Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

New Ronford-Baker EVF Mount

Hello All,

I will not buy that copy cat mount no matter what.

I will also avoid other RonFord products in the future.

Intellectual property is all we have, this is the core of our business.

What goes around come around.

It's sad to think that they think they can away with it.

Tek
 
Someone said that there's no extension viewfinder mount with eyepiece leveler available, which is not true. This is available from Element Technica (or from Abel because we now sell ET product) as an add on to their viewfinder bracket.

I know the viewfinder mount to the Genesis. Let's just say that both the ET and Ronford designs owe a lot to it. A lot.

Oh, and Abel sells the Panther X15 tripod as well; we have the exclusive rights to North America. It's a great little tripod.
 
Well I took a RED to an engineer friend, showed him the Camera with the EVF and said I would like this EVF to mount here, slide in and out and up and down and backwards and forwards.

Oh also I would like it to rotate up and down from a fixed point that can also lock.

After feeling it and thinking a few moments he said "well dovetails should take care of the slide movements and the rotation will need an adjustable clutch, I will have to think about the best way to do that. Will get back to you in a week or two".

Put the clock forward to last weekend and I took a camera around to him and there was a prototype that was close to being ready.

My point ? Well here was an engineer whom had never seen any of this stuff but understood and applied the basic principles necessary to achieve what I needed. Those principles happen to be common to design of this nature.

There are not a lot of different ways to effectively mount and move the EVF and of course the first people to supply one to the market will get the kudos of having "invented it".

This is an interesting thread but at the end for most of us it is just about choice as consumers and with 6000 or more cameras out there in all sorts of configurations then there is room for many accessories manufacturers to stand or fall on the quality and price of their product.
 
A few questions for Ronford:

Were you short on personnel, time, or funds to do some fresh research & development for the design of your new EVF mount?

Why present a product that appears to be about 95% the same design as the mount that ET has already designed, fabricated, and begun to ship?

Did you expect that none of us working professionals would notice the obvious form and function duplication of the ET mount parts?

------------------------------------

As an owner of multiple RED One cameras, and future owner of multiple Epic and Scarlet cameras, I'm all for as many 3rd party accessories for RED cameras as possible. That said, I also believe in innovation, vision, and uniqueness.

I'm disappointed that Ronford didn't take the time and expense to create a new, progressive EVF mount. Brand loyalty is something which is earned in the motion media industry. Among RED owners and users ET has earned deep respect for their company by being responsive, perceptive manufacturers. ET products have a solid reputation for close tolerance, fine finish, utility, and dependability. I've had the great pleasure of being one of the professionals who has tested prototypes for ET for years now. ET's products are invariably top-drawer. They fit right, function right, and they are durable. This isn't "market speak", but rather direct feedback from myself and scores of highly-experienced veteran DPs, cinematographers, and ACs.

The motion media industry, and more specifically the RED owner and user community, share ideas and equipment concepts regularly. Word travels fast via the Internet and "the Grapevine". I think the obvious similarities in form and function of your new mount to the ET mount will be discussed widely among people interested in RED. Sure, some people will try to explain those form and function parallels away as "regular", "to be expected", "how it had to be made", "there's only so many ways to design a mount, etc. Indeed, several have already done that in this thread. But I definitely do not agree with their position on that.

Except for a few items on equipment I rented, I haven't been a customer of Ronford's previously. This was not because Ronford hasn't made good products. I just haven't had the occasion to purchase one of your products during the course of a 30+ year career. Since I made the move to RED cameras, companies like RED, ET, View Factor, and several other equipment manufacturers have earned my loyalty. In view of the form and function similarities of your new mount to that of ET, I'll now think twice before I use or purchase any Ronford products. ET has earned my loyalty the old fashioned way - so I'll stick with them for many of my accessory needs.

Likewise RED has definitely earned my loyalty many times over - so I'll stick with them for the lion's share of my camera system needs.

Closing thought: Ethics are ethics - and karma is karma
 
As many of you know, I am a big fan of ET. My Red would be incomplete without their products. Having said that, I am reserving judgement on this EVF mount from Ronford until more details are available, I am able to see one in the flesh, and hear feedback from Redusers who decide to get one. All I see is a render. There could be some differences that don't jump out.

