Filter Systems: trying to standardize

[Bob Kerner]

Goal: standardize around one filter holder and system. I prefer square drop-in filters. They take up less space. Prefer glass.

What I have: a hodgepodge of adapter rings, a Cokin drop in holder that can accommodate 84 x 120 mm filters; a set of Galen Rowell ND grads sized 84x120. All of this was stuff from my 35mm kit.

Current Lens: Fuji 150 f5.6 with 52mm threads. I have a 52mm ring to connect to the Cokin holder.

Shooting 4x5

I'm good-to-go with the ND grads I have but want to add yellow, red, etc for B&W work. I'm concerned about the filter holder, that as my lens kits grows over time that it won't be sized properly to cover larger LF lenses. I don't want to invest in colored 84x120 filters and then find out that I should've sized larger for bigger-sized lenses.

Is there a "standard" filter holder size (and drop in filter) for 4x5 that I should be looking at?

[r.e.]

You might find this thread useful. It's about Lee's 2019 revision to its filter system: Lee Filters Lee100 System (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166108-Lee-Filters-Lee100-System)

I'd suggest that you also have a look at competing products by Formatt Hitech and NiSi.

[xkaes]

There is no 4x5 standard. It's "every man for himself". Much depends on the lenses that you plan on using. I would think that your current set-up would be adaptable for any lens with a 77mm filter thread -- and there are only a few lenses that have threads wider than that. A lot also depends on how far out in front of the lens your current set-up sticks out. My Cokin adapter sticks way out -- which is very limiting.

[Bob Kerner]

You might find this thread useful. It's about Lee's 2019 revision to its filter system: Lee Filters Lee100 System (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?166108-Lee-Filters-Lee100-System)

I'd suggest that you also have a look at competing products by Formatt Hitech and NiSi.

Thanks. I know Benro also makes filter system components. I'm less concerned by brand that selecting correct size so I don't get locked into something that becomes limiting if/when I add lenses.

[Bob Kerner]

I read the thread about Lee. Looks like that is standardized around 100x150mm filters yet I don't see ANY Lee filters that size for B&W at the NYC big box store I shop at. There are Tiffen filters in 4x6 that are extraordinarily expensive ($320 for a red filter) and special order only.

[Drew Wiley]

Try filterfind.net. He has a lot of that kind of thing in stock, especially hard to find items.

[r.e.]

Edited the wrong post :)

[Kiwi7475]

Also to state the perhaps obvious…. the adapter/holder system is proprietary (whether Lee, Benro, etc) but 100x100 and 100x150mm glass is usable across all 100mm systems (as long as it’s 2mm thick which is 99% of them), so you can look into cheaper brands, like Haida. Most brands sell different “levels” of glass. Sometimes the practical differences are not obvious. You want coating to avoid fingerprints but if you shoot B&W then color shifts are not important so you don’t need top tier glass.

Btw these guys are running a 30% sake for a while… https://formatt-hitechusa.com/collections/photography-filters

[r.e.]

Also to state the perhaps obvious…. the adapter/holder system is proprietary (whether Lee, Benro, etc) but 100x100 and 100x150mm glass is usable across all 100mm systems (as long as it’s 2mm thick which is 99% of them), so you can look into cheaper brands, like Haida. Most brands sell different “levels” of glass. Sometimes the practical differences are not obvious. You want coating to avoid fingerprints but if you shoot B&W then color shifts are not important so you don’t need top tier glass.

It's worth checking how thick the glass is early on. Formatt Hitech has an interesting system, but its filters, like those headed for matte boxes, are 4mm thick.

As you say, there are also differences in glass quality. Panavision and Lee developed and make Lee's ProGlass IRND filters. These are 100mm², 2mm thick versions of the Panavision filters used to make major motion pictures. Lee sells both the ProGlass IRND line and a less expensive ND line.

[r.e.]

I read the thread about Lee. Looks like that is standardized around 100x150mm filters yet I don't see ANY Lee filters that size for B&W at the NYC big box store I shop at. There are Tiffen filters in 4x6 that are extraordinarily expensive ($320 for a red filter) and special order only.


