Aurora Aperture introduces a revolutionary filter system for mirrorless mount adapters

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,587
313
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Irvine, California, July 15th, 2019 – Aurora Aperture Inc. today has introduced a revolutionary filter system, the Aurora Aperture Adapter Mount Format (AMF) filter for mirrorless mount adapters.
The AMF filters drop into mirrorless camera mount adapters such as the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, the Nikon FTZ, the Sigma MC-11 for Sony E, and the Sigma MC-21 for the L mount.
“In 2017 we introduced a rear mount filter system for the Canon EF 11-24mm F4L USM: The Aurora CR format, an industry-first rear mount glass filter,” said Jeff Chen, founder and CEO of Aurora Aperture Inc. “The Aurora Aperture CR format filters solves the problem of needing a huge filter adapter and massive filters for lenses that have protruding front elements. Due to the recent pivot of mirrorless camera development and releases from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, and others: we’ve invented the Adapter Mount Format for the mirrorless mount adapters which enables mirrorless camera users to use a single set of...
Continue reading...
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,968
501
Always interesting to see these KS projects. Thoughts below, please straighten me out if I've missed something.

Pro:
  • Addresses mechanical vignetting (i.e. filter hardware in the FOV) in UWA shooting -- no doubt, that's a win
  • ND your lenses that lack front filter rings without the need of large/expensive outrigger solutions
  • ND your lenses without needing various diameters of filters for your various lenses*
  • No light leaks when compared to 4x4 NDs on outriggers
  • Smaller filters (than front element filters) = cheaper filters
  • Presumably much longer filter life as these things won't get scratched up like external filters will
* Strikes me as a niche solution for folks who are principally adapting glass + shooting ultra-wide. And as a niche solution, it isn't going to replace your normal bag of front element filter solutions.

Con:
  • Doesn't work with native mirrorless lenses like your front element filters will. This is for adapted lenses only.
  • No CPL in the set, nor would one be possible with that rectangular box mount feature
  • Need to dismount / expose your internals to the elements to change these filters out.
  • I think you are highly likely to smudge the filter in the process of putting it in. Surprised they don't have a little peripheral pusher tool to seat these.
  • ND grad cannot be independently rotated/lifted/dropped relative to the frame
  • No front filter means that some lenses won't be considered sealed (i.e. naked front filter threads become a path for ingress)
  • No front filter means no protection of the lens front element (somewhat a table stakes reality of landscape filter holders, but this would be a takeaway for general shooters who leave filter on the front just for sealing)
  • The EF-EOS R adaptor was not designed for this -- looks like a ball-bearing will rub on the frame window. Third party mechanical bits rubbing/fretting/wearing = some small risk of debris to your rear element, shutter, etc. This is a greater concern than (say) a third party drop-in behind your 11-24L as it is presumed that a more comprehensive system like this will get swapped in/out more often.
  • Can't possibly be as quick to change out or as internals-protecting as a drop-in design.
Cons absolutely obliterate the Pros to me, IMHO. But if I was adapting a non-rear-filterable bulbous lens (T/S 17 L, Tamron 15-30, Nikkor 14-24, etc.), this could be a godsend. If I was Aurora, I'd re-tailor a side video just for the landscape community and show how much cost and bag footprint a (say) Lee SW150 or Wonderpana kit is vs. their solution.

They'll make money on this (the KS is already backed as of this moment), but I see this as specialty kit for bulbous lens + adaptor use.

- A
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,968
501
It's just shocking that they highlight that 'there are certain things you can't post process'

...and they leave out CPL functionality.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and Adelino

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
799
102
The Canon EF 11-24mm F4L USM already has a slot in the rear for back drop filters, what does Aurora Aperture's solution for that specific lens add?

Canon already has an EF-RF adapter that allows adding a filter between the lens and the sensor, which AFAIK allows rotating it as well (good for CPL). So, again, what does Aurora Aperture's solution add for Canon's MILCs?
 

miketcool

EOS T7i
Jun 29, 2017
92
143
It's just shocking that they highlight that 'there are certain things you can't post process'

...and they leave out CPL functionality.

- A
It’s hard to use a circular polarizer in a format that doesn’t allow rotation of the filter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,327
1,681
Canon already has an EF-RF adapter that allows adding a filter between the lens and the sensor, which AFAIK allows rotating it as well (good for CPL). So, again, what does Aurora Aperture's solution add for Canon's MILCs?
^^This

I would like it if Canon were to offer a drop-in screw-mount filter holder for the RF adapter, though (there’s one for the supertele drop-in slot).
 

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
170
197
The Canon EF 11-24mm F4L USM already has a slot in the rear for back drop filters, what does Aurora Aperture's solution for that specific lens add?

Canon already has an EF-RF adapter that allows adding a filter between the lens and the sensor, which AFAIK allows rotating it as well (good for CPL). So, again, what does Aurora Aperture's solution add for Canon's MILCs?
I assume this will be cheaper than Canon's solution, since the pricing for that has been a bit insane so far. The clear drop-in filter is $129. That's more than just buying another adapter without filter support at all. The CPL adapter is $299, but the filter by itself is still $275! The ND filter is even worse, $399 including the adapter or $399.95 by itself (yes, it is MORE expensive without the adapter).

If you want to have the option of either CPL, variable ND, or nothing in your adapter, you're basically paying for 3 adapters one way or another.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,968
501
They also may be hedging that more folks are running around with the cheapest / simplest EF adaptor than the fancier ones with control rings or filter slots.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso
Aug 1, 2017
324
189
Might be good for keeping dust off the sensor. Variable ND's are conveinient for making small changes in exposure but they can exibit odd polarizer effects when stopped way down with wide angle lenses. It would be nice to be able to used fixed ND's and currently that's not an option with the Canon adapters.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,476
1,080
Irving, Texas
The Canon EF 11-24mm F4L USM already has a slot in the rear for back drop filters, what does Aurora Aperture's solution for that specific lens add?

Canon already has an EF-RF adapter that allows adding a filter between the lens and the sensor, which AFAIK allows rotating it as well (good for CPL). So, again, what does Aurora Aperture's solution add for Canon's MILCs?
True, The thing about the Canon filters is the price. $399 just for a variable ND filter for the RF mount adapter. $299 for the CPL. I'll have to stick with my front mounted filters and step up/ down rings.. I use B+W, but they aren't inexpensive either. So I guess what Aurora adds is a much lower price per filter, but nothing to Canon's MILC line unless using an adapted lens. Same as Canon's solution. AFAIK they can't be stacked either.
 

Otara

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2012
257
39
Love the RF filter concept but price has stopped me, particularly given needing the clear filter or two adapters if you want to change back and forth, and the screw-in filter is what I wanted too. Depending on price I'd take a look.
 

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
170
197
If Canon's variable ND filter ranges from 1 stop to about 9 stops, why do you assume Aurora's piece by piece solution would be cheaper?
I think they're different solutions (and both will have a market). Video guys who need the variable ND will buy the canon adapter, if you just need a 6 or 9 stop filter for a long exposure on a bulbous lens, you might go with Aurora.

CPL is a bit more complicated, not sure exactly if that can work with the standard adapter. Maybe not.

There's lots of people who won't think twice about putting down the money for the Canon adapters, but I think there are also a lot more people who would trade off for a simpler solution to save some money.