Another question - remote follow focus is not a reliable substitute for real follow focus in all situations because of its fly-by-wire nature, right? Otherwise, we'd need to include the Red Drive in this discussion, wouldn't we? And also the Arri remote, Preston, plus the Bartech, and the newer Foveas and RedRock ones?[/url]

I would rather buy the LFF-1 because of price, but I am planning on hopefully renting out the RED and am afraid that Focus pullers would be mad if they didn't have the option of pulling from either side without changing the FF from side to side. Really, what I am looking for is a piece of gear that isn't going to crap out on me after 1 year of use-something that firm and easy to use for pulling focus. Is that really so much to ask for?

If you are wanting to pull focus, I would think that still lenses would not be ideal since the focus will change dramatically with a little pull. I've decided that while I can get good results from prosumer type equipment and through jurryrigging things, I tend to curse less and can be calmer on set when I am dealing with "pro" gear--I mean, that's why it's PRO gear, right? If you can't afford the 18-50, then find some used 35MM Russian glass for $1,000-$3,000 and buy that--I think you would be happier.

My understanding is that wireless FF's are as reliable as using one on the camera. I have looked into getting one as it would be nice to have when I am using the RED on a jib. Another thought is, having a wireless FF so the puller can do a measure and then be watching a HD screen to absolutely make sure the focus is dead on. In theory, focus problems may start being a thing of the past because you will be able to see if things are off right on set (through better monitoring and playback.)

We are living in an amazing time, and are on the cutting edge!:)

Matthew

[Júlio Taubkin]

My understanding is that wireless FF's are as reliable as using one on the camera. I have looked into getting one as it would be nice to have when I am using the RED on a jib. Another thought is, having a wireless FF so the puller can do a measure and then be watching a HD screen to absolutely make sure the focus is dead on. In theory, focus problems may start being a thing of the past because you will be able to see if things are off right on set (through better monitoring and playback.)

I don't know about that. Good wireless focus controls still tend to get some interference depending on the set's location (near antennas, etc...). And about focus problems being a thing of the past... well I think we're a couple of hundred years from that... ;)

[Irri]

I said “also” an LFF-1 in reference to digitalfx’s mention of the LFF-5. I haven’t used either, but someone reliable recommended I try the LFF-1.

I think in general you’ll find that a Focus-Puller will be happiest on the left side. Someone used to an FF3/FF4 might get a little frustrated if they have to remove the whole follow focus to switch sides rather than just attaching the dumb/blind side wheel. I guess it depends on what sort of pressure there is during the shoot.

A wireless FF is no substitute for a real FF. They are susceptible to interference from wireless networks and even if you get the perfect link the motors aren’t fast enough for certain types of work. They can’t make the motors too powerful for fear of smashing the lens past its end stop during calibration. I think the Arri wireless LCS costs more than a Red and even if you up the amps in the motor it still won’t be fast enough for a whip pan on a Stedicam. The Focus puller has to guess the move and pull focus ahead of it. There are other issues such as when to calibrate. The system has to go from infinity to close focus to calibrate and this annoys operators if they are trying to line up a shot. Some “off the cuff” Focus Pullers know what the subject is from the feel of having their hand on the follow focus. You lose that when you are wireless.

[chuck colburn]

I said “also” an LFF-1 in reference to digitalfx’s mention of the LFF-5. I haven’t used either, but someone reliable recommended I try the LFF-1.

I think in general you’ll find that a Focus-Puller will be happiest on the left side. Someone used to an FF3/FF4 might get a little frustrated if they have to remove the whole follow focus to switch sides rather than just attaching the dumb/blind side wheel. I guess it depends on what sort of pressure there is during the shoot.

A wireless FF is no substitute for a real FF. They are susceptible to interference from wireless networks and even if you get the perfect link the motors aren’t fast enough for certain types of work. They can’t make the motors too powerful for fear of smashing the lens past its end stop during calibration. I think the Arri wireless LCS costs more than a Red and even if you up the amps in the motor it still won’t be fast enough for a whip pan on a Stedicam. The Focus puller has to guess the move and pull focus ahead of it. There are other issues such as when to calibrate. The system has to go from infinity to close focus to calibrate and this annoys operators if they are trying to line up a shot. Some “off the cuff” Focus Pullers know what the subject is from the feel of having their hand on the follow focus. You lose that when you are wireless.

Wow!

You must have done a lot of 1st. AC over the years.