Lee100 filters are 100x100 except for graduated ND filters and some specialty filters. There's a Lee150 system which I don't expect you'll need. You could also look at Lee85 and Lee Seven5, which would be less expensive if one of them works. I think that B&H/Adorama carry the full line. The Tiffen 4x5.65 filters are for cinematography matte boxes. Note that Lee also sells direct online. You could also try https://www.2filter.com in New Hampshire.

For me, one of the attractions of the Lee system is the new lens hood. I haven't seen something like this from competitors. The thread linked in post #2 above has some photos of the hood.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfVE75XTwjo

[Drew Wiley]

Seems like a very minor new tweak to the Lee compendium & thread adapter system which has been around a long time. I think I'd prefer the older simpler design - less things to wear out break, or snag a cable release.

[r.e.]

Seems like a very minor new tweak to the Lee compendium & thread adapter system which has been around a long time. I think I'd prefer the older simpler design - less things to wear out break, or snag a cable release.

Good for you. I've been using Lee100 for two years, for both stills and video work, and I'm very happy with the performance of the system and the hood. If you check out the Blackmagic forum, you'll find discussion by a Blackmagic Design advisor and feature film cinematographer about the attractions of the Panavision/Lee Lee100 system. Indeed, you're the sole person that I've come across who's hankering for the old system.


When Beastgrip (https://beastgrip.com) ships its iPhone 15-specific cage this coming month, I'll also be using Lee100, including its ProGlass IRND filters and hood, with an iPhone 15 Pro Max and Blackmagic's new camera app. If you aren't familiar with Beastgrip, that's the company that supplied Apple with phone cages for its October event. That's a Beastgrip cage that Apple chose for its thumbnail image just below:


Behind the scenes: An Apple Event shot on iPhone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3dbG9pAi8I

[r.e.]

There is no 4x5 standard. It's "every man for himself". Much depends on the lenses that you plan on using. I would think that your current set-up would be adaptable for any lens with a 77mm filter thread -- and there are only a few lenses that have threads wider than that. A lot also depends on how far out in front of the lens your current set-up sticks out. My Cokin adapter sticks way out -- which is very limiting.

For square filters, I think that 100mmx100mm is probably used by the great majority of 4x5 photographers. How often does one see smaller or larger sizes discussed? That said, if one can get away with smaller filters, such as Lee Seven5 or Lee85, there's a clear cost saving.

As you suggest, the combination of the filter holder and the ring that adapts a particular lens's thread size to the holder raises the issue of vignetting. That's why Lee makes standard adapter rings and, for several adapter ring sizes, wide angle adapter rings. The latter are low profile and help avoid vignetting.

One can also forego the filter holder altogether and hold the filter against the lens by hand.*

There's a guy called The Filter Dude (https://www.thefilterdude.com) who makes adapter rings for the Lee100 holder. These are less expensive than Lee's own. I have three of his adapter rings and they work perfectly well. He also makes an inexpensive filter holder, but I have no experience with it. I believe that he's located in Pennsylvania.

* In the post just above, I mention using Lee100 with the iPhone 15. I won't know for sure until Beastgrip ships its iPhone 15 cage, but hand-holding may prove to be the best solution for using neutral density filters with the iPhone's ultrawide lens. In full frame 35mm terms, it's a 13mm lens. The iPhone lenses are fixed aperture. The ultrawide is f/2.8. If one wants to preserve the motion blur of 24, 25 or 30fps, which require shutter speeds of 1/48, 1/50 and 1/60 respectively, and have control over ISO, using neutral density filters is essential. To avoid vignetting with the ultrawide, hand-holding is an option. That said, I know one person who has successfully used certain Hoya low profile ND filters with that lens.

[Kiwi7475]

For square filters, I think that 100mmx100mm is probably used by the great majority of 4x5 photographers. How often does one see smaller or larger sizes discussed? That said, if one can get away with smaller filters, such as Lee Seven5 or Lee85, there's a clear cost saving.

As you suggest, the combination of the filter holder and the ring that adapts a particular lens's thread size to the holder raises the issue of vignetting. That's why Lee makes standard adapter rings and, for several adapter ring sizes, wide angle adapter rings. The latter are low profile and help avoid vignetting.

