PL mount rip off - maybe a little strong but I am just pissed off at the moment.

H

hazna

Active member
Does any body know why a PL mount to MFT adapters are so expansive????
Where is a Chinese engineer when you need one??????
I am in need for a PL mount and all options available are over a GRAND.
I think is just a simple rip off.
How come I buy a FD to MFT and EOSEF to MFT adapter for $30 and the PL mount is $1000?
 
I totally agree with you. I don't think those PL mounts are worth that much money. I usually see them selling for around $300 - $400 but not $1000
 
And actually, Stephen linked to one that's not even the least expensive. Ciecio7 makes one without the support foot for about $240, I think, and there's another company that makes one for $199.

Of course, at that point you have to wonder if there isn't some manner of "false economy" in using a $199 adapter to mount a $80,000 lens... so buyer beware. I have the $320 version that Stephen linked to, and it's okay. It works. It isn't perfectly shimmed so all my witness marks are off, but I think it was brian@2020 or someone who said that he took his into CinEquipt and used their optical bench to shim it properly for about $75 or so.

I would definitely recommend some sort of support, many PL lenses are simply too heavy to be held up by the mount alone.
 
totitefilms said:
I totally agree with you. I don't think those PL mounts are worth that much money.
Click to expand...
Well, "worth" is a relative term. Might not be worth it to you, and it might be a steal to someone else.

As an owner of one of the $320 units, I am now in the market for one of the $1000-$1500 units, probably the Hot Rod, although I haven't pulled the trigger yet because it seems like a new one comes out every week and I don't really NEED it yet. If I needed it right now, I'd get the Hot Rod.
 
hazna said:
Does any body know why a PL mount to MFT adapters are so expansive????
Where is a Chinese engineer when you need one??????
I am in need for a PL mount and all options available are over a GRAND.
I think is just a simple rip off.
How come I buy a FD to MFT and EOSEF to MFT adapter for $30 and the PL mount is $1000?
Click to expand...

There is not a huge demand for PL mounts so they are not going to be mass produced any time soon. $250 for a hand made mount is inexpensive. The ones that go for $1000 are top noch and a drop in the bucket compared to the price of the glass.
 
It does seem that the price is not strictly relative to the scarcity of the product, although that is part of the cost, but pitched up a bit because anybody with PL lenses clearly has money.

To the OP: I should imagine that for budget PL lens aspirants, the Ciecio7 adapter should be more than adequate. I have one of his FD-m4/3 adapters and it is both tight and surprisingly accurate. Also, it is milled from a solid piece of dur-aluminium and then anodised. He is a craftsman.
 
I like Barry's explanation of " worth" I also have my own. A product is worth whatever you can sell it for. Not what it cost to make.
 
maranfilms said:
I like Barry's explanation of " worth" I also have my own. A product is worth whatever you can sell it for. Not what it cost to make.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. I think sometimes people confuse the business of "distribution" with the business of "manufacturing". The cost of the raw materials has nothing to do with what a manufacturer sells their product for (other than to set a minimum price). Think about it -- if you wrote your genius screenplay, should I offer to buy it from you for $3.50 because that's the cost of the paper it's printed on? Er...
 
I feel like this same topic was raised 8-10 months ago, but I'll weigh-in again with about the same response as last time.

As the inventor of the first PL mount for micro 4/3 camera I can tell you there is an awful lot of engineering work that goes into making a PL mount not only able to hold heavy cinema lenses, but hold them correctly every time you put them on. PL mounts are designed for professional use no matter what camera you put the mount on.

The mount should be extremely robust, because one bad fail can (and will) be extremely costly. If you've got a $30 Chinese Nikon adapter that fails with a $200 lens, it might suck, but it's not the same kind of failure and misery you'll experience with a $60K cine lens.

If you are looking to save a buck; you've got options- but buyer beware. There's a laundry list of problems with the cheap mounts. Before you believe that every PL mount is the same, here's a short list of problems I've personally seen (or maybe I should say "features") with the knock-off products generally sold on ebay (and the people who re-sell ebay PL mounts sometimes under a different name).

