F5: Baseplate For F5/55 Pics On Sony Community Site

the thing is what if I want to use a 50mm EF lens or shorter on the F5-F55 ... I don't see how to raise to rods in the front of the base plate to make it works.
it doesn't seems to have any adjustment possible with the plate.
 
Stephen O'Brien said:
the thing is what if I want to use a 50mm EF lens or shorter on the F5-F55 ... I don't see how to raise to rods in the front of the base plate to make it works.
it doesn't seems to have any adjustment possible with the plate.
Click to expand...

I wish this didn't sound bourgeois, or preachy...

Maybe you know this (apologies if so), but you're not supposed to be able to move those rods up and down. They need to stay in one place so your mattebox and FF are located correctly. Well designed gear relies on 85mm spacing from lens center to rod center.

I suppose maybe you have a MB & FF that move around and have saved you on some builds, but I don't think you're going to find a custom designed plate for the 5/55 that has the rods moving up and down. That's the "custom" part of it, the rods are at 85mm :-)

Besides, the Sony plate is $1900 list, likely $1600 street. I'd just get a Tilta or the like...
 
Last edited:
thank you for the information , but you don't get my point. What if one day I am using one of the Vocas mattebox, and on the next shoot, an O'Connor or Arri ?
Maybe you know this (apologies if so) ... but none of them as the exact same height ;) .

And about Tilta - I had a horrible experience with it.

I would rather go with Element Technica or the shape 7000 v-lock rig. and the shape rig comes with the handles for the same price as the sony base plate.
they are both ajdustable, they can be used for different camera and they will work with any mattebox
 
In my (slightly) humble opinion.....All lightweight matte boxes should be made to the decades old 85mm center dimension. If they don't, the manufacturer either messed up, did not pay attention, or something a bent out of shape. I have owned, used, smashed, and built great gobs of light weight 15mm supports over the years. The adjustable ones are always too flexible for me. You could go way back and look at the integrated LWS on ARRI SR's - it is not adjustable. The extraordinary proliferation of accessory companies in the past few years may have skewed the initial intent of making something standard. If something doesn't fit - make it adjustable. If I cant find the "standard" via Google search - make it adjustable. Now we have so many adjustments - the gear gets flimsy and complicated.

Do your matteboxes adjust? From an engineering and user perspective, that is where the adjustment should be.
 
Stephen O'Brien said:
What if one day I am using one of the Vocas mattebox, and on the next shoot, an O'Connor or Arri ?
Maybe you know this (apologies if so) ... but none of them as the exact same height ;) .
Click to expand...

They're all supposed to be 85mm from rod center to optical axis. Especially Arri, Vocas and O'Connor, and I've never run across one from those companies that was off more than a millimeter. And if it IS off, then it's something else (baseplate not sitting flat on bottom of cam, lens needs support, etc) I know my OConnor MB is dead-nuts on. Arri is too, I just know that from 10 years of ACing and 10 more of shooting.

As my memory goes, it was the cheap Cavision matteboxes that first allowed height adjustment because half their crap was out of whack, and then some more companies new to the game started making height adjustable stuff as well. Which is maybe fine with your own gear, until you need to rent something that was made the way it is supposed to be, and find out you can't get anything to work. It's even more fun when you prep that rented gear at 4pm the day before your job.

I truly don't mean to give you a hard time about it, I just wish to have you avoid some pitfalls I've seen on owner operator gear. Too many adjustments on your rod setup will bite you in the ass, sooner or later.

I hear you about Tilta though. Not the best.
 
Last edited:
My worry is that the camera body is to far back from the front of the base plate.
that would make it difficult to make the follow focus work with short housed primes.
 

Attachments

  • F5:55 - baseplate.jpg
    F5:55 - baseplate.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 0
Thomas Kist said:
My worry is that the camera body is to far back from the front of the base plate.
that would make it difficult to make the follow focus work with short housed primes.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although I think the design of the Sony plate (and JUST the Sony plate, not others) allows it to move fore and aft.

But yes, you couldn't even get a FF to work with their OWN lenses based on that render.
 
Thomas Kist said:
The Arri one looks really tasty!
Click to expand...

I have a really difficult decision ahead, deciding on the Arri or ET baseplate systems. Pros and cons for both. Leaning towards Arri.

After that, Solid Camera gets all my money for the topside/EVF/dumbside pieces they are working on. My only regret is that they doesn't have anything for the bottom quite (yet?)
 
Last edited:
thanks for the information - really my concern with that plate was about short prime & FF MB fitting.
But, I really think that Element Technica, ARRI or the SHAPE one is the way to go.

And you can use them with different camera too.

Every camera has it's own optical center and it's so hard to figure everything out.
investing in a new base plate every time you switch camera... it starts to be excessively expensive.
 
Abel was showing the Micron system at the F5/55 shindig. I actually had only seen specs and web photos of it. Pretty impressive in person.

Ned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top