One can also forego the filter holder altogether and hold the filter against the lens by hand.*

There's a guy called The Filter Dude (https://www.thefilterdude.com) who makes adapter rings for the Lee100 holder. These are less expensive than Lee's own. I have three of his adapter rings and they work perfectly well. He also makes an inexpensive filter holder, but I have no experience with it. I believe that he's located in Pennsylvania.

* In the post just above, I mention using Lee100 with the iPhone 15. I won't know for sure until Beastgrip ships its iPhone 15 cage, but hand-holding may prove to be the best solution for using neutral density filters with the iPhone's ultrawide lens. In full frame 35mm terms, it's a 13mm lens. The iPhone lenses are fixed aperture. For example, the ultrawide is f/2.8. If one wants to preserve the motion blur of 24, 25 or 30fps, which require shutter speeds of 1/48, 1/50 and 1/60 respectively, and have control over ISO, using neutral density filters is essential. To avoid vignetting with the ultrawide, hand-holding is an option. That said, I know one person who has successfully used certain Hoya low profile ND filters with that lens.

Just note that the filter dude is kind of out of business… I say kind of because he has some residual inventory on the website (very little) which he still used to ship; but as of late I still have an unfulfilled order from November… so buy at your own risk…

[r.e.]

Just note that the filter dude is kind of out of business… I say kind of because he has some residual inventory on the website (very little) which he still used to ship; but as of late I still have an unfulfilled order from November… so buy at your own risk…

Thanks. I ordered a 58mm wide angle adapter ring from him four days ago, December 24th. He's acknowledged the order and I'm one state over. I should receive the adapter in the next few days. If I don't, I guess there's a problem. He hasn't announced that he's closing. Anyway, if I have to buy from B&H, and given the higher cost of Lee's wide angle adapters over standard, it will be US$68 instead of $25 :)

[Alan Townsend]

Goal: standardize around one filter holder and system. I prefer square drop-in filters. They take up less space. Prefer glass.

What I have: a hodgepodge of adapter rings, a Cokin drop in holder that can accommodate 84 x 120 mm filters; a set of Galen Rowell ND grads sized 84x120. All of this was stuff from my 35mm kit.

Current Lens: Fuji 150 f5.6 with 52mm threads. I have a 52mm ring to connect to the Cokin holder.

Shooting 4x5

I'm good-to-go with the ND grads I have but want to add yellow, red, etc for B&W work. I'm concerned about the filter holder, that as my lens kits grows over time that it won't be sized properly to cover larger LF lenses. I don't want to invest in colored 84x120 filters and then find out that I should've sized larger for bigger-sized lenses.

Is there a "standard" filter holder size (and drop in filter) for 4x5 that I should be looking at?

The only that I could standardize on filters was diy. I have a set of "theatrical gels" that I bought on Amazon for about $8.00 for 2 each of 8.5x11 all standard colors, which are saturated enough to work well, although they do not meet the iso standards, or other standards. Being perplexed by mounting and sizing, I just quickly checked all my lenses and decided on 2.75x2.75 inches, since that size covers all my lenses easily, and maximizes number that I get. I get 25 gelatin filters for each color, red, yellow, orange, green, purple, and a few others I forget, and I have a lifetime supply.

Then I made a holder out of 1/16" basswood and 1/8" mdf that mounts to my cameras via clamps or bolts. Diy lets you set your own standard for your own purposes. I have a lifetime supply of colored filters for b+W photography for only a few bucks. These will work for my 4x5 cameras very well into the future, even after the zombie apocalypse.

I use the word zombie metaphorically to represent any possible emergency civilization ending event.

Alan Townsend

[Kiwi7475]

Thanks. I ordered a 58mm wide angle adapter ring from him four days ago, December 24th. He's acknowledged the order and I'm one state over. I should receive the adapter in the next few days. If I don't, I guess there's a problem. He hasn't announced that he's closing. Anyway, if I have to buy from B&H, and given the higher cost of Lee's wide angle adapters over standard, it will be US$68 instead of $25 :)

Good luck, let us know if he fulfills it.

Tired of waiting, I recently took advantage of the 25% sale that Lee direct offered up on Black Friday (which lasted until a few days ago). That closed the price gap enough for me.

