RED-EOS Mount

[Kevin Halverson]

RED is really being very fair

RED is really being very fair

I have resisted the temptation to jump in and comment until now. Really, up until a few days ago, I wasn't aware of any problems with our or anyone's else’s mounts causing problems. In fact, I don't know of any actual problems caused by our mount (and surely I would have become aware had any problems arisen).

In my opinion, RED's tact on this is well reasoned. In fact, I would say that they are being more than a bit generous (as they often are) in that Jarred's comment of "...If you install something we make and it breaks the camera, then we pay for it." That is going above and beyond the call of duty in my opinion. I have been involved in manufacturing for over 30 years now, and I have seen my fair share of things done to products by users.

Really, it comes down to being responsible for one’s own actions. If you do something that causes a problem, then you should be responsible.

Our mount's development was begun before RED released their adjustable PL mount and we didn't want to take a shim based approach (likely for similar reasons that RED decided to abandon that approach too). Our mount does require removal of the PL assembly and from the information seen here, voids the warranty. Frankly, regardless of the stated policy, it comes back to the point I just made, being responsible for your own actions. Pulling the PL mount isn't something that everyone should be doing, we recommend that if you’re not comfortable with this, have a camera professional do the work for you (this is stated in our installation instructions at the very beginning of the document). If you do it and you make a mistake and damage results, then it is your responsibility, if the person you hire to do the work makes a mistake, then they would be responsible. All seems reasonable to me, but I am a pragmatist at heart.

In the case of the FD series of glass, it has some unique requirements that necessitate a different approach compared to Nikon F mount of Canon EF mount. The FD's are purely mechanical lenses and within that family, there are two variants; namely the breech mount and the bayonet mount versions (earlier and later respectively). The bayonet versions require a mechanical device to actuate the internal stop down lever or the lens will be full wide regardless of its aperture setting. This would preclude any approach that didn't necessitates the removal of RED's PL mount as there would be no room for this mechanism (and equally ignores the very short FFD of FD lenses).

As I said very early on, I contacted Jim directly (during IBC last fall) and asked if they (RED) would mind if I took on the task to develop an FD mount as it was just dropped by RED from the RED Store. He gave me an OK to proceed, and I made the offer that if RED wanted the design for themselves I would turn it over at any time. I never wanted to become a competitor of RED, rather I was trying to help out myself and a few others that really wanted to use FD glass with RED ONEs. Other than a visit to our office by Jon to allow me to make some measurements, there hasn’t been any further discussions on the subject. We just worked out what needed to be done and got on with it. If our actions have caused problems for anyone, I apologize. That wasn't my intent, I really wanted to help solve a problem for those that were counting on (or hoping for) a RED ONE and Canon FD pairing.

Perhaps the necessity of pulling the PL mount is the reason that RED decided to drop the FD mount from their original offering. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding that the Birger mount would be a solution for both Ef and FD glass, I don't and can't know. I really was thinking that we were helping by taking on one task that would solve a problem for a few RED ONE owner's. Regardless, if anyone who purchased an FD mount from us has a problem we are willing to help.

Now knowing this policy (and by now I mean in the last few days, not before) we will look at a different approach that doesn't involve pulling the PL mount. This will preclude the use of later FD lenses (and this might not be a good solution for everyone) and for anyone who purchased a FD mount from us, we will make a revised mount (for breech mount FDs only ) available as an even exchange. For those that want to continue to use our existing design, that is fine too, it’s their decision to make.

Again, my apologizes to RED and our mutual customers if we have done something that has become a problem we will do what is necessary to make everything right, it’s in our nature to have our customer's best interest at heart too.

Kevin Halverson

 

[Michael Hastings]

This is a copy of my post on other thread.

This is a copy of my post on other thread.

This is a copy of my post on other thread. Referenced in the next post.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6149 1810 posts 121,701 views. I believe most popular thread on REDUSER.

I can´t help thinking that this is a discussion that should go on between Birger and Red. But since it is in the open, and I do not see any benefit of the i-Cable - especially as it apparently is not even enabled - I second Erics suggestion, having the option of getting the Red One without the cable.

