Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

3rd Party Mounts - Warning

RED is optimistic that Birger can quickly fix this problem and modify the mount in a way that keeps the warranty in place. But the way it is now, it voids the warranty.

Jim
 
Stuart English said:
So no point in speculating then, just sit tight and let the design guys do their job.
Click to expand...

... sigh of disappointment (sincere feeling), for have bit an akward feeling that the Canon EF-mount has not been taken as seriously as the announcement around NAB 07 let us understand. But, ok, please take your time.

Could Red and Birger start to work together on the adapter? It sounds bit concerning that Red sees the adapter only after somebody manages to blow the camera inside.
 
AquaVideoRed206's camera (which had a previous version of Birger mount, and died) was received by Red yesterday, according to this post. Obviously, it's in everyone's interest to get this issue eliminated and as long as Red & Birger keep in communication, I'm sure it will happen.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=241472&postcount=1605

"The mount worked fine when I had it and I did just a couple of test shots and installed build 16 before I shipped it out to my nephew to shoot a short film with it. After about an hour the camera quit on them.

Since we knew that there is a question with the power output of the RS232/lens connector we are unsure if that is the problem (RED thinks maybe we pinched the internal lens cable since it looked like that might have been what happened on Erik's camera.) Erik was already changing from the RS232 connector to the rear power connector since it isn't clear whether the RS232 can supply enough power.

RED will receive my camera today and check it to see if it is an unrelated problem or has something to do with the mount/RS232/lens connector.

Since there is a tendency on this board to go into panic mode over any problem I didn't want to say anything before RED had evaluated it. It really doesn't matter to all of you since Erik is already switching away from that power source and as his photo shows he has already started changing the mounts to accommodate that.

By way of explanation, Erik has gone back and forth over the development period on whether to draw power from the RS232 or the rear power ports. The tradeoff is the rs232 port is a little more elegant in that it is a short run for the cable and would include the data if and when RED ever implements the previously announced i/data. Since RED has not given any timetable for that implementation and I believe has dropped i/data from their newer lenses nobody knows if or when it will happen. By going to the rear port you get a much higher level of power but you have that longer cable so you will probably need to put those little cable mount thingies on your camera to hold in place so it doesn't snag on other things. If and when i/data becomes enabled you will just need a cable to go from one of the 4 pin ports on the mount to the 10 pin on the camera."
 
Jannard said:
RED is optimistic that Birger can quickly fix this problem and modify the mount in a way that keeps the warranty in place. But the way it is now, it voids the warranty.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

does that mean the new P+S mount (that seems to require front plate change too) is voiding warranty as well?

Please clearify,

Axel

PS: Due to the fact that the Canon has the smallest distance from image area to lense mount ring, it'll be hard for Birger to make it compliant, as some lenses might actually be mounted inside the back focus mechanism then, or am I seeing this wrong?
 
Remember the hitchhiker's guide. Don't Panic!

Remember the hitchhiker's guide. Don't Panic!

Ed Watkins said:
Sorry to push a point...

But does this mean that the Birger mount :
1) requires the removal of the PL back focus elements (more than what is allowed by RED)
2) voids the warranty if installed.

If so, I'm off to cancel my Birger order.
Click to expand...

I used to make underwater housings for Panasonic (i.e. we oem manufactured them with the Panasonic name on them, and they were sold by Panasonic dealers) for some of their camcorders. It was SEVERAL WEEKS of back and forth with their lawyers to get the exact Warranty Terms, End User Assembly Instructions and disclaimers worked out.

Warranty issues can get complex because you want to be fair but you can't leave yourself big open ended liabiities either. I think in the end this will be sorted out where everyone can feel comfortable, but this issue cropped up kind of suddenly, so I think everyone should give them a few days to think about it and sort it out before panicking.
 
Axel Mertes said:
Jim,

does that mean the new P+S mount (that seems to require front plate change too) is voiding warranty as well?

Please clearify,

Axel

PS: Due to the fact that the Canon has the smallest distance from image area to lense mount ring, it'll be hard for Birger to make it compliant, as some lenses might actually be mounted inside the back focus mechanism then, or am I seeing this wrong?
Click to expand...

That would be correct.. even though i know they just made a public statement to the contrary.

We are open to looking at these products as people make them, and making a judgement based on an inspection, but for the Record, me (nor Jim) have ever seen this version of the Birger or the P+S Technic mount, so its hard to really make an assessment.

Its in our best interest to make sure products from 3rd parties dont blow up cameras... because if a camera fails on a big shoot because of a 3rd party accessory, it hurts us just as much as the 3rd party.. and our customers.

This really sounds much worse than it is... I am sure Erik will fix the issues and everything will be back on track in no time.
 
Jarred Land said:
That would be correct.. even though i know they just made a public statement to the contrary.

We are open to looking at these products as people make them, and making a judgement based on an inspection, but for the Record, me (nor Jim) have ever seen this version of the Birger or the P+S Technic mount, so its hard to really make an assessment.
Click to expand...
The P&S IMS Mount is *really* an excellent addition to an an excellent camera - i would order it at once if red would approve it.

