What the idea really comes down to is rather than having the lens simply rest on the Cavision support, you tighten the support a bit firmly into the lens so as to push it up a tad. You could easily go to a bigger lens and not have any issues.

Yes Mandy, I am contemplating modifying the support in that way, however the current design seems to not present any real issues--yet. If I do end up needing "more contact" I'll probably buy the add-on that Mr. Diaconu posted farther back in this thread.

The rods go straight into a plate that screws directly into your camera and has screwholes for tripod mounting. You're essentially changing the weight distribution of the lens to more towards the tripod or the body of the camera. The principle of adding tension to the setup (by tightening the support into the lens) vastly reduces shake issues since the lens setup is sort of "pinned" into position.

you tighten the support a bit firmly into the lens so as to push it up a tad.
That's true, but that does not "solve" the L/R torque problem of a plastic mount and the tension that mount takes while performing a focus roll (I do not have in mind hand-focus as done in still photography). The beauty of PL or Panavision mount is "rock solid" lens mount (as it should be in any optical system designated for this job)

You're essentially changing the weight distribution of the lens to more towards the tripod or the body of the camera.
True again, but that does not solve the mount tension/weight either.
Rock solid mount is ideal. Lens support helps when the ideal "plays hard to get" with us.

Michael,
What I had in mind to offer was a Letus support like this: http://dandiaconu.com/gallery/album30 and a long lens (or zoom) rods support.
(I am sure you can tell the diff between the straight raiser proposed and the matching diameter circle segment when it comes to support a cylinder; further more; when dynamics come to play and the camera is moving. Inertia of the SLR lens long or short would make it slide L/R if only rested on the raiser!). Tape or epoxy? Pick one.

Meanwhile I found this: http://cavision.com/rods/lenssupport.htm and I posted the result on the Gl1 thread. Nothing more. I just did not know they have it at the time I offered to help. Could it be used for Letus? Most likely yes. Would it do the same job? Just about (imo). No tape and no epoxy. Is it worth refining an existing wheel? Not really (imo) Cavision is available now. No sport lost in the process.


Dan, your adjustable bracket is exactly what I want! The Cavision bracket is flat across (made this way to support at the mattebox end, I think).
What is interesting, though, is the appearance of your unit versus the Cavision. They look almost identical. I'm assuming (hoping) your bracket would fit onto the Cavision's rod system which I already own.
Would you be selling the letus bracket separately?

Dan,
I was thinking more and more about your design and concluded there might be an issue or two with it.

You said there would be rollers of some type on the support you designed so the zoom lens could be used appropriately. If you have the support solely on the zoom lens, wouldn't the "steadiness" of the entire system depend on the texture and contour of the zoom lens' grip? It seems like a bumpy surface and if your support is holding up the assembly wouldn't it shake also as the rollers went over the grip? Also, how would you pull a zoom or focus without running your hand into your support? And if you use your support underneath the Letus only, wouldn't that reintroduce your "plastic mount torque" issue? Does this mean we have to buy two of your mounts? :)

To me, a very effective support would be a 180+ degree encompassing semicircle that would attach or grip somehow to the mounting flange of the SLR lens where the lens meets the Letus. This would evenly distribute the weight, prevent L/R movement as well as shakiness, and leave the lens completely available. Something similar to what Cavision has made, but I don't know the diameter of that support ring and it seems like it has to be used in conjunction with that rope-type secure strap.

Dan,

I really understand what you're saying. I'm just finishing my own rod support for the Letus. But one issue keeps troubling me: how do I make sure the lense doesn't fall out during L/R turns in this plastic mount. Sure, the barrel will be stable in normal and abnormal use, but while turning the focus or diafragm ring with one hand (and without DD's FF), the lense can easily pop the lens out, if you're attention goes to the subject and not the mechanical part of filming.

If anyone has any ideas?

Are you saying you accidentally turn the bayonet mount lock bar thingy, and the lens comes off the Letus? If you hold the lens and turn the lock ring 35 degrees or so the lens should lock onto the Letus...

I feel like you already know this, you're referring to something completely different, and I'm just being a @#()%.

Is poophead really such a bad word? ;)

I didn't realize you were using Nikon. My bad. I am therefore totally clueless.