Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Titanium...

Elsie N said:
So, you are against powder coating. So what are your views on ultra-hard ceramic coatings?
Click to expand...

Elsie,

Please think for a moment about much of the content of my post. It is not an attempt to debate one type of surface coating over another for the titanium mount - it questions the need of any additional surface coating at all.
I also added my voice to Jeff Kilgore's observation that this discussion seemed to be moving off the intent of the thread.

To address your question, first let the community (not me) know why you believe that the lens mount design that RED has proposed falls short. If you have discovered a legitimate flaw, then it should be addressed. If you have specific knowledge about manufacturing techniques and could provide a cost/benefit analysis for the community to consider, that would be a benefit for all.

However, if the proposed design not only meets, but exceeds industry standards, I would suggest that we let the RED team continue to innovate and enhance EPIC before considering solutions for problems that exist only as speculation.

From a personal perspective, I like what I've seen come out of that team. I believe that the advantages of the titanium mount over stainless over aluminum are well stated in this thread. The question of affordability of each option is a choice for the individual owner / operator. Myself, I would love Ti, but may need to settle on stainless.

Nuff said? Peace...
 
Brian F Kobylarz said:
Elsie,

Please think for a moment about much of the content of my post. It is not an attempt to debate one type of surface coating over another for the titanium mount - it questions the need of any additional surface coating at all.
I also added my voice to Jeff Kilgore's observation that this discussion seemed to be moving off the intent of the thread.

To address your question, first let the community (not me) know why you believe that the lens mount design that RED has proposed falls short. If you have discovered a legitimate flaw, then it should be addressed. If you have specific knowledge about manufacturing techniques and could provide a cost/benefit analysis for the community to consider, that would be a benefit for all.

However, if the proposed design not only meets, but exceeds industry standards, I would suggest that we let the RED team continue to innovate and enhance EPIC before considering solutions for problems that exist only as speculation.

From a personal perspective, I like what I've seen come out of that team. I believe that the advantages of the titanium mount over stainless over aluminum are well stated in this thread. The question of affordability of each option is a choice for the individual owner / operator. Myself, I would love Ti, but may need to settle on stainless.

Nuff said? Peace...
Click to expand...

Bryan, to be honest I didn't read your entire OP. You killed me with your first bullet. The rest was just carcass mutilation.:smash:

I have no dog in this growling contest. I was just suggesting an alternative option to those who had suggested before me that the Ti mount could be subject to pitting when exposed to certain elements. It was a tossup question to be debated. It was.

I am just bored with the waiting and am using this forum solely for entertainment.

Edit: Brian, just noticed I posted my original content after you had made a post. Now I see why you thought I was probably responding to what you had just said. I wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Elsie N said:
Edit: Brian, just noticed I posted my original content after you had made a post. Now I see why you thought I was probably responding to what you had just said. I wasn't.
Click to expand...

Elsie,

Same thing has happened to me before. Sometimes over-lapping posts lead to misunderstandings. No problem, it's all good thoughts to get out there for consideration - we only lose when we stay silent. Keep the ideas coming.
 
Brian F Kobylarz said:
Elsie,

Same thing has happened to me before. Sometimes over-lapping posts lead to misunderstandings. No problem, it's all good thoughts to get out there for consideration - we only lose when we stay silent. Keep the ideas coming.
Click to expand...
And you as well, my friend.
 
I'm surprised that Red is going with an Aluminum PL mount for the Epics. After all the problems with the stability of the Aluminum mounts on the Red one, I would have expected Stainless Steel on the Epics. Perhaps Aluminum on the Scarlets. Guess I'll have to save my Shekels for the upgrade.
 
In regards to Irmeli's link above, we really don't want a mount made of Invar. It's a nice thought as the thermal expansion is minimal and in some cases non-existent. However, it's an iron and nickel alloy that is very wax-like, often brittle, and does not do well in applications where high tolerances must be maintained. Over time it tends to deform under stress, it can also crack easily if hit at the right angle.

I know it's going to come up... "but Panavision (or someone) modified some F900's with Invar mounts". Hey, good for them.... Where are they now? How long did those mounts last? What were the typical issues with maintenance and upkeep on those mounts?

Invar has its applications no doubt. It's used in lots of places where thermal expansion is a concern, but does not make a lot of sense for anything that will see hundreds or thousands of mechanical cycles as a lens mount will. Of course that's just my opinion.
 
i brought it up not because of the invar but because the mount itself is only half the ticket. the body still expands. the sensor is mounted to the body.
 