[darr]

I transitioned to using a SmallRig matte box equipped with a carbon fiber flag and capable of accommodating two 100x100/100x150 filters. Previously, I relied on a LEE wide hood with a 100mm filter holder, which served me well for many years until it eventually broke—the holder detached from the hood. My attempt to repair it only caused further damage. Considering the high cost of a new LEE filter holder and hood, I explored other options and settled on the matte box. It has been effective for use with my 4x5 and 6x17 cameras. One feature I sought is having the filters integrated within the hood itself. I prefer this setup to using a standalone filter holder.

[Kiwi7475]

I transitioned to using a SmallRig matte box equipped with a carbon fiber flag and capable of accommodating two 100x100/100x150 filters. Previously, I relied on a LEE wide hood with a 100mm filter holder, which served me well for many years until it eventually broke—the holder detached from the hood. My attempt to repair it only caused further damage. Considering the high cost of a new LEE filter holder and hood, I explored other options and settled on the matte box. It has been effective for use with my 4x5 and 6x17 cameras. One feature I sought is having the filters integrated within the hood itself. I prefer this setup to using a standalone filter holder.

At least the last time I checked, it can only accommodate 4mm thick glass, no? It’s an elegant solution but there’s no way I’m rebuying all the glass I’ve invested in.

[darr]

At least the last time I checked, it can only accommodate 4mm thick glass, no? It’s an elegant solution but there’s no way I’m rebuying all the glass I’ve invested in.

I currently use LEE gels in holders that are slimmer than the LEE and Hitech ND filters I also employ with the same setup. Additionally, this allows me to use the screw-in filters in my collection. Given the wide range of matte boxes available in the market, it’s possible that the specific type you’re referring to exists, although I’m not personally familiar with it.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1606950-REG/smallrig_2660_lightweight_matte_box.html

[r.e.]

I transitioned to using a SmallRig matte box equipped with a carbon fiber flag and capable of accommodating two 100x100/100x150 filters. Previously, I relied on a LEE wide hood with a 100mm filter holder, which served me well for many years until it eventually broke—the holder detached from the hood. My attempt to repair it only caused further damage. Considering the high cost of a new LEE filter holder and hood, I explored other options and settled on the matte box. It has been effective for use with my 4x5 and 6x17 cameras. One feature I sought is having the filters integrated within the hood itself. I prefer this setup to using a standalone filter holder.

As I understand it, that Smallrig matte box can't be used with Bob's Fuji lens. His lens has a 52mm thread. The Smallrig matte box requires a lens with a filter thread that's 67mm, 72, 77, 82, 92 or, with an optional adapter, 95mm. It's possible to mount the matte box on rails instead of on the lens, but I'm unaware of a practical way to do that with a large format camera. I suppose that Bob could try using a 52mm to 67mm step-up ring and see what happens. The matte box isn't light. It apparently weighs 457g (1lb), plus the weight of the 100x100 or 100x5.65 filter or filters that are used with it. As Kiwi says, the required filters are 4mm thick.

As far as I can tell, the matte box will only take square polarisers. Can the matte box be rotated?

There are B&H customer comments that express concern about quality of construction and loading and unloading filters. This matte box doesn't have filter trays, which exposes filters to being scratched.

I recognise that you're using gels instead of glass filters, and that this might address some concerns. However, gels limit filtration, excluding for example Bob's graduated ND filters, and note that Bob says in his first post that he prefers glass.

Amusing how people react differently to tools. I started using Lee100 with my Blackmagic camera precisely to get away from the hassle and cost of using a matte box :)

[darr]

As I understand it, that Smallrig matte box can't be used with Bob's Fuji lens. His lens has a 52mm thread. The Smallrig matte box requires a lens with a filter thread that's 67mm, 72, 77, 82, 92 or, with an optional adapter, 95mm. It's possible to mount the matte box on rails instead of on the lens, but I'm unaware of a practical way to do that with a large format camera. I suppose that Bob could try using a 52mm to 67mm step-up ring and see what happens. The matte box isn't light. It apparently weighs 457g (1lb), plus the weight of the 100x100 or 100x5.65 filter or filters that are used with it. As Kiwi says, the required filters are 4mm thick.

