Wine Country Filter Holder Kit - Reviews/Info and Avaialbility

[dave.gt]

Just received my package yesterday......I must say I'm surprised it's so large and heavy, it's much bigger and heavier than my LEE SW150II holder, granted it has the huge polariser built in, but still, the pouch that came along isn't going to fit into any of my existing camera backpacks. At the moment I'm not even sure I'd want to haul this system around on my next trip..... :facesmack:

Binbin,

It is really that large?:shocked:
Can you share a picture of the filter kit? I love the concept and what few images I have seen.

 

[drunkenspyder]

Binbin,

It is really that large?:shocked:
Can you share a picture of the filter kit? I love the concept and what few images I have seen.

Dave:

It’s pretty big. Though it fits in my Shimoda packs just fine, or perhaps I should say “snugly,” it is indeed large. Larger than the ProGrey or the Lee. BinNin correctly notes that part of this is due to the integrated polarizer, which approach has its advantages and disadvantages. However, the Lee barrel-style adapters are their own carrying/storage challenge; the entire WCC kit—chassis, filters, and adapters—fits inside the very nice supplied Extensis pouch (the best I have ever seen), and while the ProGrey vignettes less than the Lee, neither competes with the WCC on wide beasts like the S-K 35, the Rodie 23/32, or the Canon TS17. It’s integrated polarizer is better than Lee’s square polarizer, and doesn’t require removal of the filter assembly to get to it the way the ProGrey does. If I am taking those lenses, I am taking the WCC.

There are disadvantages. An integrated polarizer does not necessarily or in all circumstances produce the desired visual results on exactly those lenses which the WCC was designed to handle (polarizer sky shifts across wide angles). Removing the polarizer is not difficult, and can be done with the rig mounted on your lens, but then you have to find a place to put that big piece of expensive glass. If one doesn’t need GND filters, then one can go back to good old round filters (but not on the Canon or other bulbous wide angle lenses; which is why Nikon’s forthcoming 14-30 is creating a lot of interest; it handles threaded filters and likewise the Hassy 21XCD). And while a couple of stacked ones will vignette on the Rodies, it’s not horrible. Plenty of problems with round filters, too, especially in the cold, but. . ..they’re compact, until one starts carrying other lenses with different filter thread sizes. Which brings us back to a filter system.

I’ll try to get some pics to post.

 

[beano_z]

Binbin,

It is really that large?:shocked:
Can you share a picture of the filter kit? I love the concept and what few images I have seen.

Hi Dave,

It is indeed quite a lot larger, and I've even tried this morning, IKEA says it's also 200g heavier (both including 105mm adapter and polariser mounted).

I usually carry the filter holders in the top compartment of my backpacks (either F-Stop Lotus or Tilopa, depending on the hear I bring) and I've tried the WCC with the Tilopa, which fits OK, but with the Lotus I have some issues.

Hauling stuff around like I do, I haven't found the additional thickness of the LEE vs. WCC an issue. I estimate the difference to be around 10mm and the top compartments of my bags will accommodate both just fine.

Next on will be some vignette tests on the lenses, but I'm quite hesitant to put the WCC assembly on my HR 32

 

[dave.gt]

View attachment 140578

View attachment 140579

View attachment 140580

Hi Dave,

It is indeed quite a lot larger, and I've even tried this morning, IKEA says it's also 200g heavier (both including 105mm adapter and polariser mounted).

I usually carry the filter holders in the top compartment of my backpacks (either F-Stop Lotus or Tilopa, depending on the hear I bring) and I've tried the WCC with the Tilopa, which fits OK, but with the Lotus I have some issues.

Hauling stuff around like I do, I haven't found the additional thickness of the LEE vs. WCC an issue. I estimate the difference to be around 10mm and the top compartments of my bags will accommodate both just fine.

Next on will be some vignette tests on the lenses, but I'm quite hesitant to put the WCC assembly on my HR 32

Oh, wow...:shocked:

Thank you for that! Quite a difference, I must say. The Wine C is certainly attractive, in addition to having such a physical presence!

 

[Paul2660]

No way I would consider the Wine C with a 32mm Rodie. The lens has an issue already with the outer element group being misaligned due to harsh movement. See Rodenstocks own warning. The mass of the Wine C setup would not be a good thing to put on the 32mm.

Paul C

 

[Shashin]

View attachment 140578

View attachment 140579

View attachment 140580

Hi Dave,

It is indeed quite a lot larger, and I've even tried this morning, IKEA says it's also 200g heavier (both including 105mm adapter and polariser mounted).

I usually carry the filter holders in the top compartment of my backpacks (either F-Stop Lotus or Tilopa, depending on the hear I bring) and I've tried the WCC with the Tilopa, which fits OK, but with the Lotus I have some issues.

Hauling stuff around like I do, I haven't found the additional thickness of the LEE vs. WCC an issue. I estimate the difference to be around 10mm and the top compartments of my bags will accommodate both just fine.

Next on will be some vignette tests on the lenses, but I'm quite hesitant to put the WCC assembly on my HR 32

Great holder, but it does represent what I dislike about US/European designs--weight and size seem not to be important factors (except for the strange notion that weight correlates to quality). If the price included someone to carry it for you, that would be different...

 

[GrahamWelland]

No way I would consider the Wine C with a 32mm Rodie. The lens has an issue already with the outer element group being misaligned due to harsh movement. See Rodenstocks own warning. The mass of the Wine C setup would not be a good thing to put on the 32mm.

