I call Hot Rod Cameras Bluff with a $10,000 Bet (for Sharpest PL RF for Komodo)

[Robert Hofmeyr]

It does, 4X on the front sides, which is why there are some adapters that use this.

And if I was a guessing man, also more useful to have those in that orientation on a smaller camera, but who knows.

I think you mean on the side fronts . The problem with this is that the mount then needs to match the cage. The Kippertie chinstrap looks like one of the best, but it still only supports the adapter from the bottom, so I'm guessing there will still be some play.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The Supremes would be the more interesting example as their release is tied to being the main competitor to the Arri Signatures and with that they initially were released shimmed for the Alexa LF and Mini LF. Zeiss is now changing this however to put them right on 52mm.

Now this is interesting. so who screwed up, Zeiss, ARRI or both?

 

[Björn Benckert]

It does, 4X on the front sides, which is why there are some adapters that use this.

And if I was a guessing man, also more useful to have those in that orientation on a smaller camera, but who knows.

Unfortunately Canon's focus with the RF to EF adapter has not much to do about motion peeps, moderately why the door is wide open for better adapter designs suited for motion. Interestingly their focal reducer is a different concept mainly for the C70. It's got a bit of play, just like anything else.

And yes, some PL lenses "ship to a spec". The Supremes would be the more interesting example as their release is tied to being the main competitor to the Arri Signatures and with that they initially were released shimmed for the Alexa LF and Mini LF. Zeiss is now changing this however to put them right on 52mm.

A lot of the notable manufacturers are tightening things up camera and lens side.

I discussed this with the guys at Kippertie. Apparently the four holes on the side are not perfectly machined and bolting it that way makes it difficult to shim that mounting point. That is why the kipper tie chinstrap does not use cone shaped screws. If Komodo had a perfectly flat surface around the mount and screw holes facing forward. It would be far easier to construct a mount that would be easier to align with the sensor so there is no "swing / tilt shift" going on. And for sure the mount would be more solid then using the side screws.

So kippetie recommend to first put the mount on. Shim it correctly then carefullty bolt the chinstrap onto the mount with the two screws underneath. These screws and the connection surface between the mount and the chin strap is rather rigid. Then last tighten the side screws without putting any pressure on the strap when doing it. That way the suport is not pushing / pulling on the lens mount as a solution where the mount is bolted down on the dovetail does. The dovetail botldown like give you a skewed back focus as when tighten it you likely apply pressure on the Komodo RF mount wich is bad in more ways than one.

I think you mean on the side fronts . The problem with this is that the mount then needs to match the cage. The Kippertie chinstrap looks like one of the best, but it still only supports the adapter from the bottom, so I'm guessing there will still be some play.

The kipper tie mount is rather solid when bolted together with the chin strap. Normally you rather have the adapter to break then camera or lens. But if the kipper tie mount is mounted correctly I'm not sure what would snap first.

 

[Phil Holland]

perfectly machined

Unknown to what that exactly equates to, but I have tested 3 mounting solutions that "do this" just fine. When I first picked up my Komodo I had a close look at it like everybody, I strongly think the design choices are to maintain a useful, small form factor, stability, etc. Won't argue that front mounting spots wouldn't be useful, but I think there's reasons they aren't there when looking at everything.

I don't really care if people use more of a cage system, chin, or support foot method of making their PL mount adapter (or any adapter for that matter) more stable, rigid, and all that. I just am recommending people to do it. The RF mount can hold some weight, but once you get an adapter on there and a 4-12lb lens that has some length to it (not to mention sunshade or matte box too), there are forces at play you should protect against to ensure long usage out of your camera. Things like CP3s or whatever, likely not too much of a concern, but again you'll have a lens that has some play to it within the mount + adapter combo.

A single post support foot or chin can handle most lenses commonly used, that locks the mount from twisting and provides a good amount of sturdiness. Heaviest I tested was a Premista w/ lightweight matte box, but I'd say rod support under that zoom is still a good idea too if you are interacting with the gears. If people don't use a support of any sort the RF mount will likely have a bad day down the line and there's the glorious potential of a lens popping off in an extreme scenario.

I do enjoy some wiggling often involving adorable playful or excited animals on YouTube, but not when it comes to my camera setups.

*whip pans, lens flies across set, oops, break for lunch team! <-- never get to this point

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It's worth noting that RED made the lens mounting options on DSMC2 accurate and robust - as one should expect on a professional camera. All the consistency issues for multiple units that JB notes can be properly sorted on those bodies using best practices.

