# Breakthrough coming out with glass ND grads!



## Zeidora (Apr 25, 2017)

Very much looking forward to this: see
https://breakthrough.photography/pages/breakthrough-photography-announces-x100-x4-gnd
The Lee buyback is a major selling point for me.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 25, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> The Lee (_edit: + SINGH-RAY_) buyback is a major selling point for me.


Quite aggressive marketing strategy. Interesting to see.


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 25, 2017)

Are those filters going to be compatible with Lee holder? While their holder looks great it doesn't seem to support CPL at all and it doesn't have compatibility with 17mm TS.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 25, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> Are those filters going to be compatible with Lee holder? While their holder looks great it doesn't seem to support CPL at all and it doesn't have compatibility with 17mm TS.



The Breakthrough rep/designer/photographer that was here on our forum a couple years ago stated that they believe *the CPL shouldn't be out in front of a stack of ND/ND Grads the way the Lee Holder does it. He stated doing that kills sharpness*. 

See prior thread here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28276.msg557913#msg557913

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 25, 2017)

*Why you should consider this deal:*

1) They are accepting scratched and _up to 15 year old gear_ for trade-in. Terms apply -- see trade-in terms here.

2) Holder looks pretty slick. It would not take much to make a slicker one than the very simple Lee 100 holder, but to give them credit, it looks like they indeed made one.

*Why you should not consider this deal:*

1) I hope you don't like setting CPL rotation independently of the ND grads. No option to do that here without using an on-lens CPL and then stacking the holder setup on top of that, which will (presumably) start vignetting earlier FL-wise and not be that much fun to do -- you'd need to juggle/futz with CPL polarization while maintaining out ND grad horizon. Strikes me as a two-handed task.

2) Ultrawide FL warning: The filters + holder aren't large enough to cover the larger FOV that ultra-UWA lenses require (say under 16mm FF).

3) Ultrawide FL warning: Usually a joint problem with U-UWA lenses, if you lack filter threads, this system (appears to) lack an outrigger solution like Wonderpana, Lee SW150, etc. 

And they make a rather nebulous claim that you can get vignetting-free performance down to 16mm (FF) with three levels installed. It's difficult (but possible) to do this with a 100mm setup, but as lenses vary in filter-ring-to-front-element distance and I'm not seeing that CPL in this setup, I am a little skeptical that they've defied physics so effectively with just a 100mm filter. They very well may have pulled this off, but I am sure some strings apply.

That said, 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 25, 2017)

Well, I chatted with the support person, and I snapped screen-caps as I went (might be slightly out of order, chat was flying in very quickly). But see below.

If I understood them correctly:

1) They are 100% sticking to their prior story I linked above: Never CPL out in front of your ND / ND grad setup as sharpness will suffer. So with their system, you put a CPL on the lens and stack everything on top of that..

2) Vignetting is not worsened by using a CPL on the lens before you stack up the adaptor ring and holder. So: extending your lens' front filter threads further out from your front element at the same diameter -- which is one of many things a CPL does -- doesn't worsen the 'stack' that could occlude your chosen FL's FOV.

3) Turning the 100mm holder will not turn the (holder's) adaptor ring threaded to the CPL, so your CPL will stay put while you position the orientation of your ND grad.

4) Despite Lee posting numerous videos of a 105 CPL in front of their setup, they apparently do not know what they are doing. (Breakthrough's words, not mine.)

5) Mechanical vignetting (of the holder in the FOV) of a 16mm FF shot will be sufficiently small that standard lens vignetting correction will defeat it in post.

Again, this is just like the thread I posted above. They are dead-set that a CPL in the front is heresy, they are not showing us that definitively, and we must trust them. : And I'm mentally calling BS on #2 above, something I could probably verify at home with 15 minutes and a with/without test of an on-lens CPL behind the stack.

This could be a dynamite product, don't get me wrong, but they need to prove the above before they get my business. Show me how it all fits together, give me the fine print on 16mm vignette-free shots with three filters in front, and show me that the sharpness improves versus a CPL out in front. _Then_ we talk about trying it out.

- A


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> *Why you should consider this deal:*
> 
> 1) They are accepting scratched and _up to 15 year old gear_ for trade-in. Terms apply -- see trade-in terms here.
> 
> ...



If enough photographers ask for 150mm we'll make those as well, doesn't seem like much demand at the moment.

"And they make a rather nebulous claim that you can get vignetting-free performance down to 16mm "

I designed the holder to have no vignetting down to 16mm, so there's no vignetting down to 16mm. 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> Are those filters going to be compatible with Lee holder? While their holder looks great it doesn't seem to support CPL at all and it doesn't have compatibility with 17mm TS.



Yes, standard 2.0mm - no problem.

CPL behind holder. If photographers want to do 105mm on front even though it kills sharpness I can add it to the holder 

Graham


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 26, 2017)

Hopefully graham and his staff have learned to give good service and be respectful of people who fork over their hard earned money.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> Hopefully graham and his staff have learned to give good service and be respectful of people who fork over their hard earned money.



seriously, you surface again here? Come on, don't kill the forum with trolling again 

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 2) Vignetting is not worsened by using a CPL on the lens before you stack up the adaptor ring and holder. So: extending your lens' front filter threads further out from your front element at the same diameter -- which is one of many things a CPL does -- doesn't worsen the 'stack' that could occlude your chosen FL's FOV.
> ...
> And I'm mentally calling BS on #2 above, something I could probably verify at home with 15 minutes and a with/without test of an on-lens CPL behind the stack.
> 
> ...give me the fine print on 16mm vignette-free shots with three filters in front...





grahamclarkphoto said:


> I designed the holder to have no vignetting down to 16mm, so there's no vignetting down to 16mm.



