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 :)

Redrock Micro mattebox problem with 15mm arm and Epic

Brice Ansel

Brice Ansel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Paris France / Pico Acores
Website
brice-ansel.com
I just received a 15 mm support arm 60mm center to center for my redmicro mattebox,
the problem is the arm is shorter in height and the bottom of the mattebox touch the rodes, even at the highest position allowed.
Big big issue with short lenses, and as a result no rotating stage anymore.
attachment.php


A part using really short rodes I can't see what to do.

The 19mm 15mm support arm 100mm center to center is longer in height and work perfectly with small lenses like the 50mm Nikon.
Any sugestion, I don't want to come back to 19mm config.
Thanks in advance
Best
brice
 
I had some of those 90 degree arms for a while, but they ran into everything, blocked everything, wouldn't fit under anything, and otherwise made themselves completely useless.

Allowing the thumb screws to work from either side would improve these things significantly. That's a major frustration.
 
Typical Redrock mattebox problem... get a less bulky, more well-built mattebox. There are so many better options than this hunk of junk.
 
Yeah. Its simply a design flaw of the mattebox. You can order just a new swing away arm and go 15mm studio or 19mm rods.

Its not just redrock though. . . there are plent of MB's out there that don't clear 15mm lightweight spacing.
 
Hey Brice, this is the major fault with this huge mattebox. I once owned one and got rid of because of this very issue & the foam donut thing.

Unfortunately, you mightn't want to hear this , the only solution without driving you nuts, is sell it & find something else. I would suggest O Connor O box & or the Shoot 35's MB, similar prices to Redrocks, superior performance & build whilst preserving your sanity.

P.S. Why Redrock call this MB 'Micro' I will never know because it is the exact opposite.
 
Mike Garrick said:
Hey Brice, this is the major fault with this huge mattebox. I once owned one and got rid of because of this very issue & the foam donut thing.

Unfortunately, you mightn't want to hear this , the only solution without driving you nuts, is sell it & find something else. I would suggest O Connor O box & or the Shoot 35's MB, similar prices to Redrocks, superior performance & build whilst preserving your sanity.

P.S. Why Redrock call this MB 'Micro' I will never know because it is the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

100% agreed. The O-Box is awesome... ditch the Redrock mattebox, man. You won't regret the switch.
 
Is the 15 mm support o-box 60mm center to center?
Did someone used Leica R lens with it, I'm wondering how the 19mm Elmarit fit on it, is the lense center?
 
Some MB's just weren't designed well for 15mm LWS (60mm). The RR MB is a crummy lift of an Arri MB 20. Even the MB 20 doesn't work well with LWS as the rods will bump into the sunshade. I also finished a long job with an O'Box and as much as I loved it, on LWS your tray rotation is severely restricted. The way around it is to use 138mm round pola. The RR for the money isn't bad. The donut isn't such a killer issue as some make it out to be. I find more problems with the build quality especially as it concerns the hinges for the eyebrows and side leafs. If you want a small MB that allows for complete pass through of your rods and full stage rotation at a similar price, hunt down a used Chrosziel 450-1. I once picked up an almost new one on DVX user for 550.00. However, it's only two stages. Nothing's perfect.

What galls me about the RR's design issues is that they've been around since it first came out. They've done nothing to fix them. As they cater to the DSLR crowd which uses mostly 15mm LWS, I can't understand why they push such a failure instead of fixing it. But then again this is from the company that uses such soft metal I can snap any of their clamps at will.
 
To come back to that old thread,
Better than buying another mattebox, I just did cut some long carbon rodes in to two small one.
Here is a pic with a 50mm Summicron and three stages.
As you can see the larger part of the RR MatteBox doesn't touch the rode and can now be adjust up or down with no problem.
Works also with the 28mm Elmarit or the 50mm Nikon F1.4
attachment.php


The irony is, I first bought the shortest RedRock carbon rodes possible, they were too long with such small lenses.
Weird RedRock doesn't propose shorter ones.
Glad I dindn't bought another chunk of metal.
Regards.
B.
 
Weird that Redrock doesn't just correct the problem with their huge bulky mattebox so it can be used normally, without cutting rods.
 
@Brice we have carbon rails in 2", 4" and 6" now.

@Trevor IU thought you knew any mattebox that supports up to 5.65" filters (including arri MB-20) are designed to hang in front of 15mm lightweight rods. When used with 15mm studio offset or 19mm there is enough space to clear the mattebox and correctly center the lens.


Cheers


Brian
 
With a properly designed mattebox, the filter stage clears the rods and allows you to correctly center the lens. Wow, Brian... really? Blaming customers now for not "knowing" that all 4x5.65 matteboxes have this problem? Just wow...
 
@Trevor - microMB supports up to 5.65" SQUARE filters.

Any properly designed mattebox that supports 5.65" square filters (as the microMatteBox does), has swing away, and supports centering of the lens on 15mm lightweight will hang in front of the rods. Arri MB-20 is the same way.

To which part of this do you take exception?




Cheers

Brian
 
Communication certainly is key - the clarification of SQUARE makes a bit more sense now. Too bad the incompatibility with 15mm LWS and smaller lenses isn't communicated on the website, as the mattebox is largely marketed toward DSLR shooters who will in most cases be using small still lenses.
 
@Trevor I'm glad we cleared that up.

We'll look at our website text and see how we can improve there. We make no secret the microMatteBox supports 5.65" square filters. Also I wouldn't say it's 'incompatible' with 15mm lws, you just need to hang it off the end of the rails. We design our baseplates so they can have the rods adjustable front-back and also there is an additional 2.5" of movement on the mattebox swing arm itself, so it's a lot more flexible than 'incompatible' would suggest.

Speaking of communication, it would be really great if you could also focus on clarifying communications along with us, rather than jumping to conclusions and lambasting for something that just needed refinement.



Cheers

Brian
 
@ Brian

I believe your MB needs to be clearly labeled as such. As Trevor has indicated there is a problem with the "perception" that your MB is suitable for 15mm. Why ? try to mount a Canon 24 - 70 then switch out to say Leica Summicron 50mm with a FF. If this product is aimed at 19mm market this MB kicks some goals for the dollars. However given the DSMC concept of Red camera's this can create issues for users of still lenses. Look at some of the comments on this thread from other users . As a former owner of your MB I like the build quality ( metal filter trays great!! etc ) but I believe the issue of 15mm rails needs to be addressed, somehow.

P.S. Brice it is not apparent from your pics how you fixed your issue. I assume by cutting the rails you have extended the swing away out to the max. adjustment . Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
@Mike Got it, thanks for the feedback


Cheers

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