Cavision MB565U Matte Box

[PaulClements]

Just wondering if anyone has ever used this matte box from cavision (@BH) (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/442112-REG/Cavision_MB565U3_MB565U_3_Extra_wide_16_9.html) and could offer their opinion on it? (Also available as a 2 filter stage MB (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486402-REG/Cavision_MB565U-2_MB565U_2_Extra_wide_16_9.html)).

Though I'm sure Curt can do better hawhaw! :)

[PaulClements]

Looking at Cavisions website it appears to ship with the rod support which is 19/105mm and has 15/60mm adapter included too.

[Paul Hazlett]

the only thing with it is if your using prime you have to pull it off instead of
swinging away. other than that looks ok to me.

[Shawn Nelson]

I have never used it in a production setting, but I played with it quite a bit at the Cavision booth at NAB and was big time impressed. I also looked at Arri, Chrosziel, Petroff and Redrock matte boxes (and FF) and have decided to go for this Cavision matte. it felt and looked very, very pro, but for like 1/5 of the Arri price.

[Mark Mannschreck]

Hey Paul -

I have owned a Cavision 4X4 mattebox and rods and one of their .6 broadcast wideangle adapters... Both fell apart QUICKLY. The rotating stage worked for a bit then ground to a halt. The french flag's tabs broke off. The filter holder's ball pins that hold the filter in place failed so that a Tiffen glass filter crashed to the ground, the wideangle adapter glass became loose...

Bought a Chrosziel and have never regretted it!

[Shawn Nelson]

Manny, I've owned the 4x4 Bellows Cavision matte box and it's held up for years, solid as a rock.

[Mark Mannschreck]

I had the hard shade version but in all fairness it was a LONG time ago (7 years maybe?)... Everything failed on that thing. I also noticed alot more "mirror" reflections between the two 4X4 filters in the filter stage. The company is (or was) owned by a nice couple that seemed to be truly interested in improving products and listening to their consumers - I'm sure they have improved, but when you start using an Arri or Chrosziel all the time you realize the whole German engineering thing... The tolerances they are engineered to - Same with my Sachtler 25 II - Chrosziel can be found used fairly inexpensively sometimes on ebay or new at 16X9 inc...

[PaulClements]

the only thing with it is if your using prime you have to pull it off instead of
swinging away. other than that looks ok to me.

How come? Does the swing away mechanism not work on primes? Checkout http://www.cavision.com/matteboxes/5x5mb/MB565U.htm, it clearly states it's a swing away, why would they make it so the swing away doesn't work with primes?

[PaulClements]

I have never used it in a production setting, but I played with it quite a bit at the Cavision booth at NAB and was big time impressed. I also looked at Arri, Chrosziel, Petroff and Redrock matte boxes (and FF) and have decided to go for this Cavision matte. it felt and looked very, very pro, but for like 1/5 of the Arri price.

What lenses are you using with yours Shawn? Could you post a review of the Matte Box once you get your hands on it? Or you could email or PM me if at all possible, with your impressions of it in a working environment. Email is paulclementscx -AT- gmail.com.

Many thanks

[Sean]

Cavision makes some cool stuff. I'm curious whether their shoulder mount would work with Red.

[PaulClements]

I've never been sure about their ff units, they look ok but just don't look as well put together as others in the more expensive catagories. This Matte box does look pretty well made though, compared to it's more expensive counterparts.

[Paul Hazlett]

How come? Does the swing away mechanism not work on primes? Checkout http://www.cavision.com/matteboxes/5x5mb/MB565U.htm, it clearly states it's a swing away, why would they make it so the swing away doesn't work with primes?

my bad was not paying attention to the details of the description.

the picture does not lend itself to seeing that feature to my blury eyes

[Shawn Nelson]

I've never been sure about their ff units, they look ok but just don't look as well put together as others in the more expensive catagories. This Matte box does look pretty well made though, compared to it's more expensive counterparts.

