FAQ Mattebox recommendation?
- Thread starter moldcad
- Start date
moldcad
Veteran
And regarding minimalist clamp-on filter holders for those smallish DSLR lenses, what do people thin of these (there are dual filter versions available)?
https://youtu.be/9_9Za5Zv9YA
Piotr
https://youtu.be/9_9Za5Zv9YA
Piotr
moldcad
Veteran
Lenny - so with the filter width always being just 4", don't you ever get vignetting with this Petroff mattebox? Which is you widest lens you are using it with?
Piotr
I haven't checked recently as honestly I only use the matte box for grads otherwise i find screw on filters less hassle. However as I recall all of my lenses work with it which includes the 11-16 Tokina which is my widest. It is partly also a question of the size of the lens. if I was using cine lenses which tend to bigger i might have more problem. The 18-110 Sony uses a 95mm front filter so its bigger than my other lenses and it just barely makes into the Petroff. For very wide lenses I can push the matte box into the lens so it only uses one filter stage, though that could interfere with a follow focus in some cases I guess.
I also have 15mm Canon fisheye that probably doesn't work but I haven't tried it . Maybe it will since the Tokina does. I like the Petrol because you can rotate with filter stages which is something I like to have available for grads.
I've had mine for quite a while and don't know if they have changed it in recent years.
I also have 15mm Canon fisheye that probably doesn't work but I haven't tried it . Maybe it will since the Tokina does. I like the Petrol because you can rotate with filter stages which is something I like to have available for grads.
I've had mine for quite a while and don't know if they have changed it in recent years.
moldcad
Veteran
Guys, has anyone taken a look at this Wooden Camera system? It's called "Zip Box", and this one for example can take 2x filters of 4x5.65". Smaller diameter lenses are also covered with a set of step-down rings... I like the idea of not having to carry a heavy mattebox around; having filters clamped-on the lenses is so much more versatile (and there is absolutely no danger of vignetting with wide lenses, as the filter(s) are at no distance from the lens' front glass...
https://www.woodencamera.com/zip-box-double-4-x-5-65-80-85mm-p/241600.htm
The only consideration I have against is that (especially with 2 filter version), it's a considerable weight hanging off the very front of the lenses; do you think it could be a problem with my E-mount lenses for the A7Rii or MFT lenses with my GH5? Please share your thoughts....
Piotr
PS. Oh - and speaking of ND filters for DSLR (without internal ND system): I have an ND 0.6 (2 stops) filter; which one should I buy (to either use solo or stacked with my 0.6): the 0.9 (3 stops), or the 1.2 (4 stops)? I have no experience with stacking ND filters on these cameras' lenses, so please advise...
Last edited:
You have to think about how you will be using your filters.
The zip box looks like it provides little (or no) sunshade capability, and thus (at least for me) would not be suited for using pro-mist or similar filters which need to be shaded from out-of-frame light sources, particularly from skylight. I almost always use the eyebrow on a matte box - something this system lacks. It also looks like there would be no way to adjust a grad filter the way sliding matte box trays can do. But it might be a nice lightweight option if you don't need these functions.
I also hate to stack filters because of the possible reflections between layers, particularly when shooting subjects that have small light sources - such as car headlights or Xmas lights. Of course that meant I bought the full set of ND's - but looking at my usage, I almost never used my ND .3, so think about how you normally use the ND on your FS7, and start with those filter densities.
The zip box looks like it provides little (or no) sunshade capability, and thus (at least for me) would not be suited for using pro-mist or similar filters which need to be shaded from out-of-frame light sources, particularly from skylight. I almost always use the eyebrow on a matte box - something this system lacks. It also looks like there would be no way to adjust a grad filter the way sliding matte box trays can do. But it might be a nice lightweight option if you don't need these functions.
I also hate to stack filters because of the possible reflections between layers, particularly when shooting subjects that have small light sources - such as car headlights or Xmas lights. Of course that meant I bought the full set of ND's - but looking at my usage, I almost never used my ND .3, so think about how you normally use the ND on your FS7, and start with those filter densities.
