Dual purpose GH1 filters

Boz

Boz

Well-known member
So, while I'm waiting for my GH1 to ship some year, I've started to put together a list of gear that I'm going to use with it. When I came to filters, I sort of ran into a quandary. I want to be able to shoot GH1 in two configurations: Stealth, where the camera is stripped down to it's base essentials, and Cinema, where I have a rails and matte box solution. However, I really don't want to have to buy 2 sets of filters, one for each configuration (filters on Stealth would screw on lens whereas filters for Cinema would slide into matte box). Does anyone have any ideas where I would be able to work both ways with one set of filters?
 
Yeah. Just get screw on filters, and don't buy a mattebox. In my opinion the mattebox is the most overrated and unnecessary accessory that there is for small, low-budget, independent filmmaking...especially with a DSLR which takes screw-on filters. While they can be useful I say that are last on the list of accesories you don't really need to get, and are HIGHLY overpriced in most situations.

Before I get a bunch of crap from people let me explain.

1. Matteboxes slow you down. While changing filters on a mattebox might be slightly faster than changing screw on filters when it comes time to change lenses matteboxes make life much harder...even ones designed to swing away (although they are an improvement to be sure.)

2. Matteboxes are overpriced. They are. My friend bought a $650 RedRock Micro mattebox for use on our HVX projects (35mm adapter) and we NEVER USE IT. That is $650 that could have been better spent on lenses, toward better follow focus, etc.

3. You don't need it. Screw on filters do the job just as well, and anybody can build a DIY lens shade. If you absolutely needed a graded filter chances are it's for a static shot, and you can probably do the job another way (graded screw on filters which I am pretty sure I have seen, etc.)

The main reason for a mattebox on an indie shoot is that it just LOOKS SO COOL. But that's not a really good reason. At most levels we don't need them...you can get one if you don't already have one but chances are it will be left collecting dust.

Go with screw on filters for everything...they aren't that slow to use, they slow you down less than a mattebox in most situations, they are the cheaper option and you can repurpose the money to make your film look better in another way, and chances are you won't use it too much because it's kind of a hassle.


Now there are probably arguments against the ones that I have made, but as far as I know there is no good way to do what you are asking short of just picking one. I say pick screw on filters. Work for stealth, work for cinema, and you probably don't need a mattebox anyway.
 
A true mattebox is a real problem on a GH1 when using the stock lens, because the lens front moves out so incredibly far when you zoom.

I'm not a fan of Cokin filters, I think they're cheap and optically sub-par, but the Cokin filter holder is the right idea for the GH1.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. I thought about the cokin filters as well since they could be used with multiple lenses. Otherwise it sounds like the best way to go is with larger screw on filters and multiple step down rings for use with different lenses. Does that make sense?

Oh, and Ben, part of the 'cinema' solution will be a follow focus, which means rails. So why not add a matte box? I've found some simpler ones online that are only $100 - $200. Plus they beef up the camera, adding weight and stability. And sometimes you need to impress talent or client. It's something I'm going to work up to, slowly.

In fact, here's a matte box that attaches directly to the lens and does not require rails, therefore eliminating two problems (needing rails and dealing with expanding contracting zoom lens)... price? $69 http://cgi.ebay.com/Sunshade-matte-...in_2?hash=item2c5081f6c7&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
 
Barry_Green said:
I'm not a fan of Cokin filters, I think they're cheap and optically sub-par, but the Cokin filter holder is the right idea for the GH1.
Click to expand...

I'm not overly impressed with the Cokin filters either and I use them :)
(Mainly because they were the quickest way to get hold of a set of NDs here.)

Which is why I linked to the Formatt HiTech ones, same size but are said to be better. One of these days I'll arse myself to order a couple but I got so much other stuff to get as well. Actually the HiTech filter holder looks also better than the Cokin, I should check if it fits the Cokin adapter rings.
 
Boz said:
In fact, here's a matte box that attaches directly to the lens and does not require rails, therefore eliminating two problems (needing rails and dealing with expanding contracting zoom lens)... price? $69 http://cgi.ebay.com/Sunshade-matte-...in_2?hash=item2c5081f6c7&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Click to expand...

Look around on the Formatt site, they also have Matte box that attaches directly on the lens and holds 4x4 filters.

Their HiTech range have a hood. Cokin have a modular squarish hood which most people who have seen it on my GH1 for some odd reason thinks looks 'pro'. I just see cheap plastic :)

And then there's the Matteblox which also is something I've only seen online so no idea on how good it is.

http://www.cinetactics.com/Page.bok?template=c_mb100m

Just a random observation from old times: screwing off and screwing on a filter set between lens gets really old pretty fast when having people waiting for you to get ready.
 
> Just a random observation from old times: screwing off and screwing on a filter
> set between lens gets really old pretty fast
> when having people waiting for you to get ready.

And heaven forbid you do a cross thread in the rush...
 