As far as I can tell, the matte box will only take square polarisers. Can the matte box be rotated?

There are B&H customer comments that express concern about quality of construction and loading and unloading filters. This matte box doesn't have filter trays, which exposes filters to being scratched.

I recognise that you're using gels instead of glass filters, and that this might address some concerns. However, gels limit filtration, excluding for example Bob's graduated ND filters, and note that Bob says in his first post that he prefers glass.

Amusing how people react differently to tools. I started using Lee100 with my Blackmagic camera precisely to get away from the hassle and cost of using a matte box :)

I will try and answer your questions:

I use the SmallRig matte box with my Nikkor W-150 lens, which has a 52mm thread. Step-up rings are frequently used for the adaptation of filters and holder systems. In the past, I had compendium shades with rails (Arca Swiss and a custom-made Ebony). However, the issue with the ones I had was the absence of a filter holder. With this particular matte box, there is no requirement for rails. The matte box I use is also relatively lightweight. I'm uncertain where you obtained your weight figure, but my matte box weighs a mere 10.4 ounces.

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/smallrig01.jpg

The matte box rotates very easily, and when using a polarizer, I place it on the lens (I use circular polarizers), and then the matte box rings. See the photo with the knobs titled. I keep a level on my boxes (I have two of these) because I want to make sure when I do rotate them, they are level.

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/smallrig02.jpg

Below are photos of a LEE Big Stopper, a thick glass filter with a rubberized material on the reverse, and a slimmer LEE gel filter in a plastic frame. The matte box has two rails to slide filters in from the reverse left side. There is a screw on the top of the box for each filter rail to tighten or loosen if you want to. I use thick and thin filters with no issues. I do not see a difference whether I slide the filters from the top as I have done previously with my old Sinar metal filter holder or my LEE plastic holder from the past. My fingers have to touch them somewhere. What matters is how well you care for your gear.

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/smallrig03.jpg

Regarding reviews, I'd like to give you honest feedback on the LEE wide hood that I had to discard because of its subpar materials (not worth the cost, in my opinion). The worst camera I ever shot was a 5x7 Wisner Technical Field (apologies to all the Wisner users). But we can find happy customers for both these products. It's essential to remember that you may come across positive and negative reviews for a lot of gear.

Is this matte box constructed with steel and designed to withstand abuse? No, because it would become excessively heavy to carry around. Instead, it's crafted from a combination of materials, including carbon fiber, plastic, and metal. Personally, I've found it to be effective to the extent that I purchased a second one for my 4x5 camera after initially acquiring it for my 6x17 setup.

After considering the cost of reinvesting in the LEE filter holder, hood, and potentially new rings, I concluded it wasn't worth purchasing everything again. With 40 years of photography experience (including 35 years in commercial photography), I've grown weary of repeatedly repurchasing filters and holders. This $99 matte box, complete with its rings, filter holder, shade, and flag, represents a wise investment to me.

I'm not trying to sell anything; I simply want to share my experiences to assist fellow photographers in making informed decisions.

[Bob Kerner]

Ooh. I can see an opportunity to get carried away with this and go way down the matte box rabbit hole. I’ll mount my $ 4x5 on a $$$ Zacuto rail baseplate and attach a $$ matte box!! Might as well mount a Go Pro to the ground glass, run that signal to a small monitor that can also mount to the rails, and use focus peaking. Filter problem solved for about $3000 ;)

Ok. I know what I have to do. Figure out biggest lens then select suitably sized filter and holder. I don’t want to end up with a filtration system more expensive than the camera and lenses.

[darr]

Ooh. I can see an opportunity to get carried away with this and go way down the matte box rabbit hole. I’ll mount my $ 4x5 on a $$$ Zacuto rail baseplate and attach a $$ matte box!! Might as well mount a Go Pro to the ground glass, run that signal to a small monitor that can also mount to the rails, and use focus peaking. Filter problem solved for about $3000 ;)

Ok. I know what I have to do. Figure out biggest lens then select suitably sized filter and holder. I don’t want to end up with a filtration system more expensive than the camera and lenses.