moldcad
Veteran
Thanks - BTW, there is a flag set for the Zip Box, bu they don't look very solid:
https://www.nefal.tv/pl/wooden-camera-zip-box-flag-set-top-and-sides-9198
Piotr
PS. Could some good soul help me "translate" the FS7 internal ND densities of 1/4, 1/16, 1/64 into the "NDx.y" nomenclature? I know I could google it, but don't want to make mistake... I know that ND0.6 reduces the light by 2 stops, ND0.9 - by 3 stops, etc. By how many stops do 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 reduce the incoming light? Is it so:
0.6=1/4
0.9= 1/8
1.2=1/16
1.8=1/64
And so on? If this is right, the 1/64 I use very often on my FS7 would be equivalent of stacking an ND0.6 filter with ND1.2.... But please, do check my math
Sorry for being such a lame, but there are at least 4 ways of rating the light reduction of a given ND filter: F-Stop Reduction, Optical Density, Filter Factor, and % transmittance - and the 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 is yet another system of unit How do they relate? Yeah, I know a 2^F (where F is number of F-stops reduction) factor is involved, but I must admit I'm a bit lost....
https://www.nefal.tv/pl/wooden-camera-zip-box-flag-set-top-and-sides-9198
Piotr
PS. Could some good soul help me "translate" the FS7 internal ND densities of 1/4, 1/16, 1/64 into the "NDx.y" nomenclature? I know I could google it, but don't want to make mistake... I know that ND0.6 reduces the light by 2 stops, ND0.9 - by 3 stops, etc. By how many stops do 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 reduce the incoming light? Is it so:
0.6=1/4
0.9= 1/8
1.2=1/16
1.8=1/64
And so on? If this is right, the 1/64 I use very often on my FS7 would be equivalent of stacking an ND0.6 filter with ND1.2.... But please, do check my math
Sorry for being such a lame, but there are at least 4 ways of rating the light reduction of a given ND filter: F-Stop Reduction, Optical Density, Filter Factor, and % transmittance - and the 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 is yet another system of unit How do they relate? Yeah, I know a 2^F (where F is number of F-stops reduction) factor is involved, but I must admit I'm a bit lost....
Last edited:
Yes the 1/4, 1/8 etc is just completely confusing as it doesn't correspond to any other common measuring system, I think they are all 2 stops apart which would make it .6, 1.2, 1.8, 2.4 . I could be mistaken but its easy to test looking at your zebras or waveform and adjusting f stop & shutter. All you need is a separate .3 to be able to cover most situations.
moldcad
Veteran
Lenny - good to know I'm not alone with this Another reason of doubts is the fact that on my GH5 and A7Rii, I am using adapted and speed-boosted F4.0 Canon filters a lot. They act as if they were F2.8 (F2.5 on my GH5, as I have the 0.64x Speed Booster) - but does it mean they take in the same amount of light as non-boosted F2.8 lenses on a bigger sensor? Meaning that my routinely using the FS7 ND filtering of 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 might not translate directly to those speed-boosted lenses... Or am I overthinking it?
Piotr
Another reason of doubts is the fact that on my GH5 and A7Rii, I am using adapted and speed-boosted F4.0 Canon filters a lot. They act as if they were F2.8 (F2.5 on my GH5, as I have the 0.64x Speed Booster) - but does it mean they take in the same amount of light as non-boosted F2.8 lenses on a bigger sensor? Meaning that my routinely using the FS7 ND filtering of 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 might not translate directly to those speed-boosted lenses... Or am I overthinking it?Piotr
Last edited:
[Do] they take in the same amount of light as non-boosted F2.8 lenses on a bigger sensor?
[/I]
Technically No but it might act the same way though I don't for sure cause I don't have a full frame camera.
With or without the booster the lens takes in the same amount of light , just without the booster 1/2 the light is falling outside of smaller APS-C sensor. With the booster the light is doubled because its optically concentrated.
However My understanding is that larger sensors tend to be inherently more sensitive so it may have the same affect on exposure. But I 'm not too sure about that . Are the bigger sensors brighter because they have more Pixels picking up the same amount of light per inch, or are they bigger & thus more sensitive pixels?????
Meaning that my routinely using the FS7 ND filtering of 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 might not translate directly to those speed-boosted lenses...
No - The function exactly the same way .
Or am I overthinking it?
No you're apparently under thinking
[/I]
Technically No but it might act the same way though I don't for sure cause I don't have a full frame camera.
With or without the booster the lens takes in the same amount of light , just without the booster 1/2 the light is falling outside of smaller APS-C sensor. With the booster the light is doubled because its optically concentrated.
However My understanding is that larger sensors tend to be inherently more sensitive so it may have the same affect on exposure. But I 'm not too sure about that . Are the bigger sensors brighter because they have more Pixels picking up the same amount of light per inch, or are they bigger & thus more sensitive pixels?????
Meaning that my routinely using the FS7 ND filtering of 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64 might not translate directly to those speed-boosted lenses...
No - The function exactly the same way .
Or am I overthinking it?