Can we buy one for you and send it over asap if you guys simply have to much to do right now than checking out 3hrd party gear or would that be wasted time as you are already in contact with p&s?
Btw: They speak highly of red, and are really cool people.
 
I hope P+S Technik also arranges to meet with you guys and get things sorted out. Between the Birger mount, the Nikon mount, and the IMS you guys will have a camera that can shoot with just about any lens out there. How great will that be. Incredible.
 
I have unshakable faith in the inherent integrity, innate intelligence, savvy business sense and good will of all parties involved.

I’m certain all will be well. It’s a brave new world for us all (including those designing, manufacturing and marketing these ecstatic new technologies).
 
I met with P+S at cinegear... They are going to meet with us soon.
 
Axel Mertes said:
Jim,

does that mean the new P+S mount (that seems to require front plate change too) is voiding warranty as well?

Please clearify,

Axel

PS: Due to the fact that the Canon has the smallest distance from image area to lense mount ring, it'll be hard for Birger to make it compliant, as some lenses might actually be mounted inside the back focus mechanism then, or am I seeing this wrong?
Click to expand...

The original P+S mount voided the warranty... so I understand that they modified it. We have yet to see one, so it is impossible for us to tell you. We requested one but have not received it.

It is in our best interests for our customers to have as many options as possible. But these options need to work without causing problems that we are expected to fix an no charge. Pretty easy stuff to understand.

Jim
 
snafu

snafu

"RED Digital Cinema, Inc. and Birger Engineering, Inc. announced today an agreement to develop and market a remotely controllable Canon EOS lens mount for the RED ONE Digital Cinema camera."

Well, this would imply collaboration at the design stage. Someone messed up and wasted a lot of time and effort by not sorting out the warranty issues beforehand.

Whether they were being overly secretive, or whether they just didn't communicate very well with Red and vice-versa, it's still a problem (repeated by P+S apparently) that could and should have been avoided (saving them money).

"Authorized Service Centers" are a common practice in numerous industries. If the camera requires a technician, then Red should train and authorize technicians to perform the service. Or, simply require Birger to perform the installation (assigning liability for any problems to them).
 
If the Birger mount is now getting power from an external source, what's the problem? Probably none.
 
can viewfactors ff cause this type of problems?--bringing the body to explode :)
is viewfactors powering tested?
are there warranty issues?

i would rather avoid powering external assecoires, then risking the guarantee.
 
I don't think that P+S IMS cause any problem to the camera just because for example my RED was three times in P+S Developer Workshop in Ottobrunn/München and all three times returned without any damage to the camera.

Also I just posted my latest test with B16 (didn't even check back focus after the last return).

B16 Available Light short test>>>
 
mail4joeg said:
"RED Digital Cinema, Inc. and Birger Engineering, Inc. announced today an agreement to develop and market a remotely controllable Canon EOS lens mount for the RED ONE Digital Cinema camera."

Well, this would imply collaboration at the design stage. Someone messed up and wasted a lot of time and effort by not sorting out the warranty issues beforehand.

Whether they were being overly secretive, or whether they just didn't communicate very well with Red and vice-versa, it's still a problem (repeated by P+S apparently) that could and should have been avoided (saving them money).

"Authorized Service Centers" are a common practice in numerous industries. If the camera requires a technician, then Red should train and authorize technicians to perform the service. Or, simply require Birger to perform the installation (assigning liability for any problems to them).
Click to expand...

Things can change over time, it's true with everything. Simply saying "go out and train a bunch of people" to work a camera that is not 100% completed yet is trying to simplify a very complex issue.

RED needs to grow. Dispite is early popularity and success, I have no doubt that Jim is thinking 5 years ahead of today (As much as he can) and RED will need to hit certain goals before large growth plans are executed.

I'm just spitballing here, but I'd be willing to bet that building this camera and all it's accessories was not the cheapest investment in the world. Even Jim's wallets is buring a little bit.

Jay
 
K.Berlin said:
can viewfactors ff cause this type of problems?--bringing the body to explode :)
is viewfactors powering tested?
are there warranty issues?

i would rather avoid powering external assecoires, then risking the guarantee.
Click to expand...

We havn't seen it... so cant comment on it. Mechanically it LOOKS like it does not void your warranty though, as your not modifying the camera body.

Jim already said it.. but I will say it again, this is pretty simple stuff.

If you are using something that someone else makes breaks the camera, they need to fix it. If you are using something that we make and it breaks your camera, then we will fix it.
 
Jarred Land said:
We havn't seen it... so cant comment on it. Mechanically it LOOKS like it does not void your warranty though, as your not modifying the camera body.

Jim already said it.. but I will say it again, this is pretty simple stuff.

If you are using something that someone else makes breaks the camera, they need to fix it. If you are using something that we make and it breaks your camera, then we will fix it.
Click to expand...

thanks jarred...simple and clear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top