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 Pro Matte Box vs Oconnor O-Box

Hi Gediminas,

Let's not mix up the issues. If you have something that is clearly defective, we'd be happy to effect an exchange or personally guide you through an adjustment or repair, if it is something simple. Obviously, certain basic functions should be there.

But dinging the O-Box indiscriminately because it didn't live up to a particular weight expectation is not productive and ignores the possibility that it might really be the best thing available in this particular build. There are certainly lighter clamp-on matteboxes, but do they have rotating stages and (in your case) flag holders on all sides? How sturdy are they? What do they cost?

These forums are read by a lot of people and although we really don't like to be confrontational (and especially not with our customers), we're compelled to set the record straight as necessary. Please do feel free to get in touch with me regarding getting the problem solved. Hard feelings are definitely not the outcome we're looking for.

Best

Jim
 
Ok, Jim, point taken. As weight is a subjective issue, probably I should have stated it being too heavy for a clamp-on "in my personal opinion" only. As to the other issues, I'll contact you off this forum.
 
O'Box is built like a tank. It also weighs like one. Weighs more than my mb 20. I would be hesitant to use it as a clip on with that weight. I had one and sold it. The build quality is excellent but I feel it could be a bit more wide angle. This gets severely limited if you plan to use 2 stages and a 138mm. The Arri MMB1 is an excellent value and weighs much less. If you own Red Zooms, I'd go for the Red MB as it's one of the few that can accommodate the massive diameter.

If it's clip on you want, consider LMB 5 or LMB 15. Add a rotating 4 x 5.65 Pola tray and your set. ZGC is quite good at putting together packages. I still think Arri is still leagues ahead of the competition in MB build and design. I'll go as far to say they've no real competition, which is a shame. If they did, they wouldn't cost so freaking much.

If you're going for a rods/studio set up, consider the MB 20 or MB 14.
 
Last edited:
Looks like I'll get to try out an O-Box on a shoot next week.
I like the LMB-5, but it looks like a relic from 70s filmmaking, not a modern high end product.
So I was hoping one of these new products could prove to be not much worse.
 
Ned Wilson said:
O'Box is built like a tank. It also weighs like one. Weighs more than my mb 20. I would be hesitant to use it as a clip on with that weight. I had one and sold it. The build quality is excellent but I feel it could be a bit more wide angle. This gets severely limited if you plan to use 2 stages and a 138mm. The Arri MMB1 is an excellent value and weighs much less. If you own Red Zooms, I'd go for the Red MB as it's one of the few that can accommodate the massive diameter.

If it's clip on you want, consider LMB 5 or LMB 15. Add a rotating 4 x 5.65 Pola tray and your set. ZGC is quite good at putting together packages. I still think Arri is still leagues ahead of the competition in MB build and design. I'll go as far to say they've no real competition, which is a shame. If they did, they wouldn't cost so freaking much.

If you're going for a rods/studio set up, consider the MB 20 or MB 14.
Click to expand...

Just arrived in LA...long day of flying. I'll respond to this tomorrow as we prepare for Cinegear however this posting contains misinformation.
 
Don't you guys get Eric riled now.

 Now here's one I've not heard before... this keeps going on, someone's going to say we weigh more than a 6.6x6.6 six-stage :-)

 Facts:

 1) Weight: An MB-20 System I swingaway with LWS bracket, two filter frames and 138mm bellows weighs 3.6 lbs.

 An O-Box with two filter frames, LWS bracket and 138mm bellows weighs 2.3 lbs.


 2) Wide-angle: The O-Box has been tested against many other matte boxes of similar build, and if you compare, you'll find it's one of the widest-angle of the lot. If you want something wider-angle, you can either go for a bigger MB or a plain “layer-cake” MB without a rotating stage, there are plenty of both out there. If you want the configuration and size of the O-Box, it’s questionable as to whether anything else will really give you more coverage.


 3) Build quality and design:

 - It took prolonged pounding with a two-pound hammer to get the O-Box sunshade to crack. Who else offers that?

 - Our flag-holder hinges rock compared to anyone's in terms of solidity, clamping force and durability.

 - Our clamp adapter rings are back-leak free and and are the best out there in terms of undersize compensation, especially at smaller diameters.

 You like someone else’s filter retainer rings better, because they're so light? Okay, but their rings bend and go egg-shaped with time, whereas ours are solid and can be retouched with simple methods, even on-site, if you ding them. It's a matter of taste.


 Again, to repeat myself:

 The O-Box does what the O-Box does. It was primarily meant to address a hole in the industry -- a mattebox you can pound on, travel with, throw into your dittybag and generally not treat so well without having to suffer through yet another $300 replacement sunshade bill. We don't slavishly knock stuff off. If what you were expecting from OConnor is something that someone else builds already, but cheaper, we're not doing it... you'd be better off writing one of the "new" gear manufacturers who are cropping up with regularity on Ebay and the DSLR forum sites... there are even a few of these lauded here on Reduser as offering "great" deals. Believe me, if there's a market for it, they'll jump at it. There’s a certain successful mini follow-focus out there that has now been knocked off by at least three different manufacturers. Are we following suit? No way. We’ve got something new at Cinegear, but it’s ours.

If you decide on someone else’s stuff, it’s fine to say so, and to explain why, but it's not cool to spread FUD about our products out of pique that we're not about helping evade someone else's price-tag.
 