Not exactly 'the fine print'. How about this? I'll show you my data, and you show us yours...





The mount of a standard (F-Pro) mount B+W CPL is 7 mm thick. At f/2.8, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II has increased optical vignetting with an 8.4 mm filter stack, and with a 10 mm filter stack there is mechanical vignetting. 

So, based on my data, I see four possibilities:

1) Your stack of the adapter and holder is less than 3 mm thick before the diameter begins to widen.

2) You have magical LR correction profiles for UWA lenses that can fabricate data where mechanical vigentting blocks light from reaching the sensor.

3) You need to provide some footnotes (aka 'fine print') – to avoid vigentting, one must use a CPL of less than a certain thickness (e.g., the B+W XS-Pro CPL is 4 mm thick), and/or one must use apertures of f/8 or narrower, etc. 

4) You have data demonstrating a lack of vignetting with a standard CPL stacked behind your adapter/holder.

If it's #1, please let us know. If it's #2, please share your magical LR profiles. If it's #3, please update your website and your customer service information accordingly. If it's #4, please share your data.

Of course, there's also a 5th possibility...that you're wrong and your claim is bogus. Given that Lee Filters (who've been making filters for >40 years) 'has no idea what they're doing', and B+W (who've been making filters for ~70 years) lie about their transmission curves, I highly doubt you'll admit to being wrong, even if that's exactly the case here.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully graham and his staff have learned to give good service and be respectful of people who fork over their hard earned money.
> ...



To be fair, you didn't exactly comport yourself all that well in previous threads. And now, accusing someone of trolling right out of the box and handing out a "thumbs down" doesn't bode well for this thread. I'm willing to give you a second chance, but you are not off to a good start.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 26, 2017)

Re vignetting, there are two uses of the word:
- gradual darkening of the corners, aka light fall off. Not associated with mechanical blocking, but with theta fourth power function [if memory serves me well]. Well-known to be dependent upon f-stop. There is nothing revolutionary about it.
- hard edge due to mechanical obstruction of light path; some gradation, but due to obstruction being out of focus. What Neuro calls MV.

I think Graham refers to the latter hard-mechanical type, so no need to get hyper pedantic on it.

There are other muddled words such as "resolution" for MP count of sensor (in error IMHO) and ability to separate fine detail by lenses, what MTF shows. In context, usually we can figure out what is meant. 

Re unproven claims, certainly true. However, the neutral tone of their ND solid filters are by now well established. Much better than that of companies having been in business for much longer. So by Bayesian inference, I buy quite a bit of their claims. Re vignetting at 16 or 17 mm, I don't sweat that too much. Re using their filter on a TSE17, I'll use the Lee adapter and put a glass filter in, and accept that with movements there will be some hard vignetting. I can crop images! Mix and match as always in photography.

I am very excited about more scratch resistant ND grads. I am reasonably sure that they will be more color neutral than the Lees, so that is enough for me to jump on it. Too bad I can't find my receipts for my Lee ND sets. Oh well.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly 'the fine print'. How about this? I'll show you my data, and you show us yours...



Very much appreciating someone bringing data to a 'trust me' fight. Thank you, Neuro. That somewhat implies why it's best to 'get wide' immediately in front of the lens front element to bring the entire holder/filter setup as close as possible to the lens front element... _which is exactly what Lee does._ As I said before (and as Neuro just showed), adding a CPL at the base of the system is effectively a spacer which hurts your vignetting performance.

Graham, the hangup on vignetting I have is the following: you claim to accomplish more than a Lee 100mm setup can (3 filters @ 16mm without vignetting -- all sitting on top of a CPL), yet the vignetting/FOV mechanics work the same as Lee as your filters are basically the same size. So please explain how you've pulled this off. Something has to be different to allow this claim to happen. Did you:

1) Make your filters thinner than Lee's? 
2) Make your holder stack put filters closer to together than Lee's?
3) Make your filters wider than Lee to push the holding hardware further to the periphery of the FOV?
4) Does your claim only apply to recently designed UWA lenses with the filter-ring located as closely to the front lens element as possible, like the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS? (Not all lenses are like this!)
5) Does your claim require small amounts of corner cloning above/beyond the basic lens vignetting correction?

I'd honestly be interested in your system if you could just substantiate your claims. A picture with Lee on one side and your system on the other would do wonders towards that end. 

- A


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 2) Vignetting is not worsened by using a CPL on the lens before you stack up the adaptor ring and holder. So: extending your lens' front filter threads further out from your front element at the same diameter -- which is one of many things a CPL does -- doesn't worsen the 'stack' that could occlude your chosen FL's FOV.



Ok, what I'll do is redesign the holder setup to have zero vignetting at 16mm on FF setup with a standard slim CPL dimensions.