Komodo was designed to be a special use companion to DSMC2. To manage size, weight and cost factors something had to give. The fixed RF mount is part of that. I'd add, that with robust rigging, one could support both the Komodo and a big ass lens well enough to ensure mechanical alignment. Or just use a DSMC2 ;-0

Cheers - #19

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Yes the Komodo is not really suitable for PL lenses. The construction suggests that but has the manufacturers suggestion ever stopped us? Remember 2008 and C5d2?

 

[GrahamClark]

Without even holding your mount I can tell that you will have compatibility issues with some PL lenses. Sorry, you copied the design of the wrong mount if you wanted maximum compatibility, particularly for some vintage lenses that aren’t going to work.

Your go-to-market strategy is banking on your customers being ignorant. It would be so much better just to educate your customers, instead of trying to put one over on them. Supplying a certificate is an attempt to legitimize your false thesis that “out of the box” is what matters. But as has been pointed out by so many here, your “sharpness” claim is worth less than that piece of paper you printed it on.

Since filmmakers who received these PL RF straight mounts had never received any kind of mount for Komodo before this, so I can definitely see how it would miss the mark in areas I'm not aware of.

But I wouldn't have shipped out a unit unless it was critically sharp. Maybe that's just a landscape photography OCD thing...

When I saw the side-by-side shots, that was enough to be OCD about making each unit exact to spec.

Sometimes I get hammered for not shipping products fast enough, my ETA is when it's done right.

Getting it done right is my go-to-market strategy.

There's no hostage situation with regards to me taking money from anyone

The certificate of calibration just confirms a particular serial # was actually made to 52.00mm spec, taking into account all the factors of the Komodo's flange depth / OLPF etc.

It's no big deal, just a paper confirming a unit just didn't fly off a machine onto a camera.

I like being sure of that kinda thing, so I thought the way CNC equipment is accompanied by that type of certificate was a good idea.

Your bet was that yours would outperform it, this thread was started to take you up on that bet, you didn't follow through on the date (very important) of sending the mounts to Denz, so that's a default in my mind.

If you don't agree that 52.00mm all factors taken into account equals critically sharp I'm not sure what to say.

If you do it's about where each respective mount is at, if it's on target.

It either is or it's not (+/- .00039"?)

 

[GrahamClark]

Someone that knows more about light transmision trough glas please chim in here and correct me if I’m wrong. I assume that the flat filter glas behind lens work as a factor to the flange distance.

the Canon Drop-In EF RF is around 1mm longer than the regular straight RF EF.

if the glass is too thin the result is you can't hit infinity on hard stop infinity lenses.

if the glass is too thick you overshoot infinity.

mount length and glass thickness create a fun equation for something like Zemax, but other factors like OLPFs can take something from Zemax and make it irrelevant.

but in the end the target is precise flange depth, right?

after making quite a few RF EF and PL RF mounts that went to scrap heaven, as a general rule I've found the further away from the sensor plane the tighter the tolerances need to be.

and if flat glass is in there (drop-in filters) tolerances love to jump around on the edge of a knife.

 

[GrahamClark]

In my understanding, even if a mount is not calibrated perfectly, you should still be able to get sharp images (though perhaps not at infinity). Am I wrong about this?

it's equivalent to a lens not being properly collimated

 

[GrahamClark]

So without improvement of your mechanical connection to the built in komodo mount, none of your micron chasing will matter, that's just physics. The Vocas PL mount connection is excellent in it's design, and thats where you'll get the most accurate and consistent mounting with the least stress off axis.

I disagree, just look at the results as more start to through as units are delivered.

Vocas PL is a great example of how a small amount of out of spec can produce a softer result.

what's wrong with getting critically sharp out of the box, thermal expansion and materials aside?

I see those as valid issues of course, but they only push the spec further out, to my mind.

 

[GrahamClark]

And re interferometer Vs Spectrometer.

I would have thought you WANT BOTH to be right.
JB

(off-topic)

flatness for glass used to be a thing in the absorptive days when making glass flat was less consistent.

yes, glass flatness and perpendicularity to film plane is critical, and easy.

color neutrality and T% deviation is where all the fun is.

 

[GrahamClark]

Instead of making a public battle out of what essentially is vaperware (your product isn't on the market, nor can any of us test it) you should just go about quietly refining your product until you're ready to showcase. This battle wont end well for you, especially calling out publicly for a competition. It's a PR stunt, and one that cannot end in anything but more arguments. Scientific proof of things like this are very hard to prove from one to the next because of so many variables outside of a full blown double blind lab test.

I'd tread lightly in this area, people on forms are hot to argue, and all I can see from this PR stunt is harm to the image of your company and more arguing. That's my two bits.

vaporware? the units have already shipped, CNCs are at full production capacity, they're flying off the machines.

so you'll soon find out if it's a PR stunt or not.