Where does this leave reservation holders at the moment? Specifically those who do not want to take delivery of the current mount and void their warranty.

It seems perhaps that Red and Birger have finished their discussions.

I just have a feeling things are in limbo because no-body knows who is taking the next step here. Erik is not pleased with the current situation and/or having cameras sent to him for installation. The board don't seem happy with this either. Red seem to not want to budge on the warranty.

Red have been very quiet since the meeting, which either means they are thinking about their view on this, or they see no need to repeat what they have already said. But Im sure I'm not the only one who still thinks there are issues between the two companys that need to be talked over more.

I was in the midst of typing a post over on another thread:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=247482#post247482
when I went to lunch and came back and saw that Erik made his post, and the flurry of new posts.

Martin:

You are right, this is a discussion that should have been between RED and Birger since before RED changed the PL mount and consistently afterwards.

I am very appreciative of how RED took care of me and my camera - they made one of those heroic efforts to get me going again before my trip to the bahamas, however there are a couple of larger issues here.

I didn't talk about the specifics of what happened because I wanted to give them some time to think about it and realize they weren't going to get a truckload of cameras back - Erik took care of the RS232 lens port (remember it's supposed to be the LENS PORT) problem after only 3 units had been shipped out.

I came back from a 3 day trip to the bahamas and learned of the arbitrary decision that the adjustable portion of the pl mount is now the dividing line between warranty/no warranty which I STRONGLY believe has no rational basis given the i/data cable (which probably wasn't the problem in these 3 cases anyway) has the same exposure or worse when changing back and forth to the RED Nikon mount. And of course the FD mount (remember that? - has been one for many months) has always required removing the whole PL - old and new. I would also invite you to take a look at this post which talks about the history of the Nikon mount:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=246867#post246867

which was essentially invented, prototyped and offered for sale by Erik in February, canceled, picked up by Doug Underdahl and then sold to RED (and this is info not from my inside knowledge but by several other posters so not subject to NDA). And it is really sadly ironic, in that I am guessing that RED's own Nikon mount was taking so long because they were making it with its own adjuster AND ERIK SHOWED THEM A WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT REMOVING THE INNER PART OF THE MOUNT - now the separator between dumb and smart mounts.

I also came back to a full voicemail box, emails, pms, etc. about this. So I spent Wednesday with the headache of what and how to respond (remember some of these people are those housing customers that I convinced to buy a RED instead of a competing product - and believe me EX1s and HVX200 and its successor are competitors at the low end - because Birger let them use a $700 canon lens to get exceptional results). I spent an hour Wednesday night writing a post that touched on some of the issues and then decided to still hold off and tabled it. Thursday morning I asked for a chance to discuss with people at RED these issues with no response yet.

And then I get up this morning and someone is offering a RED-EOS dumb mount - which is just a slap in Erik's face, as he could do what that guy is offering in his sleep. Not that big a deal, but the kicker is Jarred responded to it - yet I have never seen nor does a thread search show a single post from him on THIS, THE LARGEST, MOST VIEWED THREAD ON THE REDUSER SITE.

So, in honor of the 4th of July and Truth, Justice, and the American way, I am going to say a little more of the truth (still actually quite restrained but sure to get myself in hot water anyway):

I AM TIRED OF THE SHORT SHRIFT BIRGER/ERIK and THE RED/BIRGER CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN GETTING. This policy is BS, arbitrary, and not based on rational parameters. It needs to be changed NOW so we can all move on. biggrin: Well, maybe not NOW, its the 4th, but monday! :biggrin

We as owners have rights. Given that the REDONE is a highend professional DIGITAL CINEMA camera, which by definition puts it in the range of Arriflex/Panavision movie cameras, video cameras like the F900, Varicam, etc. and is intended to be used in remote areas, in high pressure situations, all manner of funky applications like dollies, cranes, steadicams, motion control, helicopters, underwater, deserts, mountains, close quarter locations like cars, planes, submarines, etc. - and therefore we have a reasonable expectation that we will be allowed to do minor field modifications, as well as eventually (and given over 1000 cameras in the field - soon) having full documentation to be able to have competent technicians, of the level commonly found at TV stations and rental houses, open the camera and do even board level repairs without voiding the warranty.

