Stupid, stupid, STUPID matte box prices!
 

I don't suppose anyone here could expplain why something such as a mattebox or sunshade with a decent sized french flag and rail system should cost anything approaching the absolutely extortionate prices that are being charged? Please, please, please tell me why a bit of molded plastic, some alluminium rods, and a flat hinged piece of metal should be costing me $500???!!!

Okay, so there is a bit more engineering than that involved, but I simply cannot believe that these prices are justified in any way or form.

Does anyone know of a decent (ie rather cool looking as well) mattebox and sunshade with rail system that would fit the XM1 (GL1) that doesn't cost half as much again as the camera itself?

Exactly what I have been wondering since I bought my camera. I guess having your cam look that cool comes with a price. The dope century optics matte box and rod system for the GL1/GL2 is like $1080. The french flag for it is an extra $80!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=331121&is=REG

Yeah!

It's pretty unbelievable IMHO. I just cannot for the life of me see what the money is going into!

Originally I made a makeshift sunshade for my Optex 16:9 adaptor out of an old black plastic flowerpot. Of course I only used this on my own productions rather than paid work for fear of having my camera laughed at.

The problem is that with the 16:9 adaptor a sunshade of some kind is essential and I need something that is affordable, and looks good too to give me respect! LOL!

My 16:9 adaptor cost me £500, and that is a piece of optics. I can see no reason why some bits of plastic and metal should cost more than a complex 16:9 lens!

What surprises me even more is that nobody else seems to give this problem of matte box prices a second thought! What am I missing?

As an owner of a Chrosziel I share your amazement. To be sure, there is a bit of workmanship involved in the filter tray and rod fittings. And the materials of the best units are designed to endure heavy use. But even so, they still seem very expensive for such relatively simple accessories.

The explanation fundamentally boils down to the fact that they sell at these prices. Ten years ago matte boxes were mainly sold into the rental market, which could recoup the prices easily. Today we see people buying them largely as fashion accessories for their cameras with little idea of how to really use them properly. (BTW, have you priced 4x4 or 3x3 filters for them?)

There are a few "less expensive" models, such as the one from CAVision. But if you want a better deal check the online auctions for sales of used matte boxes.

But before proceeding ask yourself if you -really- need one or if the money would be better spent on other areas of production. If all you really want is to shade your lens from flare, there are far less costly solutions for that.

I empathize in your outrage over matte box prices and I would simply chalk it up to supply and demand.

In need of the use of a ND grad filter recently, I searched and stumbled upon the Formatt FM-500 matte box over at DVXuser.com and recently used it on a shoot with excellent results. I don't know how the build quality compares to a $1,500 box nor does it have a rod option available, but I have found it to be an excellent solution for the budget conscious. It can be had from B&H for about $299.

I use it with a DVX by the way.

Hope this helps.

-tim brown

Hi Ken,

When I am using the Optex 16:9 lens some form of sunshade is neccesary. Facing the camera even vaguely in the direction of the sun can cause it to flare easily and for every single bit of dust that might have found it's way there between cleaning the lens and pressing the record button shows up. Once the lens is shaded these problems go away.

There are other solutions (such as my modified flowerpot), but I wouldn't dar use these on a paid job because they simply look amateur. Luckily most things I have shot with the 16:9 lens have been my own projects. But recently I have started to use it more and more on paid jobs but have craftily got around the problems, or have been lucky enough to be shooting indoors under controlled lighting conditions.

But I would rather have the flexibility that a mattebox and sunshade give. ND filters are a major issue with me at the moment. I can use the cameras built in ND4, and then attach my ND8, but that causes a huge amount of vignetting and my zoom ranges are even more limited than they were to begin with.

Hi Tim, thanks, I'll look that one up. But atill 299 still seems a lot.

Indeed, wide lenses, esp. anamorphic lenses, are flare magnets. Technically, these call for even more expensive matte boxes and filters specifically designed to accommodate 16:9 lenses (although most folks just get the standard square version).

For an extremely inexpensive, yet very effective, solution to simple lens shading take a look at the Flare Buster. This featherweight, ultra-portable gizmo attach directly to a camera's top shoe and can basically hold any type of shade you need.

I think that by and large these prices are a holdover from the days before DV. When you're buying a camera for 25 grand plus what's another 1000 between friends to control a little lens flair?

As well I think that for the most part they are made by small companies to some fairly high standards. Low production runs add to cost greatly. Although in comparrison to other industries, like high end bike parts for example, yes they are insane.

That's the name of this business though. I'd like to know why a Sachtler tripod plate costs $90. That's just stupid.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ryan Liverman : I'd like to know why a Sachtler tripod plate costs $90. That's just stupid. -->>>

Answer: Because they're trying to look good against rival Vinten, whose plates cost $160.

Ken,

Even though they are separate companies, aren't both Sachtler and Vinten (and Bogen and others) manufactured by the same parent corporation. If so, why try to compete against your own products?

Vinten, Bogen and Sachtler are subsidiaries of the same conglomerate: The Vitec Group, PLC. Each company's principal manufacturing operations is likely quite independent of the others, however.

I was only joking about Sachtler's rationale for its plate pricing. Of course the fact of the matter is that each is the sole producer of its spare parts and can charge whatever the market will bear.

These companies do, indeed, compete against each other. That's actually the best of situations. Vitec, like most such conglomerators, acquired these companies more as brand investments than individual organizations. To that end, its rather like owning hotel properties which can be divested as needed.