I actually accidentally solved this problem myself, where I machined 82mm on one of the adapter ring prototypes instead of 77mm, which is what I use personally on my 16-35 F4 IS / A7R2/5Ds R setup. I used one of my X4 Step-Up Rings (http://amzn.to/2q48EzD), which have traction machined into the brass material, and that provided a firm grip base with which to rotate the CPL smoothly and independently of the holder.

Left hand on CPL rotation, right hand adjusting horizon line of holder, or adjusting the GNDs up/down. These things can be done simultaneously and easily.

This way you just use your existing CPL, no need for making money on yet another accessory that's equipment specific, right? 

A solidly built CPL wold be able to handle this kind of workload, cheaper ones might fall apart, which is a downside to this approach. (None of ours would.)


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

Attached is image of X4 Step-Up Ring used in conjunction with adapter ring, which I accidentally had to do because I machined the prototype for 82 instead of 77.

This setup makes it easy to rotate CPL with left hand, while right hand adjusts holder/GND, after composition has been completed. 

Graham


----------



## cayenne (Apr 26, 2017)

When does the kickstarter for this system begin? I can't find anything about it on KS....


Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 26, 2017)

Yes seriously Graham, you arrogant, rude ass.

Don't come to our forum pimping your product and expect not to be accountable for your actions. 

I am on the forum with my FRIENDS, not trying to sell anything to them. You come trying to take our money. They deserve to know how you do business.

Obviously, you still treat people poorly, and I am glad to see your post to prove it.

Why don't you get the hell off of OUR forum and jut take out an ad somewhere- else.

If you had the best (and I doubt it) filters, I wouldn't give you a cent, and I am happy to tell everyone.

So yes, seriously. And I am not a troll just because you can't handle the truth.

Sek



unfocused said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > scottkinfw said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> Yes seriously Graham, you arrogant, rude ass.
> 
> Don't come to our forum pimping your product and expect not to be accountable for your actions.
> 
> ...



Friend or foe we should welcome all, it is a privately owned public forum.

Enlighten us about people who err with reason logic and proof, just like the vignetting proof posted earlier. Everybody can see that for themselves...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Friend or foe we should welcome all, it is a privately owned public forum.
> 
> Enlighten us about people who err with reason logic and proof, just like the vignetting proof posted earlier. Everybody can see that for themselves...



The sad thing is, Breakthrough might actually have some decent products but Graham's flippant 'because I designed it right and you should trust me and that should be enough for you' attitude is doing them no favors.

I'm legitimately intrigued with the product because Lee:


Charges weapons-grade plutonium prices for adaptor rings, resin filters, etc.
Their 10 stop ND has a comically large blue shift
There is nothing slick/fast/clever with their holder design -- it works, but Lee hasn't had to innovate due to lack of serious competition

But Lee does give me piece of mind and a setup that does not let me down. They have a decent manual that explains how everything fits together so you can make informed buying decisions. 

*So Graham, throw us a bone and back up what you say.* _Explain how it works _so we might consider giving you our money. Consider the attached picture and my vignetting comments as one area to shed some light on.

Compared to the (commonly used) Lee WA adaptor ring, how does your holder allow for three slots and no vignetting at 16mm? Do you bring filters even closer to the front element than Lee does? Are your filters a bit wider than the standard 100mm and you just haven't told us yet? Do you stack them together tighter than Lee does?

I ask because I'd love three slots + CPL at 16mm to be vignette free, but it seems far fetched because there's only so much you can do to stack things together up tight against the lens with only 100mm filters. Please explain how you pulled that off _and I might actually buy your stuff._

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2017)

I agree, there are questions to be answered, if the person can't answer them then we can all draw our own conclusions. That is the idea of a forum, to listen to differing points of view and form an opinion based on the ideas and 'proof' put forward.

So far I put more faith in an image showing vignetting than somebody saying _'mine doesn't, trust me'_. But that doesn't mean he is wrong, chasing him off helps nobody and doesn't make him more inclined to engage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Ok, what I'll do is *redesign* the holder setup to have zero vignetting at 16mm on FF setup with a standard slim CPL dimensions.



So, the filter as originally designed *won't* perform as you stated. You're going to redesign it, and even then you'll need the fine print of 'with a slim CPL'. And will there be any data to back up your revised claim? 

Breakthrough's reply to ahsanford before your mention of a redesign stated that stacking a CPL behind the adapter/holder would result in '0% vignetting'. A blatant lie, followed immediately by the statement, "_Trust me._" Given your attitude and your rude and accusatory posts (both toward customers and competitors), I'd say your credibility is equal to your promised amount of vignetting.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree, there are questions to be answered, if the person can't answer them then we can all draw our own conclusions. That is the idea of a forum, to listen to differing points of view and form an opinion based on the ideas and 'proof' put forward.
> 
> So far I put more faith in an image showing vignetting than somebody saying _'mine doesn't, trust me'_. But that doesn't mean he is wrong, chasing him off helps nobody and doesn't make him more inclined to engage.



I don't want to chase him off at all -- I want him to either show us how he did it or update his marketing materials to reflect the actual performance of his product.

Who knows? He may have a super slick solution to the problem and he has truly one-upped Lee. But these systems are nontrivial investments and I don't want to see a fellow CR forum person buy one under claim X and only see performance Y. 

I'm only harping on vignetting because it is the overwhelming #1 pain point about these systems, and no 100mm system on the planet has pulled this (3 slots + CPL) off to my knowledge. Some folks sink close to a $1000 into these systems and end up needing to buy an even wider system after all is said and done because the system they bought leaves hard blacked out corners.