Maybe some materials specialists on here could debate the viability of using ceramics for both body and mount? I will not join the debate because although there is a successful ceramics company nearby, I know nothing much about the material... just that it is very hard.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Like a boat anchor. Rather heavy metal ...
Click to expand...

True that. :)

But I was thinking more like aperture grilles for CRT monitors... I'm sure most of us here have owned a display with an "Invar shadow mask" at one point in our lives.
 
Irmeli R said:
i brought it up not because of the invar but because the mount itself is only half the ticket. the body still expands. the sensor is mounted to the body.
Click to expand...

True that. This titanium mount is attached to a plate -- what's it made out of? It attaches to the camera body via four screws -- what are they made from and what about the helicoils into which they thread? And then the body behind it and the mounting chassis for the sensor? And what's the slack in the worm gear and five other axial adjustments on the sensor plane?

Might all be fantastic, but I'm just sayin' that the mount is only a part of the story.

Anyway, looks like a NULL Lens & Target kit would stick onto that puppy quite nicely! Still gotta reset that mount every time you switch between PL & Canon, Nikon or whatnot.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Still gotta reset that mount every time you switch between PL & Canon, Nikon or whatnot.
Click to expand...

Tell those guys at IB/E Optics to get that Nikon Null Lens ready. :yesnod:
 
MichaelHalsell said:
Jeff, what was your post count before the 'big crash'?
Click to expand...

Post counts remained unchanged if I remember correctly. Since it's dynamically generated from the database and no posts have been lost.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Titanium reacts to other compounds easily. It might be okay for a lens mount, but I would hesitate in using it as a chassis material. Regardless of the practicalities of cost in manufacturing, Titanium requires maintenance. It can't come into contact with ordinary tap water, so you have to clean it using distilled water or you get surface pitting. Try keeping such contaminants off the body itself in normal use. I'd like to see a solid carbon body.
Click to expand...
Just so I'm not misquoted, my reference to titanium reacting to water came from Jeff's post quoted above. I didn't now either way and merely noted that it had been mentioned in this thread (by Jeff who I should have quoted directly in my previous post). I was as surprised as you all to read this, thus I mentioned it to get further discussion going. If it's flat out wrong I'm happy to hear it!

In looking back at my post I realise that my choice of wording may have made it look like I was saying that directly. Sorry. That's what lack of sleep does to you!! :D

Carry on! :)

Paul
 
Jeff Coatney said:
As I am trained as a journalist, it is important to note here ...

My post that stated that titanium cannot come into contact with tap water was accurate in a broad sense, but needs a context to prevent the reader from jumping to conclusions as to my intent.

The use of "Tap Water" specifically was intentional and the comment is limited to "Tap Water". Tap water can contain additives such as fluoride and chlorine which are know to react to certain titanium alloys during production and maintenance. Reactions to these compounds can cause surface pitting and eventual stress fracturing, usually (but not always) in highly thermodynamic environments....

How does this affect a PL Mount? Not much. How does it affect a titanium chassis for a camera? Potentially significant -- under the right circumstances...

In discussions on materials science, we really should start off with what is the exact material or alloy to avoid these needless de-railments of the threads-- which I am somewhat responsible for in this case.
Click to expand...

Somewhat responsible for a derailment? With all due respect, this thread was about the lens mount. Your post jumped topics to the EPIC body and left the titanium PL mount in the dust. As a "journalist", you should know the importance of context - you even refer to it in your response.

About context in this case: How many of us might be mounting an unprotected EPIC to the outer skin of a Blackbird - when the impact of water droplets at flight speed pose a greater concern to many other parts of the camera (Personally, I would be more concerned about pitting the optics than Ti) The reports that you quote as your reference sources seem to be a far stretch from typical camera use.

As far as suggesting that the possibilities of damage associated with tap water are usually, but not always in "highly thermodynamic environments" - please, keep it real for the REDuser - I would trust that any responsible camera owner knows to use protective gear when in any hostile environment - be it water (in all forms), blowing sand, temperature extremes, etc.. I personally do not know of any professional camera owner that makes a practice of using tap water to clean their gear - and I would not want anyone to take away from your post that doing so on non-titanium parts is a preferred method.
Again, as a "journalist", you must consider what you do not say as well as what you do.

Finally, you closed your rebuttal with a comment about discussing materials science; requiring specific information about the exact material or alloy to avoid needless derailments... Isn't this exactly where you went wrong?

You might heed my fathers advice: "When you find yourself in a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging". Your followup post is a prime example of what he was talking about -IMHO, you should have left it alone.
 
Jim's back... we don't really need this thread anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top