I have the ET mount and I'm happy. So, this really doesn't affect me. But it does seem like many are having a kneejerk reaction without all of the details and the all-important hands on experience with it.

Just my opinion.
 
Sounds like a bunch of old hens cackeling about nothing. These mounting systems are rip offs of a C stand & that's a rip off of a ?, and so on.... back to some Egyptian in 12,000BC who figured out how to mount his sighting tube [a hollow reed] to his three stick tripod device holding a black alabaster stone box with a pin hole in one side for letting in light so he could play with a hunk of melted sand he found next to the fire pit. He noticed this shiny glassy blob enlarged images so he wanted see if he could capture an image inside the stone box.

2325_1229676203.gif


give it a rest
 
I don't work for Ronford or ET but use both companies products, I also have a Ronford EVF mount which has just arrived and Im pleased with it, it is of very high quality and well made. Its one of those pieces of kit that is built to last. I recommend it to Red users. I was at a festival in the Autumn when I met by chance with Ronford and asked if they would design an EVF mount that would work with their other products. At least two cameramen I know were also there and had views on how the mount should work. All of us had the same sort of idea in mind including self leveling and so on as there was an Ronford Atlas tripod near by. The other two guys had never seen an ET mount, I have never seen one other than the picture on the web site. There was no request by any one there for Ronford to copy an ET device or any real references to it so far as I recall.

Dave
 
So if someone like Ronford released a handheld rig that used the same type of rotating tech that ET spent months and months to discover how to do, people will just cry out, 'Oh its an obvious engineering solution. Anyone could have thought of that..'

I'm sorry, but it reeks of bullshit around here..
 
zak forrest said:
but you are going to scare everyone away with that monster :usd:
Click to expand...

I would say not at all and on the contrary

they already (people on the street) said and asked to me: "Oooh, that's a camera! Are you shooting for BBC?" :) .
 
My point ? Well here was an engineer whom had never seen any of this stuff but understood and applied the basic principles necessary to achieve what I needed. Those principles happen to be common to design of this nature.
Click to expand...

you know this is the end of America
 
Nothing is NEW!!

Nothing is NEW!!

Gentlemen; this has all been done before. 3 or 4 years ago by Optex for the Accuscene VF and before that by JDunton for Moy again sold and made through Optex useing the Sony VF. This is a case of IMHO how many ways can you build such an item to achieve the same results. Indeed I built a similar system 30+ years ago for Mitchell BNCR Viewfinders. We are pretty innovative in the UK and now that RED has moved into the film world so very successfully you will find that crews who are faced with 70 shots a day 6 days a week for 15 weeks will buy the tool that does the job whatever the price or manufacturer. They will also ask the nearest trusted workshop to build what they want. I really do not think that lawyers will alleviate a situation where "Prior Art" is clearly defined by not one but many companies.
Thats my bit said.
Tony Covell:cold:
 
spent months and months to discover how to do
Click to expand...

really, months and months just to discover how to do it, before starting to really design a piece with two rotating elements? I am not very convinced about what said. I thought they took some hours to understand the principle and imagine the obvious solution, and then one or more weeks testing prototypes (I suppose not an incredibly difficult test, to see if the viewfinder is well balanced), depending on other factors.
I may be wrong, nontheless it surprise me to hear by someone that a company had to make a painful effort to design a mount. What particular obstacles could have they found?
I think ET is all right and doesn't need users to defend her. Seems to be a good company, and according to tests on the fileld made by users, it IS a good company.
 
10s said:
Sounds like a bunch of old hens cackeling about nothing. These mounting systems are rip offs of a C stand & that's a rip off of a ?
Click to expand...

Please show me a c stand with a rotary friction clutch. The fact that the two mounts use rods, clamps and bolts (oh, my) is not the issue here. I made my comment above and I am letting it rest. ET has not publicly addressed the matter and I see no reason for all of us to dwell on it until they do, if they do.
 
Sounds like a bunch of old hens cackeling about nothing
Click to expand...

I like to peck.
I know it's about nothing. Otherwise I would just discuss.
I did not start it. I'd like it to end. And why not, have some fun at pecking if necessary.
 
As many have pointed out, viewfinders have been attached to cameras for many years in a lot of different ways. Since electronic finders have existed, designers have taken advantage of the increased flexibility by adding more linear adjustments made possible by the lack of an optical path. We were inspired by the smoothness of the Arriflex finder clutch and made an effort to recreate the feel. Our clutch is based on a design by Joe and Hector Ortega from their low angle pan/tilt base. Even this went through many iterations and testing of the optimal diameter and the most appropriate clutch material.