My apologies about the weight mis-info. I was probably comparing the O box with all the trimmings. What is your widest angle with all three stages filled? Also, do you plan to mod the hard to get to filter retaining knob. Just needs to be longer.
 
Last edited:
Nils J. Nesse said:
Looks like I'll get to try out an O-Box on a shoot next week.
I like the LMB-5, but it looks like a relic from 70s filmmaking, not a modern high end product.
So I was hoping one of these new products could prove to be not much worse.
Click to expand...

Don't be fooled by the retro look. Performance wise, the LM5 or 15 are amazing. Everything fits, works and is light tight. The MB 14 too has a retro feel but is by far the best studio MB made, bar none.
 
Ned Wilson said:
My apologies about the weight mis-info. I was probably comparing the O box with all the trimmings. What is your widest angle with all three stages filled? Also, do you plan to mod the hard to get to filter retaining knob. Just needs to be longer.
Click to expand...

Even with all the trimmings, it's still not heavier than a traditional swingaway studio box. It's probably a bit heavier than the "flimsy" rotating-stage non-swingaway boxes, and I know of two non-swingaway boxes that it's lighter than. So the O-Box is somewhere in the middle regarding weight and way up on the scale regarding stability and longevity.

MB coverage has several components, the primary ones being focal length, lens speed and entrance pupil distance from front. A 24-290 at 24mm has a larger ray trace at the front than many substantially wider-angle primes, simply because the entrance pupil is pretty far back and the resulting "funnel" size is thus already pretty big by the time it reaches the lens front... that's why you end up needing 6.6 squares to cover that medium-wide 24mm FL. Higher speed also causes the ray trace to get larger. At 16mm focal length, you can use a couple of 4x4s on pretty much any T2 or T2.1, but they'll often cause edge shading on a modern T1.3 or T1.4 design.

A secondary consideration is picture format/aspect ratio, which is often a gray area these days. Even if you don't directly see vignetting due to the mattebox being just out of frame, you can still technically be losing light -- think of hard-matting a fast tele, you don't cut the field of view but you do cut the light-gathering capacity of the front element. The gray area comes in due to the fact that many these days would rather live with the bit of light loss rather than go up in size to the "proper" (larger) box. That used to be a big no-no, but with advances in imaging technology and general increases in production time-pressure, it's become often an acceptable compromise.

The upshot is that it is hard to say with millimeter accuracy. We say 18mm because we're certain that all current 18mm primes will be covered, but there are also certain wider lenses we can cover if the other factors come together. If another manufacturer says 17mm or even 16mm, ok fine, but I'll bet it ends up being the same result with the same lenses, if it's the same size box. Sooner or later you see off the glass (outside of the filters) and you're done. Best thing to do is test when you're in that borderline area.

The operating-element design of the O-Box was reached at through some exhaustive production testing with several prototypes. We might revisit it if there were enough call to, but it's not something we would do without another exhaustive round of testing. Every "improvement" ends up having a disadvantage come with it, that's simply life in the mechanical world.
 
Hello Adam,

As you quickly caught onto OConnor has shown for the first time at Cinegear 2011 a re-designed 1030HD and 1030HDS Fluid Head along with a new 30L Carbon Fiber Tripod.

We’ll open a separate new thread on these in the coming weeks but I can tell you OConnor will start taking orders in early July and are aiming for the first dealer deliveries at the very end of July.

In the meantime here’s a video that was shot which features the new gear:

http://wideopencamera.com/cine-gear-2011-2/cine-gear-2011-ali-ahmadi-of-oconner/
 
Absolutely CORECT here Gediminas. The filter trays are an "accident waiting to happen."

The trouble is the filters can easily drop down through the tray space onto the ground and all you can do is hope the little red screws save your ass, or your rods below, if they are there.

Crash!!! There goes a $200-$300 IR ND. At least the polarizer is secure.

Anyone who has spent time using the O-Box would realize this danger to filter glass with swapping filters on the O-Box.

Jim Elias, I am glad you are on the REDUSER form but use your gear on film projects. You'll find the issue Gediminas has is an issue many users have. I still like the O-Box, I know it has dangers to watch out for. I'll definitely be looking into testing ARRI gear or the BT matte-box.

If you still have trouble understanding the issue, I'd be glad to make you a video but I doubt it's anything you can fix for the current O-Box. It's a design flaw. Glad to illustrate the issue in person if that would help.

It's pretty simple stuff, we want good gear and will last and get the job done time and time again. Make them for us, and we will continue to buy them.

Gediminas Vansevicius said:
Second - filter trays hold filters just barely! It's an accident waiting to happen. And why make the filter tray holding screws so hard to access? When you look at Arri mattebox you come to think: damn, it's such a simple construction, why is it so expensive? And yet, no other manufacturer seems to be able to produce anything close to the quality of arri accessories.. Your mileage may vary, of course..
Click to expand...
 
whoa there --

I do believe that you're having problems, but it's doubtful that they're incurable. Much of the O-Box concept is centered around that it can take a unique amount of pounding and heavy use, but some fits may need readjustment now and again -- and we designed the O-Box such that re-adjusting the frame is pretty easy, see pic attached for the screws to turn. If you have any questions or problems, feel free to drop me a PM.

Cheers

Jim
 

Attachments

  • 121031_1.jpg
    121031_1.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top