Breakthrough coming out with glass ND grads!

[Zeidora]

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]

The Lee (edit: + SINGH-RAY) buyback is a major selling point for me.

Quite aggressive marketing strategy. Interesting to see.

 

[Ladislav]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[grahamclarkphoto]

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]

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...

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


Thanks in advance,

cayenne

 

[scottkinfw]

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

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

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

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

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.

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]

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