Jonas Rejman
Well-known member
can of worms
can of worms
My limited point of view on this:
I think there will be enough users among the 4500+ RED owners, especially those in Europe, who will install the IMS and in the case of a warranty issue/upgrade/or trade-in, they will install the PL mount back, and hope, that RED will not realize it.
Very few will be that open about what they did to their REDs as Sanjin is, for the obvious reasons. I know already some RED owners who have the IMS installed, but they never went public about that.
Jarred stated, that RED can determine, if the mount was replaced by an approved one or not. I wonder how this could be done?
From my very limited engineering understanding, the approved mounts may be using special screws, which remains you can trace back on the original camera body. Further, I assume that RED will know the IMS mount in and out, and will be able to detect the deformations on the body made by the mount. Now P+S will try to make the mount as in-obstructive to the body as possible, while RED will try to make the "detection algorithms" better and better. But if somebody swaps the nikon mount and the upcoming cannon-mount 20 times, and manages not to damage the camera body, I wonder how this abuse will differ from a one-time installation and deinstallation of the IMS mount?
Jarred also hinted at possible heat issues and changes to the i/o lens cables, which would make the IMS dangerous to the body. So one way to detect the IMS could be measuring the amount heat damage inside the body, which should be greater than, when one is using the approved mounts. Can anyone with a better engineering understanding explain me how this actually could be accomplished in practice?
This brings me to the can of worms. Let's say, there will be 400 RED users out of the 4500+, that will want to take advantage of the IMS mount (or any other unapproved mount), and they go for it, and void the warranty. (I guess, that Sanjin will report any problem with the IMS mount instantly, but so far he has only good things to report).
Those all will eventually have either warranty issues, or will want a new RED hardware upgrade, or will want trade in for an epic. This means 400 cases, where RED has to prove, that there was an "illegal" modification done on the camera on the one side, and 400 customers, who claim they did not modify at all, trying to "screw" the company, in order to get the goodies, which the other "non-brave" customers got (audio board upgrade/epic trade-in value).
I believe that people will try to do it, as there is a lot of money at stake, no matter how high they think of RED. And this will create bad blood, because there will be people, who will "get through" with the upgrade of their modded REDs, are people that will "get caught". Emotions will boil up (as they are on far less important issues already) and frustrated users will blow off the steam. It seems, that no matter how one look at it, it will hurt the reputation of RED, that will be paying for its gratitude and fair treatment if its customers.
I wonder if there is another way for RED, than either to overlook the mods, when they come in for their upgrades/trade-ins, or to really make an official deal with P+S (which seems to be the best IMS on the market and the one, that will be mostly considered) ?
Because, in the end of the day, I think, that users will knock at RED's door, and not of the one of P+S.
can of worms
My limited point of view on this:
I think there will be enough users among the 4500+ RED owners, especially those in Europe, who will install the IMS and in the case of a warranty issue/upgrade/or trade-in, they will install the PL mount back, and hope, that RED will not realize it.
Very few will be that open about what they did to their REDs as Sanjin is, for the obvious reasons. I know already some RED owners who have the IMS installed, but they never went public about that.
Jarred stated, that RED can determine, if the mount was replaced by an approved one or not. I wonder how this could be done?
From my very limited engineering understanding, the approved mounts may be using special screws, which remains you can trace back on the original camera body. Further, I assume that RED will know the IMS mount in and out, and will be able to detect the deformations on the body made by the mount. Now P+S will try to make the mount as in-obstructive to the body as possible, while RED will try to make the "detection algorithms" better and better. But if somebody swaps the nikon mount and the upcoming cannon-mount 20 times, and manages not to damage the camera body, I wonder how this abuse will differ from a one-time installation and deinstallation of the IMS mount?
Jarred also hinted at possible heat issues and changes to the i/o lens cables, which would make the IMS dangerous to the body. So one way to detect the IMS could be measuring the amount heat damage inside the body, which should be greater than, when one is using the approved mounts. Can anyone with a better engineering understanding explain me how this actually could be accomplished in practice?
This brings me to the can of worms. Let's say, there will be 400 RED users out of the 4500+, that will want to take advantage of the IMS mount (or any other unapproved mount), and they go for it, and void the warranty. (I guess, that Sanjin will report any problem with the IMS mount instantly, but so far he has only good things to report).
Those all will eventually have either warranty issues, or will want a new RED hardware upgrade, or will want trade in for an epic. This means 400 cases, where RED has to prove, that there was an "illegal" modification done on the camera on the one side, and 400 customers, who claim they did not modify at all, trying to "screw" the company, in order to get the goodies, which the other "non-brave" customers got (audio board upgrade/epic trade-in value).
I believe that people will try to do it, as there is a lot of money at stake, no matter how high they think of RED. And this will create bad blood, because there will be people, who will "get through" with the upgrade of their modded REDs, are people that will "get caught". Emotions will boil up (as they are on far less important issues already) and frustrated users will blow off the steam. It seems, that no matter how one look at it, it will hurt the reputation of RED, that will be paying for its gratitude and fair treatment if its customers.
I wonder if there is another way for RED, than either to overlook the mods, when they come in for their upgrades/trade-ins, or to really make an official deal with P+S (which seems to be the best IMS on the market and the one, that will be mostly considered) ?
Because, in the end of the day, I think, that users will knock at RED's door, and not of the one of P+S.