Cokin L: "If used with a lens under 28mm on a full frame, you may need to remove one or two slots from the filter-holder to prevent vignetting, or to upgrade to a bigger system."


Lee -- could not be more clear: see attached. Some lenses (remember they are a wildcard here with their filter ring placement) actually outperform this chart, but it's about right and it's a fair warning to those with unrealistic expectations.


Formatt-Hitech: Not stated in specifics on the website/PDF that I could find (looks just like Lee), and a similar WA adaptor is offered. I presume it's similar to the Lee but do not know.


Breakthrough: '3 slots @ 16mm FF = 0 vignetting. Trust me, you're good' :

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I don't want to chase him off at all -- I want him to either show us how he did it or update his marketing materials to reflect the actual performance of his product.



Yes, that was my point!

But if he is met with insults and aggression even the best of us would think twice about engaging. Keep the comments to particular technical issues rather than personal digs and it all goes so much easier. If you have a personal grip with somebody that is germane then give links and supporting quotes so people who are not aware of previous incidents can make up their own mind.

People have very different opinions of me here, some think I am good and others hate me with a passion, I am blunt and don't respect authority or experience if I feel it is misplaced. I can and do back up what I post with illustrative images to prove my points when I make them, so love me or hate me I can and do support my comments.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> Yes seriously Graham, you arrogant, rude ass.



I'm just here to talk to real world photographers about getting design and manufacturing input on new equipment, if you really insist on trolling email me directly to save everyone else the hassle 

[email protected]


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The sad thing is, Breakthrough might actually have some decent products but Graham's flippant 'because I designed it right and you should trust me and that should be enough for you' attitude is doing them no favors.



Last night I redesigned the X100 to have no vignetting even with a standard slim frame CPL, so what's the primary issue?

And can you stop talking about money and instead just focus on what we're talking about?

I'm not concerned with making money, just designing good stuff 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

*"I ask because I'd love three slots + CPL at 16mm to be vignette free, but it seems far fetched because there's only so much you can do to stack things together up tight against the lens with only 100mm filters. Please explain how you pulled that off and I might actually buy your stuff."*


It seemed far fetched but I solved it

I already designed X4 CPL without vignetting, then X100 holder with 3 levels, and now the adapter ring setup, so we're all good on this one.

and i added traction on the adapter ring, similar to traction frame design on X4 ND

vignetting problem with CPL solved, what's the next issue?

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, the filter as originally designed *won't* perform as you stated. You're going to redesign it, and even then you'll need the fine print of 'with a slim CPL'. And will there be any data to back up your revised claim?



X100 holder has no vignetting even with 3 levels installed, this is a big deal as most holders do have vignetting with 3 levels installed 

with a CPL there might be a little, but with profile corrections enabled it's gone, yes

so without profile corrections there would be some, that's how that works 

but now i've figured out how to eliminate it even with CPL, so we're all set here. 

moving onto next issue

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm only harping on vignetting because it is the overwhelming #1 pain point about these systems, and no 100mm system on the planet has pulled this (3 slots + CPL) off to my knowledge. Some folks sink close to a $1000 into these systems and end up needing to buy an even wider system after all is said and done because the system they bought leaves hard blacked out corners.



We have a 300 day return / exchange policy, so there's no risk for any of you, only me. 

So you guys don't have to worry at all about the risk if it actually works or not, only I do.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

Sorry to leave this conversation early, but I have lots of work ahead of me with launching these 3 new products, and we're moving our warehouse location at the same time.

I've decided to take more 3 new products we've been working on and add them to the X4 GND, X4 ND Square and X100 launch, so have to run to update everything to include these new products.

One of the three is a new category of filters, very excited to launch it.

If any of you guys have any questions or want to continue this conversation just send me an email: [email protected]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> but now i've figured out how to eliminate it even with CPL, so we're all set here.
> 
> moving onto next issue



Is the next issue actually supporting what you say with data?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing is, Breakthrough might actually have some decent products but Graham's flippant 'because I designed it right and you should trust me and that should be enough for you' attitude is doing them no favors.
> ...



I didn't have a dog in this hunt until now. Could I have a free unit to review? Well, not exactly free. I'll trade for product and write an honest review.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > but now i've figured out how to eliminate it even with CPL, so we're all set here.
> ...



Which claim have I ever made which hasn't held up?

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Sure, send me an email: [email protected]

Graham


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



For starters, the one where you (or a representative of yours, but given the tone in the chat stream, probably you) stated '0% vignetting' with a CPL, 'trust me', before you mentioned the redesign that you needed to (allegedly) make that statement true. Going back, your claim that B+W has posted false transmission curves, or has sold filters that don't match their published transmission curves. That's two just off the top of my head.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 26, 2017)

And with that, I've had enough trolling, thanks for keeping the conversation productive 

For anyone who wants to continue the conversation on X100 holder or anything else feel free to email me: [email protected]

Graham


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 26, 2017)

assume this doesn't work with the sigma 20mm 1.4 art?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> And with that, I've had enough trolling, thanks for keeping the conversation productive



I see. You ask the question, but you can't handle the truthful response, so you're going to take your marbles and run home. How very mature of you. 