[Bruce Allen]

Very interesting! Fascinating how different talented people work in such different ways. I had actually thought it was the opposite - that you WANTED a remote for steadicam from what I had read elsewhere...
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/FocusPullingForSteadicam.htm
http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/Follow_Focus_Units.htm

For me as a director, I guess the question comes down to "what does the DP you like working with the most like to use..."

Anyway, I guess I'll have to hang out with more steadicam operators. I sent my usual DP a long set of questions but she is on holiday, away from email...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Irri]

Bruce, you are absolutely right; you would want/need a wireless system on a Steadicam. I got the impression that people might be considering a wireless as a follow focus solution for all situations and just wanted to point out that there are negative aspects.

[NZ1]

At NAB I personally felt and played with 5 different follow focus units: Arri, Petroff, Chroziel, Cavision and Redrock Micro. Personally, I felt the order of quality went: Arri, Cavision, Chroziel, Petroff and then Redrock. The Cavision felt awesome, less play then even the Arri ones in the Red booth. The knob system felt better than anyone but Arri. Combine that with the rock solid adjustable system and a price of under $900, that's my choice, game over. I have no affiliation at all with them, I just played with 5 different units and they spoke for themselves.

Shawn can you advise exactly the lens gear sizes required for follow fucus on the three RED lenses 18-50, 50-150 and the 300?

Many thanks NZ1

[chuck colburn]

Shawn can you advise exactly the lens gear sizes required for follow fucus on the three RED lenses 18-50, 50-150 and the 300?

Many thanks NZ1

I believe those lenses come with gears on them.

[Greg M]

I believe those lenses come with gears on them.

he was talking about the FF gears

[Bruce Allen]

Yup, gears. Standard cine pitch.
http://www.red.com/lenses

EDIT - 0.8/32, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

Cine pitch is either 32 or .8 module. For all praticle purposes they're the same.
Some video lens are different.

[chuck colburn]

he was talking about the FF gears

Yeah I see now. When I saw the word sizes I thought he meant inside diameters not diametral pitch.

Saw this earlier and thought it might be of intrest to those stepping up to cine style production shooting.

http://www.freshdv.com/2007/10/follow-focus-reviews-and-1st-ac-tutorial-roundup.html

[david_winters]

The Arri FF5 is designed for 2/3" lenses and is not appropiate for 35mm lenses, The action requires twice the turns to focus and the gear arm does not reach the 35mm lenses properly. The better choice is the older FF4

Arri now has a larger lens gear to use on the FF5HD with cine lenses. This gear gets the transmission ratio very close to a conventional film FF. I've forgotten the gear ratios bit it's something like FF2/3/4 is 1:1 and FF5HD is 2:1. FF5HD with large gear is 1.2:1.

Check with Arri to get actual ratios. I've got the FF5HD and several size "32" gears, so far no issues.

[Dave Weber]

Arri now has a larger lens gear to use on the FF5HD with cine lenses. This gear gets the transmission ratio very close to a conventional film FF. I've forgotten the gear ratios bit it's something like FF2/3/4 is 1:1 and FF5HD is 2:1. FF5HD with large gear is 1.2:1.

Check with Arri to get actual ratios. I've got the FF5HD and several size "32" gears, so far no issues.

WINTERS .....That you?

[Greg M]

Arri now has a larger lens gear to use on the FF5HD with cine lenses. This gear gets the transmission ratio very close to a conventional film FF. I've forgotten the gear ratios bit it's something like FF2/3/4 is 1:1 and FF5HD is 2:1. FF5HD with large gear is 1.2:1.

Check with Arri to get actual ratios. I've got the FF5HD and several size "32" gears, so far no issues.

I'll have to look into that...I bought the FF5 and had to return it because it didnt work with my Ultra Primes. Arri then swapped it out for the FF4 which of course works great.

[NEXTLEVEL]

If The Total Cost FOR A Red Package Is Between 24k-30k I Don't Think One Should Spend More Than 1k On A Mattebox. Thus That Make Sense To Anyone?

[Stephen Williams]

If The Total Cost FOR A Red Package Is Between 24k-30k I Don't Think One Should Spend More Than 1k On A Mattebox. Thus That Make Sense To Anyone?

Hi,

Not really, a mattebox can have a major effect on image quality by reducing stray light.

Stephen

[Jaime Vallés]

Hi,

Not really, a mattebox can have a major effect on image quality by reducing stray light.

