HVR-A1U - Best Matte Box?

[David Ziegelheim]

I'm not clear why you need the rods. I have the Cavision 3x3 matte box with an 72 to 57 adapter on a JVC DV300. When I use a wide angle adapter (Canon), It fits around the 82mm barrel. Both use a plastic reducer.

This matte box is pretty light. The biggest problem is banging into it. I disassemble for transit.

What filters do you use? I carry a circular polarized (Tiffen has a nice one), 1/2 black diffusion (which is my most used filter...virtually never off the camera indoors), .6 ND (to complement internal NDs), 1/2 Soft (which I tend to use outside), and a 1/2 Gold diffusion (which I use much less then I thought; typically using gels (burnt amber, etc.) over the lights instead).

[Martin Mayer]

Scott, I have that A1 spacer (to allow tape change when mounted) but I find it makes the camera much more susceptible to wobbling and vibration (when it's supposed to be locked off) as the base plate of the A1 flexes.

Do you find this? Any solution? Maybe with the additional support of the rods+matte box, it's not a problem for you?

(I don't use the rods+matte box.)

[Alex Thames]

So, can anyone help me out? What makes one matte box system better than another? There's obviously a huge price range. I know some are ABS plastic, some metal. I know some hold 3 filters, some 2. Maybe some hold more? I know they hold different size filters, but what makes one system better?

[Scott Karlins]

David,

With the A1U, and a Sony Wide Angle Lens, you need rods, due to the fact that there are nothreads on the end of the Wide Angle Lens. The matte box would not be supported very well. Once you add 1 or 2 filters, and try and spin a polarizer around, the matte box would be very unstable. The rods provide a steady mount, and a great way to hold the camera as well.

Thanks, Scott K.

[Scott Karlins]

Martin,

I do not have that issue, however I am using a rod system. I assume you are mounting the camera and spacer to a tripod? If it is securly fastened to the camera and tripod or rod system, it should not wobble or vibrate.

Be sure not to over tighten the screw going into the cameras base, however.

Thanks, Scott K.

[Scott Karlins]

Alex,

Yes, there are fairly large price differences.

I believe, after seeing three different systems, tat the Cavision system is the best quality and value for the HVR-A1U.

Great fit, superb customer support, very sturdy system. And there glass is also very nice too! The filter frames are all metal, and slide in / out of the matte box very nicely.

Cavision simply makes a very high quality product.

Thanks, Scott K.

[Alex Thames]

Scott, thanks for the response, but still, I would like to know more. Why the huge price difference? After all, how intricate are matte boxes? Seems to me they just hold filters. Doesn't seem like such a big job, so why are some a few thousand, while others only a few hundred? What makes one matte box better than another to warrant such a huge price difference?

I know Cavision is good, but so are other brands that cost a lot more. Are they better? Why? Or if not better, then why the huge price difference? How in the world can something that seems so simple cost so much?

[David Ziegelheim]

Because it is a well-made but less expensive unit. The filter holders are kind of funky and don't hold the Tiffen filters that well. Think Hyundai.

On the other hand, even with expensive matte boxes, price doesn't always mean nice. And there is a very limited selection of 3x3 matte boxes. You will also find limited stocking of 3x3 filters and virtually no rentals (although that isn't an issue for most users of this camera).

The 3x3 filter itself actually looks very nice and works well. The top shade is also pretty good. After looking around I bought it (3 years ago).

[Alex Thames]

So you're saying it's the build material and fitment methods that warrant the several thousand dollar difference? Plus the fact that 3x3 filters are harder to find and have a limited inventory? Seems absurd to me. Such minor differences should only warrant a few hundred dollars difference reasonably in my view. Is there anything else that makes one matte system better than another and/or causes the huge price difference between systems?

[David Ziegelheim]

No, I'm saying most of the other matte boxes are 4x4 or 4x5.6, both a little large for this camera. Second, I'm saying it is not as nice as some of the better ones, and the thing that is tackiest is the filter holders...good filters are too thick to fit the clips well, and the clips are a little cheap and hard on the filters.

I'm also saying I've seen $500-1200 4x4 matte boxes that look like they should be sold at Woolworths...ok...K-Mart, the modern equivalent.

So after you get a the compact HD camera and the small matte box, you will find that you will probably have to wait to get them, since the dealer won't have them in stock. However, if this is your camera, you probably don't have filters high on your list of must haves. But after you have them its not an issue.

[Frank Davenport]

Can anyone think of a reason why the 3X3 Cavision setup wouldn't work on the HC1?

Thanks,

Frank Davenport

[Alex Thames]

So, I'm still getting the impression from what you wrote that the difference between systems is the size (3x3 vs. 4x4, etc.) and the way the system is put together (i.e. the Cavision 3x3 one doesn't hold the filters well and is hard on the filters, etc.).

How in the world do these simple minor things result in a price increase of a few thousand? It just doesn't make sense to me. Are the more expensive and/or better systems somehow doing a far better job? I mean, their job is simple - to hold filters, how hard is that? I'm just having a difficult time understanding why the huge price, not just the price difference between systems, but the price of even the cheapest ones.

[Jessica Gallant]

Originally Posted by Alex Thames

Question: what makes one matte box system better than another? Isn't their purpose simply to hold filters? How hard can that be - perhaps a completely naive question, but I don't understand.

In general, the price is determined by design, materials used, "form and fit", reliability, durability, ease of use, ability to add accessories, availity of accessories, etc.

Another way of looking at it would be to use an analogy of a car. If the purpose of getting you from point "A" to point "B", wouldn't a subcompact be a better choice than an SUV or a pick up truck?

Well, if it's just you then the subcompact might be a good choice. If you're going to be hauling around lumber, construction gear, taking your kids and the neighbors to soccer practice, driving across the States with your family, etc. then you should probably look into a pick up or an SUV.

I've used a wide variety of matteboxes on different cameras. I've notice many of the less expensive ones frequently have trouble with the "form and fit" factor - filters sometimes get jammed sliding in and out, it might be difficult to tighten or loosen a screw to put the mattebox on or take it off, etc.

If you're just putting in your filters at the start of the day and leaving them there, this isn't a big issue. If you're constantly swapping out filters (changing NDs to control exposure and F-stop, or using different strength diffusion filters), this starts to be a problem - suddenly the whole set is staring at you and your A.C.

Jessica

[Steve Madsen]

Alex - I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the cheaper ones don't allow you to rotate grad filters.

[Scott Karlins]

Just a note on the rotating frames... The Cavision 3x3 has 2 frame slots, and one of them does rotate 180 degrees.

Thanks, Scott K.