Think of Vitec as General Motors and all of it's various divisions (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, Buick, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile, oops Olds is gone). I'm sure over the course of the next few years some stream lining will take place to take advantage of some scale of economies.

Simon, I think you have discovered a true market niche. You should create you own manufacturing company to produce low cost matte boxes for the DV market. The sales will be stupendous and you'll be able to retire in a few years. Or not.

And dude, if you can make sure it doesn't vignette no matter WHAT you use with it, no matter how wide the lens, etc. . . you'll be God.

If you want to go the el-cheapo route I suppose you could look into this: http://www.cinetactics.com/mb100m.php Although $169 also seems like a lot for something made out of nylon...

Well guys it's funny you should mention making my own and then selling it because that's exactly what I am considering!

I know someone who machines spare parts for classic cars, so I'm going to see what he might be able to do .

Making sure it doesn't vignet on most cameras shouldn't be a problem since my 16:9 lens is pretty darn big.

The most interesting thing about doing this will be that I'll see exactly how much the manufacturing of one of these things really costs!

Ah, yes, but besides 16:9 adapters, think of fisheye, wide angle, etc. I had this EXACT problem with a DVX100a and the century .6x wide angle adapter, used with a 4x4 Cavision matte box. They swore up and down if I had the bellows all the way collapsed, it wouldn't vignette even with the zoom all the way out, and they were wrong.

The only option would have been to upgrade to a 6x6 box. . .and those sumbitches be expensive. So, go for it, but keep an eye that issue. You could make a KILLING if you could pull it off.

Oh, and how bout cheap 3x3 and 4x4 glass filters while you're at it. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 apiece.

cokin is making cheap plastic filter holder you could embed into an home made mattebox. I have made some with balsa (very light wood for modelling) and carton sheet and black spray paint.
It cost almost nothing and still looks very pro.

Josh I'm told that a lot of places out there will cut glass to 4x4 and 3x3 (and 4x5.65) lengths I think the expense of filters comed in when you try and add diffusion and nd and all of that fun stuff. but if you want just an opticla flat filter for protecting your lens, 5 bucks (ish) would cover it.

Oh and there is a chrosziel mattebox on ebay right now that is supposed to handle all of the rpoblems youa re mentioning.

::note:: I also think matte box prices are rediculously over priced but it seems like the cheaper ones (sub 500) are pretty bad, so what can you do?

I noticed the Cokin filter system before, and I have one of their filter holders for my really old hi-8 camera. It's too small for my Optex 16:9, but I had thought about modifying one to make a mock up/proto-type.

One of the hardest things is working out how to make the rotating filter holder.

it's amazing what one can do with aluminum sheet and gaffers tape. No vignetting problems, either...LOL.

OK, so it looks like sh*t...but, it works.

But absolutely no good whatsoever for holding filters in front of a big lens!

Have you gotten any farther on your matte box project?

Hi, yeah, I did make a cardboard mockup of one to test out it's ability to shade the lens. Though so far I have been unable to come up with one that is a managable size but still manages to flag the lens to a decent degree. I am pretty much coming to the conclusion that a native 16:9 camera may be the only way to go!

Try the Cavision, reasonable quality 3x3 will cost you $250 and a 4x4 approx $500.
www.cavision.com

You can also do a search, i know i written reams about them myself

Now if you take a good look at the complexity of the product and factor in it's limited market you should understand. Everyone including you want to be properly reimbursed for your time. Now heaven forbid that we cannot buy quality camera gear at wally world pricing.

Gear such a good tripods, filters, mics, mixers and even matte boxes cost a fair bit, but if done right it's an investment for many years of trouble free use. When you finall sell the product, you can often recoup almost what you paid for it. Now crap will wind up in the dumper in short order but quality equipment is always a long term investment.

I chuckle when someone works overtime on a holdiday getting double bubble or more then cries about paying for quality merchandise.

We'll always have our hewers of wood and weekend engineers that will either knit a bellows or construct a softbox with 2x4's and 6" spikes. It's almost a rite of passage. thankfully I'm beyond that now. I'm an old fart and i buy what i want even if I have to sell the wifes car (beas winks knowingly)

$250 isn't too bad. But some of the prices for the others were waaaaaaay overboard. I don't have any trouble paying for quality stuff. God knows I've spent enough on basic stuff this year just to keep up with technology and to offer a better service. But with some of the Matte boxes on offer I just couldn't see where that money was going to. Even a basic sunshade seems to cost the earth from some places.

Now a full matte/filter holder I can understand more so in terms of mechanics in being able to offer a rotational filter holder etc. But just a simple sunshade for example shouldn't cost the earth. Similarly I'm at pains to understand why the filters themselves cost the earth. For sure it's a limited market. They price themselves out of it!

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : But absolutely no good whatsoever for holding filters in front of a big lens! -->>>

Simply tape the glass filters right onto your lens hood!
I've seen it done on pro shoots, honest!
Seen the aluminum foil (ok, blackwrap really) and tape been used too.

That's no joke, actually! Still photographers using rectangular filters (ex: ND grads) and lacking a drop-in holder use gaffers tape all the time. It looks butt-ugly but gets the job done.

whaddaya think they make gaffers tape for?

Getting their gaf on?

The Cavision clamp on lens hood was $60 last time i looked. It's an easily mounted screw clamp, the shade is pliable rubber which is nice.

Van Dieman, True Lens Care and Formatt all make clamp on sunshades and rotating filter holders. There are some cheaper sources as well. Do some searching.

I wound up with a Cavision 4x4 bellows as well as the Cavision clamp on lens shade.