Their FF unit felt really good to me. I will most likely be using it.

[Jay A. Kelley]

I can tell you I purchase some handles from CAVision for my camera to go handheld and they were nothing short of HORRIBLE. Did not last one week.. VERY poor design. The teeth that lock the handle into place are SO DAMN SMALL they strip with almost no effort. Looking at the shoulder mount, I can see they are still using the same handle design.. BUYER BEWARE
Jay

[Jeremy Torrie]

Jay: I've had the Cavision handles for a long time and they have worked really well...but you are right the teeth are small, and if they become loose, they certainly slide. The thing is: as long as you reef them on as tight as you can, and are diligent about checking, they have worked fine...the heaviest camera was an HDW-700A with Canon 21 x 7.5 KLL cine lens, rails, Chrsoziel matte box, a Frezzi light, and an Astro 7" monitor. That's a lot of weight, and they held up.

[Mark Mannschreck]

On my handles, I had to glue (jb weld) the teeth plates to the rod clamp even though there are three screws there - they still slipped around which is unnerving whipping around handheld with a big ol camera... I wouldn't want to risk my Red with components that aren't designed as well as the camera itself.

[Jeremy Torrie]

That 700A? It was worth 140,000 CDN when I paid for it new with lens and accessories (ouch)...that's 3x the cost of Red with lens...it didn't freak me out that badly. Disappointed -sure. But the handles we've seen in the mock ups from Red seem totally solid...I'm not sure why we're discussing this anyway.

[PaulClements]

Bernie Koth-Kappus just told me by email cavision is actually making a 6x6 Matte box in the next 3-4 months. Good timing :)

[Finner]

I have found when people buy camera AKS the ones that buy cheaper quality items like FF or MB's end up having to use an inferior product and then they break in 5-6 years or sooner. Others that I have seen buy high quality ARRI type AKS end up having a good working product that lasts for life and due to inflation if they want to sell it in 10 or so years they end up getting close to their money back or even sometimes make a few bucks.

[PaulClements]

This is true Finner, but in the same sense you can buy something for less and look after it and it'll work well and last long enough, after a while you might wish to upgrade the product if design changes alter. Even ARRI and Chrosziel release new matte boxes every so often, their old ones drop in value and their new ones offer better features.

It's a personal choice in my opinion. If they do the same job then it doesn't matter too much to me, if the cheaper one doesn't do the same job, protecting the filters etc then yes I'd agree that the more expensive one is the better. More expensive doesn't always mean better quality, RedUsers should know this more than most.

[Mark Mannschreck]

So you'd rather buy a cheap watch with new bells and whistles every year or two instead of getting a good watch that lasts a lifetime and will always do what it's supposed to do? Eventually, you will have spent more than the person who bought the good watch, and have many instances when you weren't able to tell the time.

[Shawn Nelson]

Bernie Koth-Kappus just told me by email cavision is actually making a 6x6 Matte box in the next 3-4 months. Good timing :)

I saw it and played with it at NAB, it was sweet. Though I preferred the size of the 5x5.

I really don't get all the Cavision haters. I mean, for crying out loud, if you can afford an Arri, then go by one. Have fun, I wish I was you. I'm going to be spending about $40k on my Red setup and that's only buying a Cavision matte and FF and a Manfrotto tripod. I'd sure love to go buy a top of the line Arri Matte, FF and Sachtler tripod, etc. But then my budget would need to be $60k and gents, I don't have that.

Now I don't buy the argument that Cavision is vastly inferior in quality. I've owned one of their matte boxes for 3 years now and it's great. At NAB I played with three different Cavision matteboxes and the quality was great, easily 90% of what an Arri is (i played with those too). Do I want an Arri? Hell yes, but I can't pay 400% more to only get that last 10% of quality. Hopefully my Red business will go well enough to warrant upgrades.