I don't see how it does anyone any good for false claims to be running around rampant.

to be honest I saw false claims and a bet as a PR stunt.

I called the bluff, so here we are.

the objective is not subjective, it's easily discernible.

 

[GrahamClark]

@GrahamClark - would you be able to give us all a timeline update with delivery for the EOS-RF mounts, as well as the drop-in filters? I'm not sure if you're on the RED Komodo Users FB group, but there are a lot of us wondering what's been going on since the October pre-orders we all placed.

either finish and ship RF EF drop-in or make DSMC2 and PL RF drop-in filter mounts and then ship RF EF drop-in mounts.

with RF EF drop-in mounts already existing by Canon, and DSMC2 / Komodo DFM did not exist, all the pressure was on to make something completely new, which I agreed with filmmakers about, in terms of priority.

now that we're shipping the DSMC2 / Komodo drop-in filter mounts we're already back to RF EF drop-in, which is how this all started.

and after having gone through DSMC2 / Komodo we have a filmmaker version, which if we had shipped the "photographer" unit now I think it wouldn't have bene the "right" unit for filmmakers.

 

[GrahamClark]

I feel your pain. I canceled my order months ago because it was taking to long. They still haven't released their PL to RF with Drop in adapter, still says coming soon 6 months later. This 10K bet is probably better spent on getting their current line of coming soon products to shipping now status, instead of more coming soon products.

PL RF drop-in mounts have already been delivered to filmmakers, DSMC2 next, then RF EF for photographers, then RF EF for filmmakers.

it's not that RF EF isn't important, it's just that Canon already did it, so filmmakers resoundingly asked for something more elusive: drop-in filters for DSMC2 & PL RF.

I see much higher demand on things which don't yet exist than for things which Canon is shipping in good numbers.

that's not an excuse for not shipping when we said we would, just an explanation for how our RF EF got off track, almost as off track as this is to the original thread

 

[GrahamClark]

I find it difficult to imagine what drives a person to inject one's self into a field they are somewhat unfamiliar with (the world of cinematography) with such bravado after having pissed off a bunch of potential customers and customers by not delivering product as promised. Quite a poor business stratagy to say the least.

let's get something straight here: I am delivering products as promised, where is there an ETA written large on when?

i'm obsessed with making a great product, and sometimes that doesn't align with when people want things.

but the end result is a great product like the PL RF Komodo mount (X4 ND, X4 CPL, X4 GND, Dark CPL, 2-series tripod, Highline Ballhead, Aspen Ballhead... )

 

[GrahamClark]

I must say that setting adapters precisely has some merit.

...

Now we did make some custom adapters with glass both flat and powered (speedbooster) That is a quite a different ball game. Especially the speed booster project required customized equipment, procedures and sampling of the camera bodies. The camera manufacturer had to be involved when we supplied the specialty test equipment and the manufacturer gave us feedback with the numbers we needed to build the adapters .

i consider the crux of this thread being how precise to spec is a particular mount.

dead on spec is critically sharp.

it's either exact to spec, or it's not.

100% for glass in optical path throwing curve balls.

throw in two optical paths into the equation and that's when it starts getting fun (without the camera manufacturers being aware until after it's done)

 

[GrahamClark]

To be clear, this “out of the box” performance you tout means nothing.

For the record, the Hot Rod PL will make a better image and be more accurate than your product every day of the week.

that's why I suggested our customers send units we made to Denz last week to have them determine which is more accurate.

the whole point was to send units blind, otherwise we could just very well have made them exactly for the test, right?

there's nothing subjective about this, it's easy to see which is dead zero spec to the Komodo for anyone who can accurately measure down to .00039"

i know you can get there with shims etc., but i thought it a fun design objective to get there without shimming plus the ability to +/- all day long

manufacturing something to that spec consistently is what makes it critically sharp "out of the box"

this assumes the camera in question isn't a moving target, and i don't see it as one

 

[GrahamClark]

As directly above, you keep saying that the “bet” is calling me out for the offense of testing your filters. But the reality is that you challenged me with that bet before mentioning your filters.

it's like a game of poker, you played a bad hand for filters so when it came yet again in the form of mount, i had to call your bluff.

how else do you play poker?

 

[John Brawley]

it's equivalent to a lens not being properly collimated

Graham what does that actually mean ?

JB

 

[GrahamClark]

If you are not adding glass to the optical path (no glass comes in the adapter) you don't need to add anything. Straight 32mm (for RF to PL) for the adapter with no glass.

exactly, minus or plus the model specific deviation