Erik now has the information he needed and has both made the changes and added protection on his end. Obviously, if someone shorts out a component during install, that isn't covered by warranty. But it still seems to me that removing 8 (or 12 in the case of birger) bolts and tucking away a cable shouldn't be anything that would void a warranty as it is well within the expected skill level of anyone that would be likely to be owning/using a $20,000+ professional camera.

What we want is direction on a reasonable way to handle the i/cable or, if through design flaw or whatever, that is too dangerous then a reasonable way to have it removed - after all it is like an appendix - something that seems to cause problems and is easy to remove and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose anyway. If it needs to be shipped to RED so be it, the eventual installation of the missing i/data pins would have required a similar effort anyway. Just be reasonable. A better way to handle it would be to send out a modification bulletin, as has been regularly done by Panasonic, Sony, Ikegami, Arri, and every other professional camera manufacturer for the past 30 years or more, and let those that have competent technicians handle it in the field - others could send it to RED or a certified repair tech.

And while you are at it - give us, or at least make available - a complete service manual, with circuit diagrams, parts lists, etc. like every one of the dozen or so pro cameras I've owned too, so when we are in Indonesia, or the Philippines, or the Yucatan, or Africa and spent $50K in travel expenses - as many of my customers - and a lot of you others as well do, we're not just SOL.

I think I have stuck my neck out far enough, so if you guys agree with this it is time for you all to pick up the battle flag and run with it.

Sincerely,

Michael Hastings AKA AquaVideoRED206 and still a RED believer - build 16 is great!; so is 2.40 4.5k, now if I could just use those Canon SLR lenses that I know will cover it!

Thanks Erik for posting the info about the I-Cable. Removing the I-Cable makes so much sense. 1. The Birger Mount will not pass iris info to the camera using the I-Cable anyway, it will do so with the RS232. 2. The I data is also not even used by Red yet, there are currently no data pins in the PL mounts so this will have to be a future mod anyway.

Hopefully Red will agree that with the I-Cable removed there will be NO REASON to prohibit users from removing the inside Red plate. Nothing to short. We can then get back the flexibility we were all expecting with this amazing camera. I do also hope that they will allow professional camera repair technicians/companies to remove the I-cable so that people in other parts of the world will not be burdoned by international shipping and customs.

With the I-cable removed we can go back to swapping the mounts ourselves.

Just wanted to echo what you said.

I can only emphasize that, without a Birger that I can swap out myself without voiding a warranty, I will not be buying a RED. I have always believed the Birger was, by far, the most important "accessory" for the camera, the one which really made ownership financially feasible for a host of prospective buyers (including myself) and the one which also happens to offer the most intriguing electronic control and technological integration.

I implore RED to adopt a more reasonable warranty policy regarding this product (whether that entails removal of the i-cable before shipping or what have you) so that reservation holders like myself can still realize the hope of owning this camera.

Ellizabeth, I believe you are just one of a great many current res holders like this and wanted to echo this too.

PS photo of original birger/nikon dumb mount from I think 2/8/08. Look familiar?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Jarred:

I love you man, but the stated RED position just isn't tenable. You are obfuscating the real point when you get into all of this side stuff.

Everybody understands (or if they don't their idiots) that if you improperly install or modify something and you damage the camera - YOU DAMAGED THE CAMERA and it isn't covered by the warranty.

But you have arbitrarily voided the warranty if we simply remove the whole PL mount to the same place:

1) where your original pl mount went, and anyone that understands and has followed the development knows that change was NOT made for some protection issue but to make backfocus adjustment easier for the factory and the user. And Brook Willard in his very thoughtful thread on the EPIC has suggested it may be better to go back to the old way.

2) You know that both your own FD mount and the Birger mount were going to have to remove the whole pl mount because the flange focal distances are too short. There couldn't have been any surprise that Birger was going to need to do this because, as this thread indicates, a DUMB EF "sliver" mount might JUST BARELY be possible but it is also quite obvious that there isn't room for the necessary electronics.

