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 :)

Red Mount? W.T.F. and NO THANKS

M

Matt Uhry

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi Jim, Jarred and Stewart

PLEASE don't make a proprietary RED lens mount. Leave the full frame 35mm lens market to Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica etc. There's many great options and the other makers have a 50 year head start and 1000's of products available new and used at attractive prices. I'm sure you could do it well, there just is no need for it.

Concentrate instead on delivering the Red primes asap, more of the 18-85 zooms, a longer 25-250 brother to the 18-85 of similar build and quality. While you are at it how about a PL rehouse of that rocking Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ? or something better in that range.

Modern PL mount cine grade optics are what we need to shoot with on the Epic, don't jump into the consumer 35mm lens format.

Thanks for listening,

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
I'm going to reserve any judgment on this until we hear a little more. If these Red-Mount lenses have a focus-throw and usability closer to cine lenses, then I'm all for them. We'll need that sort of added control shooting in the larger still 35mm format.

However if they're going to be more-or-less the same as the pro f/2.8 zooms currently available from Nikon and Canon i can't really see the point.
 
Grug said:
However if they're going to be more-or-less the same as the pro f/2.8 zooms currently available from Nikon and Canon i can't really see the point.
Click to expand...

Since when Jim & Red does anything "more-or-less the same" as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Arri...
 
Well... PL mount lenses won't cover the full sensor of some of RED's new offerings... and while I have never had issues, many have complained that Nikon and Canon mounts are not secure enough nor well suited for film production use... so if RED is assuming that these cameras are to be used professionally, that seems to necessitate a new mounting system.
 
I understand where Matt is coming from. But I'm welcoming this new format from RED. They have a chance to give us what Nikon, Canon, etc.. are not giving us. A very robust mount, option for more controls, zoom and more, integrated into the lens / camera system, larger '645' format, longer throws, tighter and smoother mechanics with hard stops. I guess what I'm saying is that if RED is bringing their own mount and lens interface to market, I'm all for it if it's done right. And saying that we already have too many formats out there is kinda pointless now. There were too many formats and options out there already back in '87 when Canon introduced the EOS standard to an industry-wide response of "WTF?".
 
I will add, though, that RED certainly fumbled with the Nikon mount for a while... at as Matt has pointed out before, they kind of messed up with the filter ring on the 18-85 lens...

RED is great with the software and internal components, but has missed the mark with mechanical aspects of things a few times. It still takes a leap of faith that they'll get this all right.
 
trouble is it takes an age to work out the marketing strategy of Red or what is available to them as a OEM company. Are they just converting elements available to the still world to cine requirements i.e mount, hard stops, breathing etc.
Or are there other forces at play, i.e need for sharper glass at 9K, Jim's brought out Cooke, blah, blah.
D
 
I should frame this differently.... how about don't mess around with any "Red Mount" stuff until you ship me the PL primes ( including the 18mm ) and 18-85mm, both of which I've been waiting 2 years for !

Also give some thought to this... what premium would you pay for a "Red Mount" SLR lens ? Double the cost of Nikon or Canon ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Matt Uhry said:
I should frame this differently.... how about don't mess around with any "Red Mount" stuff until you ship me the PL primes ( including the 18mm ) and 18-85mm, both of which I've been waiting 2 years for !
Click to expand...

I will agree with that 120%! I want those primes... Actually I desperately need a good set of primes.

Also give some thought to this... what premium would you pay for a "Red Mount" SLR lens ? Double the cost of Nikon or Canon ?
Click to expand...

Premium? None. ...Unless it offered specific advantages that would warrant a premium over a comparable piece of glass from Nikon or Canon.
 
Well let's see. On our shelves we have some PL mount lenses that will only cover Super-16. Then we have some other PL mount lenses that will cover 35 Academy (That's RED one territory). Then we have PL mount lenses that cover Super-35 (that's the vast majority of them). Then we even have some PL mount lenses that cover a 65mm film frame (even though there are other mounts available for this format). All with the same lens mount. At a certain point it becomes a limiting factor to attempt to cover a large image area within a constricting lens mount diameter. But the same sure isn't true for a smaller sensor such as a 2/3" one. I don't see the advantage of making this new set of lenses for the smaller format anything but PL or B4 mount. What would possibly be the bad thing about that? It sure as hell will make it easier for these lenses to get serviced over time!
 