No doubt you'll be back here to troll some more, when you are ready for your next kickstarter campaign launch…


----------



## Pookie (Apr 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > And with that, I've had enough trolling, thanks for keeping the conversation productive
> ...



This company is pretty shady and a number of people here have had more than a few complaints about their gear. I've personally seen how they treat paying customers, I live here in the Bay Area so I like to buy local and after 3 separate "incidents" with filter quality I wouldn't spend a plug nickel with this group. 

graham is just the most perfect spokesman for this company, what you see here is just tip.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 26, 2017)

snappy604 said:


> assume this doesn't work with the sigma 20mm 1.4 art?



Correct. You need lens filter threads for most standard systems like this.

As I'm guessing you probably have gathered, lenses with...


No filter threads 
Non-removable/integral lens hoods
Focal lengths under 16mm FF (ballpark, it varies)

...generally require (a) larger filters than 100mm and (b) some sort of collet/outrigger setup that works off of the outer barrel (or integral lens hood) of the lens.

These are usually sold in two pieces -- generic stuff for oversize filters and specific mounting hardware for specific lenses. 

Here's specific you can do for that Sigma:

Wonderpana FreeArc: Main System / Lens Specific Stuff
(Note there is the original setup and the FreeArc setup and I'm not that versant with it. I believe Neuro and some others use it and could speak to that.)

Lee: Use the SW150 Mk II setup, all the details you need are here

There are other larger options out there but compatibility with that specific Sigma might requiring doing some phone calls / e-mails.

- A


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > assume this doesn't work with the sigma 20mm 1.4 art?
> ...



thanks for the info,

Bought the 20mm 1.4 art for band pics in low light, tight situations with a crop camera. I have had nice results with the 35mm but it's too zoomed for crop camera (hope full frame when I can save $). This is my first lens without filter threads, for my main use not as important.

However I have been wanting to get into ND filters and landscape a bit and the lens is really quite nice for that. This this caught my eye as a possible platform. Most casual reading of ND Filters has left me a bit confused as for what level to use, what adapters, what etc. Been burned by cheap stuff, so have been wanting to see what people here use (sorry, I'm likely wandering off topic). Sounds like there are adapters from amazon that would work with the specific lens (nisi and orca?) .. would the ND filter talked about here work with that or maybe best to look at other solutions?

- edit I see that you did put some links that have more info, thanks!


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

snappy604 said:


> Bought the 20mm 1.4 art for band pics in low light, tight situations with a crop camera. I have had nice results with the 35mm but it's too zoomed for crop camera (hope full frame when I can save $). This is my first lens without filter threads, for my main use not as important.
> 
> However I have been wanting to get into ND filters and landscape a bit and the lens is really quite nice for that. This this caught my eye as a possible platform. Most casual reading of ND Filters has left me a bit confused as for what level to use, what adapters, what etc. Been burned by cheap stuff, so have been wanting to see what people here use (sorry, I'm likely wandering off topic). Sounds like there are adapters from amazon that would work with the specific lens (nisi and orca?) .. would the ND filter talked about here work with that or maybe best to look at other solutions?
> 
> - edit I see that you did put some links that have more info, thanks!



Sadly, you've got a lens that warrants an ultra-ultrawide solution (just to mount something on that monster) but _on crop_, vignetting is effectively a non-issue for you (32mm FF equivalent). That kind of stinks as I believe you'll be forced to buy the larger 150mm-ish filters but your field of view doesn't really require them. So you'd be paying more than you need to. That said, you may own that lens longer than you own your camera, so you'll be future-proofed for a future move to full-frame someday. 

No idea on NiSi or Orca. Lee is the original/pricey name in town, and of late Tiffen, Cokin and Formatt-Hitech have offered stronger offerings that work similarly. Wonderpana is supposed to be good as well, but I think they are more specialized in huge filter setups for big ultrawides. 

Also, Kickstarter ideas from companies like Breakthrough (see first post on this thread) and Wine Country Camera have surfaced as the 'clever nonconformists' sort of disruptive innovators, and I'd love to see more marketing materials, reviews etc. from those.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > Bought the 20mm 1.4 art for band pics in low light, tight situations with a crop camera. I have had nice results with the 35mm but it's too zoomed for crop camera (hope full frame when I can save $). This is my first lens without filter threads, for my main use not as important.
> ...


I'm following this as I am about to pull the trigger on the 20 ART, and when the 6D2 comes out, one of those as well. I agree that the lens is overkill for a crop camera, but then again, it is quite the lens!


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 27, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > The Lee (_edit: + SINGH-RAY_) buyback is a major selling point for me.
> ...



It isn't, due to the small letters: "With the launch of the X100 Filter System, Breakthrough Photography is also starting a new buyback program where they will buy any Singh-Ray or Lee GND filter *purchased within the last 15 years from an approved retailer*, and provide the photographer with 100% of the value paid on the GNDs in the form of a gift card, which never expires. *Valid until June 1st, 2017*."

It's a five weeks deal, which leaves precious little time to check if those new filters are as good as promised, and is good only if the customer kept the receipts to prove the filter was bought from a short list of sellers (B&H Adorama, Samy's, Creve Coeur Camera, Hunt's Photo & Video, Camera West or Amazon, Singh-Ray or Lee).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Zeidora said:
> ...