[Shawn Nelson]

So you'd rather buy a cheap watch with new bells and whistles every year or two instead of getting a good watch that lasts a lifetime and will always do what it's supposed to do? Eventually, you will have spent more than the person who bought the good watch, and have many instances when you weren't able to tell the time.


Cavision swingaway 5x5 matte with all flags, rods and mounting brackets is $1500. The Arri MB-20 kit is 4,471.20 at Filmtools.

Dude, I could use the Cavision till it crumbles and buy another one and still be way under the Arri. And you know what? I think a single Cavision will last me as long as an Arri. Have you felt and played with the 5x5? The build quality is great.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just saying I really don't think the Geo-Metro/Ferrari or cheapwatch/expensive watch comparisons are fair at all here. Matte boxes are fundamentally different.

[Finner]

At NAB I played with three different Cavision matteboxes and the quality was great, easily 90% of what an Arri is (i played with those too)

I checked out the Cavision line at NAB as well. There stuff is not bad but no where in the league of ARRI or even chrosziel. I would rate the Cavision stuff at about 55% of an ARRI due to many of its short commings and lower quality level.

[Mark Mannschreck]

Shawn - I am not trying to diss anyone here... The only thing I'm going on is the products I have personally used. The thread started as a question about Cavision. I don't mean to sound disrespectful but there is no way a Cavision will last as long as an Arri or a Chosziel. I am personal testament to that fact. Although their products may or may not have improved, I thought I should share my experiences with Cavision products.

Where do you come up with your 40k-60k Red layout?

I will spend less than 25k for Red with all the trimmings - Red 17,500, EVF 2,950, 2X REDdrve $1,800, Red One power pack $1,450, Production pack $2,750, Nikon Mount $500, ($2,500 discount included) already have the Nikkors...
I spent 3k on my Sachtler 25II
I spent 2,500 on my Chrosziel
I spent 2,500 on my ARRI kit

[PaulClements]

So you'd rather buy a cheap watch with new bells and whistles every year or two instead of getting a good watch that lasts a lifetime and will always do what it's supposed to do? Eventually, you will have spent more than the person who bought the good watch, and have many instances when you weren't able to tell the time.

Styles change, so yes I do infact buy a watch every year or two. I don't buy cheap watches but I don't pay more than is needed. If my watch stops working I can always use my mobile :)

The point I made about cheaper not always being worse was because many of us are buying into a cheaper camera with cheaper workflow, why shouldn't we at least look at accessories from companies that share a similar ideaology as Red (Sell low, Sell more). Does that mean Curt's MB will be automatically poor in many peoples eyes simply because it costs significantly less?

I accept that ARRI's or Chrosziel's are probably better, but I haven't heard too much about why though? For those people who have at least held the both in their hands, what makes the cavision lesser? Finner could you explain your impressions of short comings and lower quality in a little more detail please? If you did the pepsi challenge what would be the most noticable differences?

[jaadgy akanni]

Styles change, so yes I do infact buy a watch every year or two. I don't buy cheap watches but I don't pay more than is needed. If my watch stops working I can always use my mobile :)

The point I made about cheaper not always being worse was because many of us are buying into a cheaper camera with cheaper workflow, why shouldn't we at least look at accessories from companies that share a similar ideaology as Red (Sell low, Sell more). Does that mean Curt's MB will be automatically poor in many peoples eyes simply because it costs significantly less?

I accept that ARRI's or Chrosziel's are probably better, but I haven't heard too much about why though? For those people who have at least held the both in their hands, what makes the cavision lesser? Finner could you explain your impressions of short comings and lower quality in a little more detail please? If you did the pepsi challenge what would be the most noticable differences?
I'm with you on that Paul. If it does that job I want it to do, I'd rather buy a mattebox like the Geardear or RedRockMicro every 2 or 3 years for $600 and not one ridiculously overpriced Crosziel or Arri. And believe me, they'll probably last the same.