So does dealing with removing/moving a mattebox when it's time to change lenses. Screwing on and off a filter when you need to change a lens generally takes less time than dealing with a mattebox...and not only does it take less time (usually) it also costs you a lot less for the privelage.

I can't tell you how many times on a set (when not using filters) it's been time to change lenses, we've had the mattebox on and just said, **** it, and taken it off. Wait..yes I can. 1 time. We realized it was stupid to keep using it. :)
 
Ben_B said:
So does dealing with removing/moving a mattebox when it's time to change lenses. Screwing on and off a filter when you need to change a lens generally takes less time than dealing with a mattebox...and not only does it take less time (usually) it also costs you a lot less for the privelage.

I can't tell you how many times on a set (when not using filters) it's been time to change lenses, we've had the mattebox on and just said, poo poo it, and taken it off. Wait..yes I can. 1 time. We realized it was stupid to keep using it. :)
Click to expand...

Good matteboxes have a little swing away arm between them and the rods.
redrock has this
http://www.redrockmicro.com/microMattebox.html
I spoke to the indirails guy last year and he had a swing arm ready for his rails system which he would adapt to your mb
 
Last edited:
Martti Ekstrand said:
Fastest way to swap filter set-ups between lenses are a Cokin or Formatt HiTech square filter holder. Have a adapter ring on each lens and it's a quick snap-off-snap-on operation.

www.cokin.com

www.formatt.co.uk/stills-filters/products.aspx

You can have a lens hood on the filter holder if needed.
Click to expand...

http://www.cokin.com/ico15-A.html

Definitely the cheapest route to go but imo significantly reduces stealth factor. The key is to look like every other person who walks around with an SLR...

Personally I just went for a set of 62mm filters (uv filter, circ polarizer, 2 nd8s/1nd4/1nd2). I think it cost me $220 or something. So I'm set for my kit lens, then when I get my ciecio7 adapter and some canon FD's I'll just buy step-up rings. For me, its a good solution, because I have no plans to buy a lens with larger than 62mm size in the near future. Plus it gives me ultra stealth :) I know from experience :)
 
Ben_B said:
So does dealing with removing/moving a mattebox when it's time to change lenses. Screwing on and off a filter when you need to change a lens generally takes less time than dealing with a mattebox...
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing to a using matte box, I was comparing to snapping off and then snap on the Cokin holder, which takes less than 5 seconds all together. :thumbup:

But for the record, with a good swing away arm a matte box is also a lot faster than moving a screw-on filter kit between lenses. And on a well-lit set with multiple lights pointing all over, some kind of matte box / lens hood is a definite must or your image will be a wash-out mush in most angles.

yabyum said:
I have no plans to buy a lens with larger than 62mm size in the near future.
Click to expand...

My Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 has a 72 mm front :)

The key is to look like every other person who walks around with an SLR ... it gives me ultra stealth :) I know from experience :)
Click to expand...
Umm... you're telling me? Have a look at "Closing Time" in my sig link :happy:
 
We have a swing away matte box and it was still a pain because the lenses were different lengths and then you have to adjust the mattebox and the follow focus and sometimes move the whole thing on the rails. Shooting with a redrock mattebox.

Lol..yeah my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 has a 77mm front but the glass isn't that big so i just put 62mm filter on it with adapter.
 
Ben_B said:
We have a swing away matte box and it was still a pain because the lenses were different lengths and then you have to adjust the mattebox and the follow focus and sometimes move the whole thing on the rails. Shooting with a redrock mattebox.

Lol..yeah my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 has a 77mm front but the glass isn't that big so i just put 62mm filter on it with adapter.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. Due to the crop factor you might just get away with using a smaller filter.
 
Yeah, plus the glass is only like 62mm across or so and the ring sits it pretty close to the lens...although further away cause I also have a clear filter on it...in any case on full frame I might be in trouble but I don't think it needs the whole 2x crop to stay hidden...would probably do ok for awhile.
 
Thanks for the info guys. Lots to think about. I still like the $70 option that I posted - quick release with a thumbscrew and quite economical. The format filters solution is cool but pricey (about $660 for the matte box alone). I have a friend of mine has the Matteblox, so I've seen it first hand. I'm not all that impressed.
 
Umm... The Formatt Matte Box is £179 / $ 295 for itself and the £399 / $660 price includes three glass filters of your own choice which is a pretty good price. The interesting thing here is that they have Hot Mirror ND glass filters to reduce the far red effect on the CMOS sensors. I still haven't found any info if that's needed or not with the GH1 though.

Their HiTech range under the 'Stills Filters' that is way less expensive. One gets a 85mm size ND kit - 0.3, 0.6 & 0.9 = ND2, ND4 & ND8 - , a extra 1.8 high density ND - ND16 ! - and the plastic holder for $90. Add the £4.70 / $8.50 adapter rings for as many lenses you got. I wish I had found their site before I rushed out for the Cokin set I got.
 
Marti, J, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding of the Formatt Matte boxes. I'll check 'em out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top