The matte box is $99 with its rings. Where is the matte box rabbit hole?
I just priced the LEE filter hood @ $343.50

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1518972-REG/lee_filters_100hd_lee100_hood_in_clam.html

LEE adapter ring 52mm @ $74.50

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87141-REG/LEE_Filters_WAR052_Adapter_Ring_52mm.html

And I would need three more rings!
No thank you.

I wish you the best!

[r.e.]

The matte box I use is also relatively lightweight. I'm uncertain where you obtained your weight figure, but my matte box weighs a mere 10.4 ounces.

I got the weight from Smallrig's website and B&H's specifications. The manufacturer and the retailer say that the matte box itself weighs 238g (8.4oz). Lee's holder weighs 54g (1.9 oz). B&H says that the total weight of the matte box, with the top flag, is 457g (16oz). I have not ascertained how much Lee's hood weighs.


Step-up rings are frequently used for the adaptation of filters and holder systems

Smallrig specifies that the matte box is compatible (its word) with the filter thread sizes that I listed. It does not say that it is compatible with other size threads via step-up ring. The question is, why doesn't it say that, especially since it's in its financial interest to do so? It is an obvious red flag.



The matte box rotates very easily, and when using a polarizer, I place it on the lens (I use circular polarizers), and then the matte box rings. See the photo with the knobs titled. I keep a level on my boxes (I have two of these) because I want to make sure when I do rotate them, they are level.

In other words, you're using your polariser as a step-up ring to a matte box. Asked whether this matte box can be used with a screw-in polariser, a B&H employee says in the product's Q&A section to mount the matte box on rods if you want to do that.


Below are photos of a LEE Big Stopper, a thick glass filter with a rubberized material on the reverse, and a slimmer LEE gel filter in a plastic frame. The matte box has two rails to slide filters in from the reverse left side. There is a screw on the top of the box for each filter rail to tighten or loosen if you want to. I use thick and thin filters with no issues. I do not see a difference whether I slide the filters from the top as I have done previously with my old Sinar metal filter holder or my LEE plastic holder from the past. My fingers have to touch them somewhere. What matters is how well you care for your gear.

Great that you're happy with side loading of filters, no filter trays and using 2mm thick filters in a space designed for 4mm. Most people who shoot video would not be. The reason is that filters are expensive and what you're doing is an invitation to damage. This is not just a matter of opinion. Indeed, in the video world it's regarded as a matter of common sense.



Regarding reviews, I'd like to give you honest feedback on the LEE wide hood that I had to discard because of its subpar materials (not worth the cost, in my opinion).

That isn't what you said in your earlier post:


"Previously, I relied on a LEE wide hood with a 100mm filter holder, which served me well for many years until it eventually broke—the holder detached from the hood."

Also, you're talking about the hood that Lee replaced in 2019 with a completely new design. The current hood is not even attached to the holder.


The worst camera I ever shot was a 5x7 Wisner Technical Field (apologies to all the Wisner users). But we can find happy customers for both these products. It's essential to remember that you may come across positive and negative reviews for a lot of gear.

Is this matte box constructed with steel and designed to withstand abuse? No, because it would become excessively heavy to carry around. Instead, it's crafted from a combination of materials, including carbon fiber, plastic, and metal. Personally, I've found it to be effective to the extent that I purchased a second one for my 4x5 camera after initially acquiring it for my 6x17 setup.

In fact, matte boxes are normally constructed of metal and in the expectation that they won't be handled with kid gloves. In the video community, people purchase Smallrig components when they want something cheap. Sometimes cheap is fine, sometimes it's not so fine. Buyers of the Smallrig matte box are generally beginners who are under no illusions about what they're getting. They're getting a cheap matte box, possibly the cheapest on the market, at a cheap price. They expect to replace it sooner rather than later.

[darr]

I got the weight from Smallrig's website and B&H's specifications. The manufacturer and the retailer say that the matte box itself weighs 238g (8.4oz). Lee's holder weighs 54g (1.9 oz). B&H says that the total weight of the matte box, with the top flag, is 457g (16oz). I have not ascertain how much Lee's hood weighs.