Starting with the most common "features"-
-PL mount is not telecentric, this is particularly a problem with 2-piece adapters that bolt a m4/3 to the rear of the main body of the PL (calibrated zooms will tracks off-axis.)
-Rotation, X/Y/Z axis play in the mount, and BTW, a simple 1/4-20 screw hole on the bottom of an adapter does not provide immobilization, especially with heavy lenses. This is play that can be seen while shooting and can result in a split-focal plane (very bad)
-Extra bulk inside so that many lenses and PL lens adapters do not fit, that could otherwise fit. I'm not just talking the DP series Angenieux, but even some more common lenses like the 16mm Zeiss T2.1, Les Bosher (and other) Arri S/B to PL adapters can also be incompatible.
-Sloppy threads in the PL mount that require so much torque to correctly lock the PL mount that locking a lens can actually damage the mount springs/telecentricity of the micro 4/3 mount.
-Micro 4/3 mounts that are well under the m4/3 specification and can be bent easily by just a moderate impact.
-Lens focus marks don't line up on any camera, which basically make an ebay PL mounts a deal breaker for any professional AC.

The reason for the last item on the list is because the cheap mounts are not designed to be shimmable, and if it is not designed to be shimmed it is likely that any attempt to shim a mount not designed to accept it means that it can not be torqued to the correct amount to hold true to the correct flange focal distance for any extended length of time/use. I'm not trying to be a pill or a contrarian, but for those who think that there are no reproductions to doing this, check your FFD after a week of helicopter and car mounts and see where it is.

There is one overseas manufacturer who claims that all of their cine-mounts (including PL) are "not for professional use", this was stated publicly by the head of the company in a different popular cinematography forum when I criticized the logic of selling such a flawed device to professionals, you can find no warning in their ebay auctions or website, stating this fact.

There is another overseas manufacturer (commonly mentioned in this forum) and praised for their cheap product who advocates in their auctions that their PL for Canon mounts be installed with a Philips screwdriver by just removing the original Canon mount and re-attaching the PL mount in it's place, utilizing the same 4x screws, and that this can be done back and forth, over and over.

This is wrong on many levels, it makes me question everything this manufacturer is doing, here are bullet points-

-The Canon mount screws look like Philips, but are not, and require a special tool to remove safely.
-On many Canons these screws tap into plastic, and as such are not intended for repeated use.
-Using a standard Philips strips the screw, if you manage to get it out, you likely won't be able to get it back in, and if you do manage that, then there's almost no chance you can do it again.

I know this because I've spent hours fixing the cameras of people who purchased these Canon/PL mounts off of ebay, voided their warranty and ruined their lens mount.

I'm the first to admit that a professional product, including my own, is not for everyone. But before I (or any other more reputable manufacturer) is accused of price gouging, it's worth noting that Hot Rod Cameras manufacturing costs in the USA are far beyond the retail pricing of any ebay based seller/re-seller. I'd also be willing to wager that my profit margin is a smaller % as well.

If you consider yourself a professional and you really think that there's no difference between the products that exist in the market and that a cheap solution will provide the same safety and security to lenses and cameras that cost more than many camera operator's automobiles, buy the cheap adapter.

I've spent much of my adult life both on-set and in camera rentals, it's also worth noting that since speaking with rental companies when I first started shipping the Hot Rod PL 2-years ago, their are many who will not allow their PL mount lenses to go on just any ol' PL adapted camera. There are reasons why the Hot Rod PL mount is #1 PL mount to micro 4/3 adapter system in the world and is used on more major television series, profession music videos, commercials and feature films compared to any other product claiming the same function.

If I purchased an ebay mount I would feel ripped-off. But that's me, if you can live with or don't care about these issues than maybe ebay is a better way to go for you. But if you don't care about these issues, you probably should be looking at shooting with SLR lenses, because if you are willing to have your mount deliver that list of problems you aren't getting the full performance from your PL mount lenses anyway.

I hope that some of this information is helpful to those who are not aware that these issues exist, and will hopefully prevent someone from finding out about them the hard way, which is never a good way to learn something.
 
Barry_Green said:
Absolutely true. I think sometimes people confuse the business of "distribution" with the business of "manufacturing". The cost of the raw materials has nothing to do with what a manufacturer sells their product for (other than to set a minimum price). Think about it -- if you wrote your genius screenplay, should I offer to buy it from you for $3.50 because that's the cost of the paper it's printed on? Er...
Click to expand...

Oh snap, you've got a new analogy and it's not a honda civic versus a BMW one!

I'm so stealing this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top