I actually qualify as receipts are fairly easy to obtain from my order history at B&H, Amazon, etc. I could totally do this. And 3 slots + CPL and no vignetting at 16mm with 100mm filters is a product I'd seriously look at if it could be substantiated.

But I'm sure as hell not going to opt in and replace all my gear on the promise of 'trust me'. I'll wait for reviews and flip my gear independently of this deal if these bonkers claims turn out to be true and this passes muster as a solid product.

- A


----------



## cayenne (Apr 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > Bought the 20mm 1.4 art for band pics in low light, tight situations with a crop camera. I have had nice results with the 35mm but it's too zoomed for crop camera (hope full frame when I can save $). This is my first lens without filter threads, for my main use not as important.
> ...



WoW!!

That Wine Country Camera filter system looks interesting.....
What are ya'lls thoughts on that? It seems to have a built in polarizer...would that solve some/many of the problems ya'll see with Lee and the Breakthrough systems?


C


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

cayenne said:


> WoW!!
> 
> That Wine Country Camera filter system looks interesting.....
> What are ya'lls thoughts on that? It seems to have a built in polarizer...would that solve some/many of the problems ya'll see with Lee and the Breakthrough systems?
> ...



Not sure. Depends on the problem you are talking about. 

Lee: The CPL sits out in front of the stack of ND/ND grads and the biggest problem -- more a reality in all these systems -- is vignetting. That CPL 'eats' perhaps 4mm of FL, i.e I get vignette free shots with two slots down to 16mm without the CPL in place, but it will vignette all the way up to 20mm if I put the CPL in place*. Secondarily, the Lee sits up on a kluge-y little 105mm ring (see below) that could allow light leaks between the that ring and the slotted filters -- that hasn't been a problem for me, but I suppose it's an area for improvement. Graham (from Breakthrough, the person earlier on this thread) has also alleged that a CPL out in front hurts your image sharpness on high res sensors, but I've never seen corroborated by others.

_*You can get those 4mm back if you buy a rare and very expensive CPL that is a 105mm thread in the back but a 120mm diameter in the front; it's a 'stepped' CPL that costs something batsh-- crazy like $500 or so. So if you are a nut about having your cake and eating it, too, this is an option._

Breakthrough / Wine Country: Their stack is step-up adaptor ring to 100mm, 100mm CPL, and then the holder system. That takes the CPL out of the firing line for vignetting and eliminates it as a source of light leaks, _but it pushes the ND/ND Grad slots further away from the front element of the camera_, so the slot in filters/holder are undoubtedly the limiting factor for vignetting. Further, those 'vaults' accept the standard 100x100x2 or 100x150x2 filters and _the vaults themselves add thickness_, so I would be surprised if this Wine Country rig did any better than Lee in stacking them all together into a thinner package -- also note that they say nothing about how wide a FL before vignetting happens. The apparatus looks slick but comically over-engineered, expensive, and piece-y.

So all of these systems appear to do the job, it's just a question of which prioritizes the thing you care about. If you love fancy tech and really hate light leaks, the WC seems an interesting option. If you want something simple and a known performer w.r.t. vignetting, go Lee. 

- A


----------



## LesC (Apr 27, 2017)

The WCC system looks really nice but not cheap if you need to buy a new polariser too. Good that the 'vaults' take Lee filters too but I wonder if they take a big stopper too due the the felt gasket?

I'm not sure if it's perhaps a little over- engineered but nicer than the Lee holder. I like my Lee filters but the holder really is pretty cheap & not that well made.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

LesC said:


> The WCC system looks really nice but not cheap if you need to buy a new polariser too. Good that the 'vaults' take Lee filters too but I wonder if they take a big stopper too due the the felt gasket?
> 
> I'm not sure if it's perhaps a little over- engineered but nicer than the Lee holder. I like my Lee filters but the holder really is pretty cheap & not that well made.



It's all about the vignetting for me. WCC is claiming (on their FAQ) that they generally support around 17mm FF (as lenses do vary), but there's a pretty thick CPL in place and a three slot holder that you cannot disassemble. From the two reviews I've read (both very positive) -- one simply parroted the 17mm company vignetting statement and did not check it, and the other only tested it on a 24-70 and the word 'vignetting' is nowhere to be found in the review. :

But yes, the Lee holder is super budget. This WCC (and some aluminum nicer Lee knockoffs I've seen) seem to be aimed at the 'why am I putting nice $200+ filters into a cheap holder?' crowd. 

- A


----------



## LesC (Apr 27, 2017)

Not that clear how the WCC holder fits on to the adaptor or rather stays on it? If it's just the brass screw holding it I presume you can't rotate the holder...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

LesC said:


> Not that clear how the WCC holder fits on to the adaptor or rather stays on it? If it's just the brass screw holding it I presume you can't rotate the holder...



Oh, it rotates:
https://youtu.be/EEdm5wPYGUI?t=15m27s

You _have_ to be able to rotate the holder, that's sort of a ground floor expectation of these setups. 

I see little fault in their design other than the whole over-engineering of it all (the buttons, locks, coin keys, etc.), and what the vignetting looks like between 16-20mm (stated but not demonstrated).

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I see little fault in their design other than the whole over-engineering of it all...



But dude, it has groovy wooden handles and knobs that harken back to my parents' sweet ride!