Smallrig specifies that the matte box is compatible (its word) with the filter thread sizes that I listed. A B&H employee, in a Q&A, says that it is not compatible with other sizes. Neither Smallrig nor B&H say that it is compatible with other size threads via step-up ring. The question is, why don't they say that, especially since it's in their financial interest to do so? It is an obvious red flag.



In other words, you're using your polariser as a step-up ring. Asked whether this matte box can be used with a polariser that's circular, a B&H employee says to mount the matte box on rods.



Great that you're happy with side loading of filters, no filter trays and using 2mm thick filters in a space designed for 4mm. Most people who shoot video would not be. The reason is that filters are expensive and what you're doing can result in damage.



That isn't what you said in your earlier post:



Also, you're talking about the hood that Lee replaced in 2019 with a completely new design. The current hood is not even attached to the holder.



In fact, matte boxes are normally constructed of metal and in the expectation that they won't be handled with kid gloves. In the video community, people purchase Smallrig components when they want something cheap. Buyers of the Smallrig matte box are generally beginners who are under no illusions about what they're getting. They're getting a cheap matte box, possibly the cheapest on the market, at a cheap price. They expect to replace it sooner rather than later.

The weight includes the flag.

I use the matte box exclusively for film cameras mounted on tripods, not for video. If it was made of metal I would have passed on it for being too heavy. My filters are well-protected and there’s no risk of damage to them. I always ensure my gear is safe.

The issue with the LEE hood was its material quality. It broke off from the filter holder and was irreparable because the material of the hood disintegrated. I did not want to buy into the LEE holder and hood again.

I don’t handle my equipment delicately like “kid gloves,” but rather with the care and respect of a photographer who values and understands the gear.

This is an option some photographers may find attractive especially if their budget is not enough for a LEE system. Not everyone can afford $450+ for a lens hood + filter holder.

[r.e.]

The matte box is $99 with its rings. Where is the matte box rabbit hole?
I just priced the LEE filter hood @ $343.50

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1518972-REG/lee_filters_100hd_lee100_hood_in_clam.html

LEE adapter ring 52mm @ $74.50

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87141-REG/LEE_Filters_WAR052_Adapter_Ring_52mm.html

And I would need three more rings!
No thank you.

I wish you the best!

Why do you neglect to mention that the Lee filter holder is $115, is much lighter than the matte box part of Smallrig's product, and that the hood is an option that many would forgo, using a hand or a hat instead?

Why did you quote $74.50 for an adapter ring when that price is for a wide angle ring that Bob doesn't need. The 52mm ring that he would need is $40. If Filter Dude is still selling them, the price is $25 including shipping. B&H is currently selling a Sensei 52mm adapter ring that I suspect would work for a discounted price of $8.

[darr]

Why do you neglect to mention that the Lee filter holder is $115, is much lighter than the matte box part of Smallrig's product, and that the hood is an option that many would forgo, using a hand or a hat instead?

Why did you quote $74.50 for an adapter ring when that price is for a wide angle ring that Bob doesn't need. The 52mm ring that he would need is $40. If Filter Dude is still selling them, the price is $25 including shipping. B&H is currently selling a Sensei 52mm adapter ring that I suspect would work for a discounted price of $8.

I quoted with the hood because I thought he needed a hood.

[darr]

B&H says otherwise.

My scale, which I frequently use for cooking and rely on for its accuracy, tells a different story. As for B&H, my understanding is that they depend on their suppliers and staff for information. I’m simply a user of the equipment and not involved in selling anything here.

[Kiwi7475]

Why do you neglect to mention that the Lee filter holder is $115, is much lighter than the matte box part of Smallrig's product, and that the hood is an option that many would forgo, using a hand or a hat instead?

Why did you quote $74.50 for an adapter ring when that price is for a wide angle ring that Bob doesn't need. The 52mm ring that he would need is $40. If Filter Dude is still selling them, the price is $25 including shipping. B&H is currently selling a Sensei 52mm adapter ring that I suspect would work for a discounted price of $8.

On the B&H site someone asked if the Sensei adapters are compatible with the LEE system and the response was”no”. See here for example: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119082-REG

[r.e.]