Paul C

I’m not sure that I’d worry too much in a static situation but I’d definitely avoid carrying the camera/lens/filter assembly on the tripod between locations. That’s where the potential alignment issues occur IMHO. Heck, when I had mine, I’d tear everything down and never carry that lens (or the 23HR) on my Alpa on the tripod any further than a few feet and even then not hanging over my shoulder.

 

[jng]

Given the uneven effects of polarizers on wide angle lenses, I imagine one might simply forgo the polarizer when using the WCC on the 23 or 32 HR, which should reduce the mass hanging off the front element group. I actually keep the polarizer (for my smaller WCC holder) stashed in the filter case as I tend to use it only occasionally.

John

 

[dave.gt]

Great holder, but it does represent what I dislike about US/European designs--weight and size seem not to be important factors (except for the strange notion that weight correlates to quality). If the price included someone to carry it for you, that would be different...

Ah, but don't forget, the weight has another all-important purpose. If used daily or regularly, the health benefits and money/time saved that would have been spent at the gym offset the inconvenient heavier pack.:grin:

I would not recommend it for many but it works for me, LOL!:ROTFL:

 

[beano_z]

No way I would consider the Wine C with a 32mm Rodie. The lens has an issue already with the outer element group being misaligned due to harsh movement. See Rodenstocks own warning. The mass of the Wine C setup would not be a good thing to put on the 32mm.

Paul C

Same thinking here, as I have a friend who managed to shake his HR 32 into misalignment from a couple days worth of bumpy rides even though it was sitting in a padded camera bag.

I'm being very careful here as for one, the repair costs at ALPA are quite high and secondly, their turnaround time can be months, which is never pleasant.

I’m not sure that I’d worry too much in a static situation but I’d definitely avoid carrying the camera/lens/filter assembly on the tripod between locations. That’s where the potential alignment issues occur IMHO. Heck, when I had mine, I’d tear everything down and never carry that lens (or the 23HR) on my Alpa on the tripod any further than a few feet and even then not hanging over my shoulder.

What worries me is when handling the holder (i.e. mounting and removing it from the adapter) and mounting / adjusting the filters. Such a large holder will inevitably exercise a lot of unnecessary torque on the copal assembly.

 

[drunkenspyder]

Hi Dave,

<SNIP>

Hauling stuff around like I do, I haven't found the additional thickness of the LEE vs. WCC an issue. I estimate the difference to be around 10mm and the top compartments of my bags will accommodate both just fine.

(

Just to be clear, I don’t think the Lee is appreciably “thickeR” than the WCC once mounted or for hauling. But the Lee SW150 II barrel style adapters are in fact much deeper than the WCC thin plate-style adapters. The WCC adapters are very wide, like little frisbees, but they can be stacked and slipped into the pouch or a pocket of one’s backpack, or along the side of an ICU. The Lee barrel-style adapters, especially if one does not want to keep them mounted on the lens (as I don’t) are a real PITA. Just my perspective. YMMV.

Paul and others make some good points about the size/weight torque issues. I have used this and other rigs on my Rodie 32. Once mounted on a stationary tripod, and absent significant wind, I have neither seen nor felt any significant stress. The 32, even with the noted misalignment issue, is a solid chunk of metal and glass. It seems more than capable of handling the WCC. Ditto with the Rodie 40 (for which the WCC 150 is overkill). FWIW, when mounted on the XF, and the 40-80 and the 120, set for maximum vibration sensitivity, and with the entire WCC rig filed with large glass filters, on a windy day, the WCC never developed sufficient movement to delay any shots.

 

[beano_z]

Just to be clear, I don’t think the Lee is appreciably “thickeR” than the WCC once mounted or for hauling. But the Lee SW150 II barrel style adapters are in fact much deeper than the WCC thin plate-style adapters. The WCC adapters are very wide, like little frisbees, but they can be stacked and slipped into the pouch or a pocket of one’s backpack, or along the side of an ICU. The Lee barrel-style adapters, especially if one does not want to keep them mounted on the lens (as I don’t) are a real PITA. Just my perspective. YMMV.

Paul and others make some good points about the size/weight torque issues. I have used this and other rigs on my Rodie 32. Once mounted on a stationary tripod, and absent significant wind, I have neither seen nor felt any significant stress. The 32, even with the noted misalignment issue, is a solid chunk of metal and glass. It seems more than capable of handling the WCC. Ditto with the Rodie 40 (for which the WCC 150 is overkill). FWIW, when mounted on the XF, and the 40-80 and the 120, set for maximum vibration sensitivity, and with the entire WCC rig filed with large glass filters, on a windy day, the WCC never developed sufficient movement to delay any shots.

Now I understand the issue and it never crossed my mind that you were carrying multiple adapter rings at the same time! :facesmack:

I always just buy the 105mm adapter then use step up rings (which I keep mounted on the adapter when packing) for the smaller lenses....

But good to know about the XF, as on my most likely future trip I’ll probably carry the XF system instead of the ALPA.

 

[drunkenspyder]

Now I understand the issue and it never crossed my mind that you were carrying multiple adapter rings at the same time! :facesmack:

I always just buy the 105mm adapter then use step up rings (which I keep mounted on the adapter when packing) for the smaller lenses....

But good to know about the XF, as on my most likely future trip I’ll probably carry the XF system instead of the ALPA.

Good points Binbin. The step ups are probably the better way to do.