Man, I miss cranking the tunes on the 8-track! 

;D


----------



## LesC (Apr 27, 2017)

I used their 'contact us' facility to ask about holder rotation & got a prompt reply: "The knob holds the ring, you can loosen it and rotate it to any degree"

However I'm still not certain how/if the holder stays on the adaptor if the knob is not tightened or if you have to hold the holder in place until you tighten the knob...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 27, 2017)

LesC said:


> I used their 'contact us' facility to ask about holder rotation & got a prompt reply: "The knob holds the ring, you can loosen it and rotate it to any degree"
> 
> However I'm still not certain how/if the holder stays on the adaptor if the knob is not tightened or if you have to hold the holder in place until you tighten the knob...



Read reviews, see YouTube unboxings, etc. There seem to be a number of redundancies to lock things down once you have the way you want it. I'd be really surprised if one forgotten screw turn leads to a dropped holder full of glass, but I've never used the system.

- A


----------



## LesC (Apr 28, 2017)

So I asked one of the guys who did a Youtube review & he confirmed that when you release the screw, nothing holds the filter to the adaptor - you have to hold the holder whilst rotating it & then tighten the screw to secure it again.

I also find it odd that there is no way to secure the filter vault nearest to the lens like you can with the other two slots.

These seem two weaknesses in a system that is arguably over-engineered in all other areas. Think for now I'll (reluctantly) be sticking with the Lee holder.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 4, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > Are those filters going to be compatible with Lee holder? While their holder looks great it doesn't seem to support CPL at all and it doesn't have compatibility with 17mm TS.
> ...



Please provide proof of this statement. Ive tested this after your claims and had a renown optical designer in Switzerland check it also. In both cases we found no difference. We used various testing methods (CIPA high resolution chart on even field lighting sphere shot using Canon 5DSr, projection, collimation). Optical quality of materials and number of filters stacked does affect image quality, placement no. Please also keep in mind in Cinematography polarisers are used at the rear because they don't attach to the lens and we use hoods for the fitment of mattes so physically we cannot place them there, its not an optical reason.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Vignetting is not worsened by using a CPL on the lens before you stack up the adaptor ring and holder. So: extending your lens' front filter threads further out from your front element at the same diameter -- which is one of many things a CPL does -- doesn't worsen the 'stack' that could occlude your chosen FL's FOV.
> ...



To add to this a CPL generally only affectively works down to 22-24mm on FF beyond that it will start to show that inverted bell shape in blue skies progressively getting worse down to 16mm its purely down to the field of view.


----------



## ahsanford (May 4, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> To add to this a CPL generally only affectively works down to 22-24mm on FF beyond that it will start to show that inverted bell shape in blue skies progressively getting worse down to 16mm its purely down to the field of view.



Oh I think it's even a higher FL than that. You can see CPL 'pseudo-vignetting' (i.e. uneven polarizing effect due to the field of view) even on a 28 or 35 prime FF. It's not as prominent/noticeable as with (say) a 16mm shot, but it's there.

But people who shoot landcapes with $2000 lenses and $500-1000 of filters in front of that lens on $3500 cameras know that already *yet they still want a CPL for UWA work* -- just for another reason. They want it to tame reflections in windows, water/waterfalls, etc. And craftier folks yet will still go after traditional CPL color pop / sky darkening, but the sky in frame is carefully managed (by framing, foliage, etc.) to not show that uneven darkening. 

So CPLs do something you can't do in post and it can help compositions of any FL.

I see a CPL on my 16-35 f/4L IS as an audible I call on when it's needed. I don't use it all the time. So I prefer it on the outside so I can easily add/remove it. So, yeah, I prefer my Lee setup that way. It's not perfect, and using the CPL on that setup turns my 16-35 into a 20-35 :, but it's a lot nicer than having to tear down the holder and remount it without a CPL in place, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (May 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> 
> I see a CPL on my 16-35 f/4L IS as an audible I call on when it's needed. I don't use it all the time. So I prefer it on the outside so I can easily add/remove it. So, yeah, I prefer my Lee setup that way. It's not perfect, and using the CPL on that setup turns my 16-35 into a 20-35 :, but it's a lot nicer than having to tear down the holder and remount it without a CPL in place, IMHO.
> 
> - A



It might be a reason where the Breakthrough system has an advantage. It is selling CPLs that have the ND effect in them, and that potentially saves a slot. The CPL is one of the more expensive layers and minimizing its size is cost effective.

Personally, I've considered a 100mm system in the past but color cast and resin NDs have been concerns. I bought and tried a B+W 10 stop filter and there was a significant color shift, which had stopped me from buying other high density filters.

I do not have a 100mm system, so for me I'd have to buy the step up ring and filter holders but the prices for those are reasonable. But for others that are already invested in other systems, then the cost to try it is lower -- just a single grad/ND sheet. Or just wait for the reviews to arrive.

The vignetting issue is lens dependent. Neuro's data is for the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and I thought I read either here or the kickstarter site that Graham claimed no vignetting for the 16-35 f/4 IS. The 16-35 f/2.8 II has 82mm filter threads but the 16-35 f/4 IS has 77mm filter threads. Perhaps that is the reason for the claim of no vignetting. Of course the only lenses that I care about are the ones I own... ;D


----------



## ahsanford (May 4, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> It might be a reason where the Breakthrough system has an advantage. It is selling CPLs that have the ND effect in them, and that potentially saves a slot. The CPL is one of the more expensive layers and minimizing its size is cost effective.