3) This removal of the whole pL still leaves us IN FRONT OF THE OLPF, and DOES NOT EXPOSE ANY OF THE SENSOR OR ANY THING THAT ISN'T EXPOSED WHEN YOU REMOVE THE BODY CAP OR A LENS. The i/cable is tucked away in a slot right now, but eventually those i/data pins would be totally exposed to the world - presumably with extremely conductive gold pins, and the cable has to be handled when you install the nikon mount.

In short there are two things I would like to know 1) what you think the SUBSTANTIAL TECHNICAL difference is in removing half of the PL mount and all of the pl mount and 2) I am curious to know how the RED nikon mount, post adjustable PL, was designed, because something doesn't add up. It seems reasonable that there was going to be a delay if you were designing and manufacturing the Nikon mount with its own adjuster which would be a much more difficult design and manufacturing task (and which of course would have required the same full PL removal) but as is public knowledge it appears that Erik at Birger invented on a Friday afternoon the Nikon "sliver" mount that could go on top of the RED adjustment mechanism, offered it for sale as an interim solution (with a credit when smart mounts were available) canceled it for some unknown reason, and then Doug took Erik's design, ran with it, which eventually became the RED Nikon mount. So either RED was going to have to remove the whole pl mount for their version of a Nikon mount OR we get into conspiracy theories on why the huge delay for something that Erik and then Doug could make in an afternoon? You can't have it both ways.

---
Next issue:

The fact that the Birger mount was plugged into the 10 pin lemo at the front, maybe somehow surprised you, although it seems like that was the plan initially and it seems reasonable anyway since that is also the port we were supposed to be able to plug in our B4 fujinon and canon video lenses (BTW does that work? Can we plug in a B4 lens as we were supposed to be able to? I am now afraid to try.)

If that was actually the problem rather than the i/data, then it raises some other questions, but it really doesn't matter now as after those first 3 mounts Erik has moved power to the rear aux connectors. I believe he has also added some power limiting and protection, but honestly if those aux connectors aren't well protected there is a serious design flaw with that circuit.

If the i/cable is still a problem, so far EVERYONE has said they would be happy to have it removed - after all it is like an appendix - something that seems to cause problems and is easy to remove and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose anyway.

-----

Since we can't be sure if you ever go over to the Birger thread, I put a copy of my earlier post just before this.

photos are 1) original birger/nikon sliver mount, offered I think on 02/08/08 - canceled shortly thereafter 2) current birger mount install, except it is no longer plugged into the lens port. 3) Birger-inspired? Underdahl/RED Nikon mount install photo (pl removed) showing how in some ways i/data cable is harder to deal with because you have to stuff it in that long channel.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Now if you installed a 3rd party radio and say, your tire fell off, Ford would still fix it. Just like if your RED thumbscrew broke after you installed a 3rd party mount that voided the RED ONE body warranty, we would fix it.

And perhaps that's exactly where the misunderstanding lies then, Jarred.

The RED One is an entirely new camera and who knows what component may fail within the first year of ownership due to a defect in design or manufacture, without having anything to do with a lens mount swap done by the customer.

If I change the mount and the camera fries as a result, I would not expect it to be covered under the warranty. That's for sure. A no-brainer. But if, for example, the thumbscrew falls off (like you pointed out) after months of having swapped the mount, I would certainly expect RED to step up to the plate and issue a RMA.

So, if it's like you point out, then I have no problem with that. It's common sense. Still, that's not what I understand when people say- "voids the warranty."

Apple went through something like this years ago. If you bought a Mac and swapped the RAM or the hard disk, Apple would consider the warranty void. Eventually, they adopted their "user replaceable part" policy, which allows users to change certain parts such as the RAM and hard disks without affecting the warranty for the entire product.

I believe that since RED has been touting the RED One's capability of using still lenses, and that even Mr. Jannard has replied to people in this very forum that there are third party mount options available for the RED One, that the mount should be considered as one such "user replaceable part" and customers who opt not to use the OEM PL mount not be punished with a void warranty as a result.