No you're apparently under thinking
moldcad
Veteran
A very important consideration, which is taken care of in a quite interesting way in the https://www.brighttangerine.com/usd/misfit-atom lightweight mattebox (or should I say: filter holder), which is another contender (along the Wooden Camera's Zip Box system) which I'm considering now for my GH5/A7Rii rig. Just scroll down and see the Tilting filter trays).
My questions for those more experienced:
1. Which of the above 2 systems appeal to you more (as I said, the Zip Bpx can be got with a set of flags)?
2. Even with my fully-fledged (and thus awfully heavy, bulky and impractical) Redrockmicro Mattebox, I've seen strange light phenomena which spoiled the picture - like for example the front of the lens reflecting against the inner closest filter surface... How do you fight such artifacts? Would carefully positioning/angleing the top and side flags help?
Please share your thoughts with me; I personally like the Misfit Atom better than the Zip Box - but it's considerably more expensive; is the price difference justify do you think? What I'm concerned with is the weight of all this rubber plus 2x 4x5.65" glass and flags, all hanging at the end of my E-mount and/or MFT lenses; the Tangerine at least has the rail support option... Thoughts?
Piotr
moldcad
Veteran
Hey guys - no advise at all? Due to my spine probs, it MUST be super-lightweight; quality is imprtant too so please me decide:
- Wooden Camera Zip Box system or
- Tangerine Misfit Atom?
And please share your thoughts on what can be the reason of lens self-reflection, imposed onto the video, when filming with ND filter in the RRmicro Mattebox TIA
Piotr
- Wooden Camera Zip Box system or
- Tangerine Misfit Atom?
And please share your thoughts on what can be the reason of lens self-reflection, imposed onto the video, when filming with ND filter in the RRmicro Mattebox
TIAPiotr
Double reflections (highlights reflected in the lens but actually seen reflected on the back of the filter) can be minimized/eliminated using eyebrow and siders only if the light source is outside of frame (and thus the light from it can be eliminated by flagging it.) The geometry is such that tilting the filters may help if the light source is in frame.
Of course it should go without saying that you need a light-tight seal between the matte box and the lens (such as with a rubber donut) and need to make sure that there is nothing reflective or light colored within the matte box. Plus of course no lenses with silver rings or facing-forward markings or serial numbers. (My ancient Nikkor-S lenses can be a reflection nightmare.) It may also be more of an issue with wider angle lenses... Just as a speck of dirt may go completely un-noticed on a longer lens when shooting wide open, it will be far more visible with a wide angle that's stopped down. Much the same with a dot of light.. And of course using filters with anti-glare coatings can help as well.
I just heard from a friend whose 28-135 just broke off on the lens side of the mount. The FS7 mount stayed in place and the camera remained operational - but the lens couldn't handle the torque. I wasn't there so I don't know the details, but I do tend to recommend support rod based systems whenever possible.
Of course it should go without saying that you need a light-tight seal between the matte box and the lens (such as with a rubber donut) and need to make sure that there is nothing reflective or light colored within the matte box. Plus of course no lenses with silver rings or facing-forward markings or serial numbers. (My ancient Nikkor-S lenses can be a reflection nightmare.) It may also be more of an issue with wider angle lenses... Just as a speck of dirt may go completely un-noticed on a longer lens when shooting wide open, it will be far more visible with a wide angle that's stopped down. Much the same with a dot of light.. And of course using filters with anti-glare coatings can help as well.
I just heard from a friend whose 28-135 just broke off on the lens side of the mount. The FS7 mount stayed in place and the camera remained operational - but the lens couldn't handle the torque. I wasn't there so I don't know the details, but I do tend to recommend support rod based systems whenever possible.
moldcad
Veteran
Dear Friends,
So here I am, with two good offers for both the above systems - but only valid today (yeah, partially Black Friday deals). PLEASE help me make up my mind, guys!
Of course the Tangerine is more expensive, but this tilting filter holder plus both the clamp-on AND the 15mm LWS bracket (for heavier lenses) are so tempting. The Zip Box is what it is: just filter holder, with clamp-on mounting ONLY.
Waiting for your votes, but running out of time
Piotr
patrickbaldwin
Well-known member
FWIW I bought the Misfit Atom and the top flag on a Black Friday deal so that gets my vote. The step up rings are expensive though for my stills lenses.
patrickbaldwin
Well-known member
I bought the rings because with my Sigma Art still lenses on my FS5 there isn't enough space for a follow focus AND clamps for the mattebox. I haven't received it yet but I have one of their Titan magic arms and the build and finish on that is absolutely first rate.