...until you have to buy a 'Dark CPL' for every level of darkening you want. :

_But if you can overcome that caveat_, the 'saving a slot' idea is a neat way to thin your stack and fight vignetting. 



Random Orbits said:


> The vignetting issue is lens dependent.



Yes it is -- it's more than just FL + sensor size. I believe the key variable is how close the lens's filter ring is to the front element. The 16-35 f/4L IS does this about as good as you can, and that tested very well for me on my Lee 2 slot + CPL setup: 16mm clean shot without the CPL in place, 20mm with the CPL in place.

Others recognize this issue and rather than give 'kinda/sorta vignetting might happen' guidance, they are proactively mapping it out. Wine Country Camera is apparently going to build a database of how their holder works on a various lenses.

- A


----------



## Nicolai.b (May 4, 2017)

The CPL solution NISI has on their 100mm system works perfect...


----------



## Nicolai.b (May 4, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## Random Orbits (May 5, 2017)

Nicolai.b said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I've considered a 100mm system in the past but color cast and resin NDs have been concerns.
> ...



Thanks for the tip! I'll look into it.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It might be a reason where the Breakthrough system has an advantage. It is selling CPLs that have the ND effect in them, and that potentially saves a slot. The CPL is one of the more expensive layers and minimizing its size is cost effective.
> ...



Well, they only sell 3, 6 and 10 stops for each size, lol. I'm most interested in the 3-stop, which will help shooting fast primes in strong light, especially at beaches and lakes.

As far as vignetting goes, I'm not too concerned if I can't get down to 16mm as long as it's not any worse than NiSi, Lee or any other 100mm system.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2017)

90% of all prescription glasses globally are made using the same resin that resin filters are made out of, the other 10% still use glass because of Abbe values / and or people desire to stay with glass. Multi coating on both glass and resin helps prevent against scratching as in Breakthrough claims toughened glass is supposed to do. It WILL NOT eliminate scratching. Toughened glass is quite often not totally flat as indeed nor is float glass which means it should be optically ground to be flat which significantly increases cost. Resin filters are heated to allow the dye to penetrate the material locking it in when it cools. They are then flattened between steel press plates whilst still warm to make sure they are optically flat. 

Ive resin filters Ive owned for 15 years, a couple have slight surface scratches in the shooting area but it doesn't photograph (even pixel peeping you cannot see them), Ive a number of glass skylight filters screwed into the front filter thread which I remove when using a filter system some have quite bad scratches but rarely ever photograph. Whats my point? the perception of resin verses glass is often our perception but its rarely a technical issue with the added bonus resin doesn't usually brake if you drop it but glass invariably does. 

Beyond that without proper testing equipment you can never be sure what ND is neutral or not and most colour shifts can be corrected by moving the white balance. What you cannot change is the clarity / abbe value these matter when your stacking filters and in this respect there is really no difference between glass or resin for the purpose of camera filters if you using the highest quality product available which makes those manufacturers more expensive than the cheaper brands using derivatives closer to the original CR39.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2017)

I note that Graham has still not provided proof of his claim that you should put your CPL on the lens first and not on the front of the filter holder to get maximum sharpness.


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I note that Graham has still not provided proof of his claim that you should put your CPL on the lens first and not on the front of the filter holder to get maximum sharpness.



Or CPL + 3 filter slots = no vignetting at 16mm FF. And that's so easy to show -- take a shot at 16mm and post the RAW file. Done.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I note that Graham has still not provided proof of his claim that you should put your CPL on the lens first and not on the front of the filter holder to get maximum sharpness.



Or B+W is lying about their CPL transmission curve data, or producing filters that don't meet their own specifications. 




ahsanford said:


> Or CPL + 3 filter slots = no vignetting at 16mm FF. And that's so easy to show -- take a shot at 16mm and post the RAW file. Done.



That one is actually not quite so easy. He already admitted that he needed to redesign the filter holder to deliver the performance he had previously claimed, _post hoc_. Most likely, the redesign was just an electronic/CAD effort, meaning he would actually need to build a prototype in order to take a shot at 16mm and deliver a RAW file substantiating his claim. 

Or we could just trust him… : : : : :


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Or CPL + 3 filter slots = no vignetting at 16mm FF. And that's so easy to show -- take a shot at 16mm and post the RAW file. Done.
> ...



Or the slot-in filters are...

Thinner than 2mm
Have vapor thin separators between them
Secretly 105-110 mm wide ;D

...but that's just for the _holder_ to not be in the field of view! 

Simply starting with a same diameter CPL on the lens and putting a holder ring _on that_ may create a 'nearer to lens' vignetting problem. See pic from the kickstarter (_*sans CPL*_, btw, anyone catch that? :), which would mean that beyond your lens's native filter ring height, you would *also* put a CPL + an adaptor ring for the holder on there before you ever 'get wide' for the holder and filters.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but a lot is stacked against them here. And explanation of their solution and some proof of their claim would be appreciated.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 21, 2017)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > grahamclarkphoto said:
> ...



Well, contacted Graham. Said he didn't have the product available. Have heard nothing since. Don't expect to either. B+W can have my money, along with Lee.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2017)




----------