[Finner]

I'd rather buy a mattebox like the Geardear or RedRockMicro every 2 or 3 years for $600 and not one ridiculously overpriced Crosziel or Arri. And believe me, they'll probably last the same.

I don't know about the geardear but the red rock is a fantastic purchase if you want to spend a ton more cash in the long run and constantly have problems by owning a peice of gear that has cheap substandard features. I cant even begin to imagine how many filters a person would break with the redrock and filters are not cheap. Not to mention how much extra time you would waste trying to configure the camera with a non swing out plastic everything matte box. Crosziel and ARRI are overpriced but they are also very good. If you shoot more then 5 days a month I would be highly suprised if a redrock matte box lasted a year.

Paul to answer your question about the cavision like I said it was okay but the fit and finish of a lot of it were just not quite there and the adjustment knobs had been designed that they were in kind of akward spots to get your hands to and work with. The matte box over all was not that ergonomically friendly. Also the swing away did not have a locking pin on the swing away, just a tightening adjustment knob. I feel a locking pin is a must as it can protect talent in instances where the camera is above them and the MB could accidentally swing open. Overall I walked away from the cavision thinking it was okay but that it was not as tough as an arri did not have the excellent fit , finish and ergonomics of an arri did not look as good as an arri and I would not be able to rent it out for as much as an arri in my package so in the end I thought an arri would be better.

I mentioned this a little in the prime thread and will mention it again here. Some people here all they can see is the cheapest option which in the end I have experienced usually costs more. Pro gear will help people justify a higher rate and also last longer and work better. I have heard a lot of complaints about having to wait for render times in the edit suite from slow computers and it seems like some are ready to buy the fastest mac but want the cheapest matte box. To me it seems like it should be the other way around. I would much rather use a high quality MB, FF and other production gear that WILL save you time and money when it is most important because you have a whole crew working and the sun going down. In the edit suite it is usually just the editor and the director so time does not equal as much cash and is just more of a nusance and not nearly as much of a problem. Also high quality support equipment will always be worth much more of a premium used then the cheap option so not only do you make more from renting it but you sell it for more when you buy a new one.

Hopefully Curt changes a lot of this with his MB. I have spoke with him on a few occasions and even though he is working at keeping the cost low high quality, full features and ergonomics are at the top of his list. So this is the one I am waiting for.

[Sam Druckerman]

I don't know about the geardear but the red rock is a fantastic purchase if you want to spend a ton more cash in the long run and constantly have problems by owning a peice of gear that has cheap substandard features. I cant even begin to imagine how many filters a person would break with the redrock and filters are not cheap. Not to mention how much extra time you would waste trying to configure the camera with a non swing out plastic everything matte box. Crosziel and ARRI are overpriced but they are also very good. If you shoot more then 5 days a month I would be highly suprised if a redrock matte box lasted a year.

Paul to answer your question about the cavision like I said it was okay but the fit and finish of a lot of it were just not quite there and the adjustment knobs had been designed that they were in kind of akward spots to get your hands to and work with. The matte box over all was not that ergonomically friendly. Also the swing away did not have a locking pin on the swing away, just a tightening adjustment knob. I feel a locking pin is a must as it can protect talent in instances where the camera is above them and the MB could accidentally swing open. Overall I walked away from the cavision thinking it was okay but that it was not as tough as an arri did not have the excellent fit , finish and ergonomics of an arri did not look as good as an arri and I would not be able to rent it out for as much as an arri in my package so in the end I thought an arri would be better.

I mentioned this a little in the prime thread and will mention it again here. Some people here all they can see is the cheapest option which in the end I have experienced usually costs more. Pro gear will help people justify a higher rate and also last longer and work better. I have heard a lot of complaints about having to wait for render times in the edit suite from slow computers and it seems like some are ready to buy the fastest mac but want the cheapest matte box. To me it seems like it should be the other way around. I would much rather use a high quality MB, FF and other production gear that WILL save you time and money when it is most important because you have a whole crew working and the sun going down. In the edit suite it is usually just the editor and the director so time does not equal as much cash and is just more of a nusance and not nearly as much of a problem. Also high quality support equipment will always be worth much more of a premium used then the cheap option so not only do you make more from renting it but you sell it for more when you buy a new one.