Stephen

So can a piece of black foam board. :wink:

[Michael Schrengohst]

You can buy a lot of foam core for $4000

[chuck colburn]

You can buy a lot of foam core for $4000

Don't forget to include the "C" stands with related arms etc. to hold the foam core and the gaffers 2nd and 3rd to mount them and juggle them around when they get in the way of a tracking shot and keep them out of the way of cables and people bumping into them and oh yeah a case of gaffers tape.

[Michael Schrengohst]

COTFL....

Sounds like you have seen some of my shoots!!

[david_winters]

I'll have to look into that...I bought the FF5 and had to return it because it didnt work with my Ultra Primes. Arri then swapped it out for the FF4 which of course works great.

I'm curious, was it an issue with the arm being too long for the Ultra Primes, or because of the really low gear ratio with the small 35 tooth gear?

If the arm was too long for the gear to mesh with the lens, the 64 tooth big gear should compensate for the physical lineup.

Gears are at the bottom of this doc.

http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/configuration_overview/manuals/pdfs/CO_680_2007_05_FOLLOW_FOCUS.pdf


- Winters

[Greg M]

David,
I dont remember the exact problem, but the low gear ratio was the minor issue. The main issue was the arm would not reach the Ultra Primes. I got on a conference call w/ Arri in LA and they agreed it was a design problem and had me ship it back. They sent me a FF4 and it works fine.

This was at least 6 months ago, I dont know if they have made changes to the FF5 since then, but it did not work with my UP's

[Stephen Williams]

So can a piece of black foam board. :wink:

Hi Jamie,

So if I understand what your saying, you don't see a need for a mattebox at all.

Stephen

[Martin Drew]

If The Total Cost FOR A Red Package Is Between 24k-30k I Don't Think One Should Spend More Than 1k On A Mattebox. Thus That Make Sense To Anyone?

Not to me, I think this is a too simplistic approach. You need to decide what facilities you require in a mattebox and buy accordingly, that may require a larger or lesser proportion of spend. If you are really trying to shave your budget down and ease of use or robustness is not an important requirement for you then you could probably go for a cheaper mattebox but that won't necessarily be the best solution for others.

M

[Jaime Vallés]

Hi Jamie,

So if I understand what your saying, you don't see a need for a mattebox at all.

Stephen
No, no. A mattebox is definitely needed for most work. I just don't feel that it has to cost an arm and a leg to do it's job. If a $900 mattebox does 95% of what a $3500 mattebox does, I'll use some foam board to block out that occasional stray light creeping in to the cheaper one.

But, hey, if I could afford it, I'd totally get an MB-20! :gun:

[chuck colburn]

No, no. A mattebox is definitely needed for most work. I just don't feel that it has to cost an arm and a leg to do it's job. If a $900 mattebox does 95% of what a $3500 mattebox does, I'll use some foam board to block out that occasional stray light creeping in to the cheaper one.

But, hey, if I could afford it, I'd totally get an MB-20! :gun:

If you guys keep doing films like CASI CASI you will be able to afford any mattebox you like. Nice camera work from the little I've seen so far. Keep it up.

[NZ1]

Okay, so it's now time to start thinking about the all important accessories! (Let's be honest, you can get any old camera, but the accessories are what really makes the camera;))

I know that many of you, like me, will be getting the 18-50 and using it for the bulk of your work (until we can afford something far better!) Two of the biggest accessories we can buy are a matteboxe and follow focus. However, what really are our options for these?

Follow focus
High End - $3,000+
Willytec System - Not made anymore that I can find. Supposed to be the best out there. Also, can not find a price even on a used one.
Arri FF4 - Couldn't find anything on Arri's website about it, but I've read that many people are happy with it.

Middle $2,000-$3,000
Chrosziel Studio FF - Read somewhere that people were not terribly impressed with it. It would quickly become sticky and what not.

Low end $500-$2,000
Arri Side side FF - Haven't heard much about this. Seems like it would be fine if you are doing run and gun and are not using a focus puller

Redrockmicro FF - Nice looking low end FF. However, it looks doubtful that it would work with the 18-55. Also, would the build quality and issues like back drift really hold up for the professional world?

Matteboxes

I haven't really be able to find out a ton info about the quality of different matteboxes. I know some more better about not letting light spill on the lens through the filter area, but that's about it. I also know that if you are going to get the 18-50, you will need a 4x5.6 mattebox (probably on rods) to be able to cover the lens's widest angle.


So what are you all planning on doing in these areas?

Matthew Rogers


Can anyone tell me the distance on the RED between the 19mm rods is 100 or 105mm?

Many thanks