The micro dovetail profile is from Arriflex (used for AKS mounting on cameras from the 35 III to the 435) but the dovetail brake assembly (inspired by larger bridgeplate dovetails) is our development.

We’ve heard the suggestions that we copied the Genesis EVF Mount but I can honestly say, we had never seen it until we borrowed one yesterday. We’ve included a photo if anyone is curious along with images of our design as it evolved over the 4 months of development until the beta unit went to RED so Matt could work his magic. Hopefully most of you can recognize the effort we invested in getting the EVF Mount to market.
 
Evolution vs. Revolution

Evolution vs. Revolution

Firstly I've been doing 3D for more than ten years now and those images of the Ronford mount is the real deal, I believe. Not 3D images.

Secondly I feel there's a difference between "evoluting" your way to a design and "revoluting" your way to it. Coming from a country with a long tradition for product design I was spoon fed design and design approach (think Bang & Olufsen and the such). Therefore today I use the iPhone and the Macintosh computer with great pleasure. I also own a RED ONE and love it to death for the unique and beautiful images it can produce.
This is because those items are in fact design "revolutions". For a design to be revolutionary you have to throw away all conventions and rethink your approach. Clean slate fresh start, call it whatever you like. Take the iPhone. This is clearly a revolution in the cell segment. Not because you can't get a phone with a similar set of specs, but because of the way it all plays together and the way you interact with it. No other phone in the world has done this before, and no other phone can copy that feat.
I spoke to a developer friend at Sony Ericsson and I jestingly asked what they did the day iPhone came out and he just laughed. Most people in his department carry iPhones, much to the dismay of other Sony Ericsson employees. But as he said, "You have to deal with it, you just can't ignore a thing like that." They are working hard to come up with an answer to that without looking like a cheap knockoff.

You can say the same thing about RED. the same conversation could be going on at their competition. Like Arri, Aaton, or Panavision.

That's the nature of revolution. Something you just can't get around. Something which takes the idea of something to a new level.

ET's mount is not exactly a revolution IMHO. It's more like an evolution. Like a danish bike company who invented a drive shaft for their bikes (BioMega) so they could get rid of that oily, rusty chain. It didn't change the way we bike, just made a step towards a better experience.

I'm not in any way saying that's not an honorable thing to do. Many such developments are the key to a company's success. Because they have an edge over the competition. As has ET.

And they have made a fine EVF mount, even though I think it's a bit clumsy, but then, so is the R1. Ergonomically they both have a lot to learn.

If you have had an Aaton XTR on your shoulder you know R1 is kind of a nightmare.

But hey, look at their EPIC and Scarlet! Evolution at work. The next level of RED design.

But to claim that ET has revolutionized EVF mounts and that everything based on the same general concept is a copycat is taking the mouth too full.
I don't even think ET would claim that themselves. They have just spent a lot of time developing and perfecting their idea of a solid piece of high quality equipment and I can see some subtle differences between the two mounts.
A revolution in this field would be to rethink the whole idea of a viewfinder. Like making a mount so you can wear it or something. Like a pair of VR goggles. That might not make sense now but done right it could revolutionize how we think of a viewfinder. I'm just spitballing here of course ;O)

I prefer oconnor over sachtler, because of the subtle differences a layman not from our line of business wouldn't ever pick up on. He would just see two tripods that looks very identical.

My point is here, don't be too hard on Ronford. They didn't exactly revolutionize the way we think Viewfinder mount, but neither did ET.
Even though my inner gay think it's cute in red, I'd probably still go with the ET mount.

Innovate don't imitate!

best
Jesper Kodahl
 
I find it funny how no one mentions ET's new handgrip design is as much a "rip off" as Arri Bullhorn handgrips, as Ronford is to ET, if not more. I don't see any Arri fanboys saying I'll never buy from ET again.

And to be honest, there's considerable room for improvement on both the ET and Ronford design.

Personally, I'd like to see someone to develop a telescopic extension (save bulk in short mode) with a real leveller system. I've telescopic CF tripod legs that are strong as hell. Take that approach to an EVF mount - watch out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top