At any rate, thanks for clarifying that to me.

 

[M Hsu]

OK, so if the RED camera breaks unrelated to the Birger, RED fixes it. If we short the cable during install or scratch the sensor, we pay for it. If the Birger mount shorts the camera, does Birger pay for the whole repair? Cause surely we're not asking RED to pay for that? Obviously, this is going to require more testing so that RED can understand what bricked every camera that's been birgerized. (is it 3 for 3 or did I misunderstand that?).

It may take a week for Erik to finalize and test the latest revision
a week for RED to see how Erik's new design doesn't brick cameras
a week to come to a warranty statement on that
and a week for Erik to start manufacturing and shipping... (and I think that's an optimistic schedule)

I'm sure it will be worked out in time. I am encouraged that Erik was able to spot the initial problem and fix it. Jarred and all at RED, I apologize if the birger forum seems testy or cranky... it's just we've all been expecting this mount since January, one week at a time, so what looks like a month or two of new delays is incredibly disheartening, especially for those of us who kept pushing production back a week at a time instead of moving on to another solution. This is why I need a dumb canon mount and I need it to ship soon, which many of us did beg Erik for, quite vocally. Forgive me all for being a pessimist, but pessimists make for good producers. If I'd been more of a pessimist in january, I would be a month into shooting by now with nikon glass. If Erik can indeed start shipping "in a few days" for those of us who are willing to risk the warranty then I won't even need the dumb mount because I will use the birger without power as a dumb mount until we're 100% sure it's not going to brick the camera.

No disrespect intended to the revolutionaries at RED or Birger. Both of your products are amazing and you guys need each other and all of us on this forum need both of you.

 

[Steve Murray]

Bottom line

Bottom line

Jarred,

Assuming that the best way to avoid possible problems with shorting out the i/Cable when switching mounts is it's removal.....

So, how much to remove this pesky, fragile and useless at the moment little i/Cable?

Seems to me that without it I will be able to sleep again... and then occasionally switch the lens mounts safely.

Thanks.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

The issue is and should be entirely one of causation (which, admittedly, can sometimes be hard to determine but should be the determinative inquiry anyway). If any 3rd party product, or installation of same, stresses camera components beyond specified/reasonable limits or otherwise *causes* damage to the camera, then repair of that damage should obviously not be covered by warranty. If, on the other hand, a camera defect appears coincident with or after installation of a 3rd party product -- and there is no causal relation between the two (e.g., a sensor just happens to develop dead pixels after installation of a 3rd party lens mount, and there is no latent causal relation between these two ostensibly unrelated events) -- then the warranty absolutely should cover repair of the defect.

The most crucial part of the present conflict, IMO, is that RED and Birger attribute the camera failures to different phenomena. RED is taking the position that a short of the i wire is responsible while Erik is convinced it was a momentary excessive power draw by the mount itself that has now been completely resolved by using a different power source and including protective circuitry. Without a meeting of the minds on this issue, I'm not sure how RED can be convinced to change its unfortunate (and unreasonable, IMO) voiding of warranty on the entire camera if a user installs/uninstalls a Birger mount.

 

[Jarred Land]

Jarred:

I love you man, but the stated RED position just isn't tenable. You are obfuscating the real point when you get into all of this side stuff.
.

Micheal. I am a little surprised by your response.

I am wondering if your feeling would be a little different if RED were not so kind to swallow the $3000 cost of repair to your camera when you brought your camera in with a 3rd party mount that blew up your camera, in a panic because you were going out of town in a few days. We fixed it, with a 24 hour turnaround, and got you on your way. Over something that wasn't our fault.

I am now regretting that generous decision I made.

We welcome 3rd parties to come to us with thier product, allow us to test it and approve or dissaprove and make decisons.

This is the last I am going to comment on this... I have commented, and Jim has commented, that taking apart the camera is going to void your camera warranty. End of Story.

 

[M Hsu]

$3000 to fix a birger bricked camera, NOT covered under warranty. Worth thinking about.