On the B&H site someone asked if the Sensei adapters are compatible with the LEE system and the response was”no”. See here for example: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119082-REG

Ha! I should have read more carefully. I didn't know that Sensei makes its own filter holder, which it calls a "100mm universal holder". Sneaky marketing, for people like me who aren't paying attention :)

[Ian David]

Why do you neglect to mention...

Why did you quote...

Why do your posts sound increasingly aggressive? Why do you sound like a Lee salesman on commission? I like the Lee filter system too, but it's probably possible to get a little too religious about it eh?

[r.e.]

Why do you sound like a Lee salesman on commission? I like the Lee filter system too, but it's probably possible to get a little too religious about it eh?

What?

I've talked about Lee because it's the holder system that I'm familiar with. I made a point of saying in my first post "I'd suggest that you also have a look at competing products by Formatt Hitech and NiSi". There's also Freewell, which has a fairly new system called K2. Bob referred to Benro. I have no idea why nobody is discussing any of these companies, but it certainly isn't my fault. Is there a system they make that you can talk about? Is there anything you can add about Lee or Smallrig? Are there any statements of fact that I made that you'd like to point out are wrong? Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?

This is the full content of a message that I sent to the original poster a few hours ago:


There are options that aren't being discussed in this thread but should be. Check out NiSi, Benro, Formatt Hitech and Freewell. They've all started offering systems in the last few years.

If you're interested in the matte box route, you could also check out Tiltall.

There's also the option of going with screw-in filters, standardising around a specific size. Myself, I use Lee but I'm also standardised on 82mm screw-in filters. I haven't said anything about that because you don't appear to be interested in screw-in filters.

[Ian David]

Is there a system they make that you can talk about? Is there anything you can add about Lee or Smallrig? Are there any statements of fact that I made that you'd like to point out are wrong? Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion?


I have always found darr to be very generous and genuine with her help and advice on this forum. Your nit-picking of her posts sounded unnecessarily aggressive and unpleasant. You're kind of still coming across that way, to be honest...
But I should watch my tone too... apologies.
Ian

[r.e.]

I have always found darr to be very generous and genuine with her help and advice on this forum. Your nit-picking of her posts sounded unnecessarily aggressive and unpleasant. You're kind of still coming across that way, to be honest...
But I should watch my tone too... apologies.
Ian

The problem isn't your tone, it's attacking someone with insinuations that are not only false, but 180° removed from reality.

[Bob Kerner]

OK, this whole thread has turned into an argument, and that wasn’t my intent. I asked a simple question and it turned into a lot of zealous advocacy for one product or another. I don’t need a matte box and I don’t need a hood. I asked a simple question about filter sizes. I’m moving on; if you want to keep arguing have at it.

[Paul Ron]

one filter or holder size, step rings for each different sized lens to fit the single size holder or filter.

problem solved!

[Kiwi7475]

Thanks. I ordered a 58mm wide angle adapter ring from him four days ago, December 24th. He's acknowledged the order and I'm one state over. I should receive the adapter in the next few days. If I don't, I guess there's a problem. He hasn't announced that he's closing. Anyway, if I have to buy from B&H, and given the higher cost of Lee's wide angle adapters over standard, it will be US$68 instead of $25 :)


Did you receive your order? I'm still waiting on my order since November...

[r.e.]

Just note that the filter dude is kind of out of business… I say kind of because he has some residual inventory on the website (very little) which he still used to ship; but as of late I still have an unfulfilled order from November… so buy at your own risk…

This morning, Filter Dude sent me an e-mail saying that my December 24th order has shipped via USPS. The e-mail doesn't contain an explanation for the delay. I guess he just wasn't able to operate for awhile.

246268

[r.e.]

This morning, Filter Dude sent me an e-mail saying that my December 24th order has shipped via USPS. The e-mail doesn't contain an explanation for the delay. I guess he just wasn't able to operate for awhile.

246268

My Filter Dude 58mm wide angle adapter arrived this morning. Looks fine. No idea what the reason was for the delay. Hopefully, Kiwi will receive his soon.

[neil poulsen]

I have a Lee system that I used on 8x10.

But since I'm selling all my 8x10 equipment, I use 77mm, MC glass filters for 4x5. Where needed, I have step up adapters. I chose 77mm, because my largest lenses is a 121mm Super Angulon with a 77mm filter thread.