Hopefully Curt changes a lot of this with his MB. I have spoke with him on a few occasions and even though he is working at keeping the cost low high quality, full features and ergonomics are at the top of his list. So this is the one I am waiting for.

Thanks Finner for your comments here, which I believe ring true with the voice of experience.

Now if Curt can deliver on Red's new schedule, that will be my first look/choice....

But, I'm going to have to buy a MB when #81 comes whether Curt's ready or not, I hope he is.

[Mark Mannschreck]

The point I made about cheaper not always being worse was because many of us are buying into a cheaper camera with cheaper workflow, why shouldn't we at least look at accessories from companies that share a similar ideaology as Red (Sell low, Sell more). Does that mean Curt's MB will be automatically poor in many peoples eyes simply because it costs significantly less? Hey Paul - I don't look at Red so much as being "cheaper" it certainly isn't cheap. But an amazing price for what a camera can do. The broadcast camera bodies I've purchased in the past were all around 20k. BVW400A - JVC DY90WU D9 (yeah I know!). Somebody was eventually bound to make a DSLR do 24 (and more) fps and sell it for broadcast video camera prices - It's just happening sooner because of Red and the man at the helm... I think the key here, as noted by Finner, is the design. The problems I noted about my Cavision matte were all design related flaws. The Red camera is HUGE on design. It is in no way cheaper in that department! No plastic prosumer body here... I think the mattebox should complement that. The smoothness of the rotating stage, the positve locking mechanisms, the high quality (ok heavier!) materials, the machining of high qualty metals to these amazing tolerances that not only make it smooth and supple to operate, but can withstand a big drop onto concrete... I don't think it HAS to cost more and I'm sure Curt's will be a far better design than the Cavision I owned...

[PaulClements]

Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. I wasn't fortunate enough to make it Vegas for NAB so I haven't had the opportunity to look at these things in person, as such you rely onothers who've handled them or even used them. I'll certainly mark the MB down as a cheap alternative if nothing else, perhaps a replacement in an emergency if an ARRI or Chrosz broke and was waiting on insurance to pay out etc.

[Brian Valente]

I don't know about the geardear but the red rock is a fantastic purchase if you want to spend a ton more cash in the long run and constantly have problems by owning a peice of gear that has cheap substandard features. I cant even begin to imagine how many filters a person would break with the redrock and filters are not cheap. Not to mention how much extra time you would waste trying to configure the camera with a non swing out plastic everything matte box. Crosziel and ARRI are overpriced but they are also very good. If you shoot more then 5 days a month I would be highly suprised if a redrock matte box lasted a year.

Finner -

As an update to the Redrock microMattebox we showed at NAB. We got some great feedback and among the many improvements we implemented since then (and just showed at Cinegear), the microMB is now made primarily of machined aluminum, filters are held in the stages by spring-loaded metal clips, and the filter stages are held in place a ball plunger by neural metal thumb screws. So all in all if the Arri/Chrosziel/Petroff approach is good enough, then so will the Redrock microMB.

As I mentioned on another thread here, one of the goals of the microMB enhanced design was specifically to support Red and the Red lenses, and cinema lenses in general. Pictures and detailed specs to follow.


Cheers

Brian

[Finner]

Hi brian

I am working long split's on a big car commercial right now so not much time to add my input but what you mention about re-design sounds very promising. I hope you did not take my comments badly as I just saw a lot of flaws in that first model. The improvements you mention sound very good and I wish you the best of luck with it. A high quality matte box at a low price is really needed right now.

Daren