Mitch Gross said:
Well let's see. On our shelves we have some PL mount lenses that will only cover Super-16. Then we have some other PL mount lenses that will cover 35 Academy (That's RED one territory). Then we have PL mount lenses that cover Super-35 (that's the vast majority of them). Then we even have some PL mount lenses that cover a 65mm film frame (even though there are other mounts available for this format). All with the same lens mount. At a certain point it becomes a limiting factor to attempt to cover a large image area within a constricting lens mount diameter. But the same sure isn't true for a smaller sensor such as a 2/3" one. I don't see the advantage of making this new set of lenses for the smaller format anything but PL or B4 mount. What would possibly be the bad thing about that? It sure as hell will make it easier for these lenses to get serviced over time!
Click to expand...

Hey Mitch - Not sure if you are up to speed on the announcements, Red is proposing a set of lenses ( looks like 3 f2.8 zooms ) for Full frame 35mm - "Vistavision". They are "Electronic" which I guess means no iris rings and maybe fly by wire focus ? The mount itself, judging from the renders appears to be a typical 3-flange, stills bayonet style, like Nikon, except possibly not compatible with any existing system.

I only write this because it seems like you are reacting to something different. The 2/3 inch format mini lenses are most welcome for mini-cam style work and 3-D

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
I would like to see this RED mount be a base for an Interchangeable Mount System that would all the use of PL, Canon EF, Nikon and even Zeiss or Hasselblad medium format lenses.
 
Thanks Matt, I was thinking about the lenses in the other direction, the miniRED-mount lenses for 2/3", which I feel should also be in an established mount. I agree that these larger coverage lenses should not be designed in a new, proprietary mount but instead in something that is already well-established. It would be great if they were PL but it is possible (but I don't think likely) that there would be an optical/mechanical limitation to doing so.

Oh yeah, in my list I forgot to mention the rehoused and converted to PL Leicas that we have that were originally designed for FF35 and still fully cover that VistaVision-sized image area.

And happily, we no longer have any PL mount lenses that cover standard 16mm but do not cover Super-16.

B4 and PL are the most common lens mounts for professional motion image capturing. No I'm not forgetting Panavision and some others but that is another topic. Whenever possible, lenses shoukd be designed and supplied with these two mounts used as is appropriate.

It's never good to swap around mounts, especially during a shoot.
 
I'm guessing the RED mount will cover the large format epic, aswell. And since the traditional rodenstock/horsman mounts most likely aren't "strong" enough for cinema size lenses, they decided to go proprietary.

The same goes for the MF epic too, hasselblad and Mamiya mounts might not do the trick for the big zooms.

If they make different mounted lenses for the different epics, it'll go against the idea that you can change your brain without changing everything else.

I mean, you could then use a MF red lens on the ff epic or scarlet...
 
There are things a still lens doesn't do well when put into a motion environment, and some things cinema lenses don't do well when put in a Still environment.
 
Jarred Land said:
There are things a still lens doesn't do well when put into a motion environment, and some things cinema lenses don't do well when put in a Still environment.
Click to expand...

What will the Red mount/FF35mm lenses do better / differently than a Nikon or Canon EOS lenses / mount can ?

PL mount Cine Style lenses are painfully scarce and costly at the moment, with beat up 20 year old superspeeds going for $5000+ each. You can't really say the same thing about still glass, you can buy 95% of anything made by Canon or Nikon at B&H for under $1750 and have it delivered next day... Make that $600 if you are talking Sigma.

How about making PL mount lenses that cover FF35, but the industry standard PL mount has bonus Red designed electronic contacts for whatever lens controls you have in mind ? This would seem to be best of both worlds....

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Jarred Land said:
There are things a still lens doesn't do well when put into a motion environment, and some things cinema lenses don't do well when put in a Still environment.
Click to expand...

Hi Jarred,

Other than being large, heavy & expensive I cant think where cinema lenses don't perform wel in a still enviroment.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top