Brilliant! Xume Quick Release Adapters makes changing filters a snap!

by planetMitch10 Comments

The word that keeps coming to my mind is “brilliant” – and you'll hear it several times in the video review – but the Xume Quick Release Adapters really are amazing and I believe they're going to revolutionize the filter market (I won't use the ‘game changer' phrase but man, once you've tried one you won't want to screw in a filter ever again!).

We're incredibly excited by the way that David at Xume has chosen planet5D to be the first to get a set of these for review.

Xume Quick Release Adapters review

Pros and Cons!


  • Incredibly easy to use
  • thin
  • very fast taking filters off and replacing – snaps in place
  • very strong – will not detach by accident (unless bumped hard)
  • Brilliant


  • can be bumped and the filter may come off (you should be using a lens hood to begin with!)
  • stacking might cause vignetting (minor issue)
  • your lens cap likely won't stay in place (but they're working on solving that with a cap of their own)

Other sizes

We got this info from David last night about potential other filter sizes:

We're thinking of doing a couple step adapters next. It seems like everyone has one 77mm lens, so they probably buy 77mm filters and step down to their 72 and 67mm lenses.
l've designed lens adapters that would allow them to leave their 77s in their holders and use on them on smaller lenses. If there's sufficient demand I may still do 72 and 67mm sets as well. They're designed already.

A couple people have asked for 82mm. I'm considering it. I probably won't do anything smaller than 67mm. I don't think there's much demand for anything smaller. We test marketed a 62mm (different design) a couple years ago but didn't sell many.


I know the question is going to come up from some of you… “these are just little pieces of metal and magnets – why is the price that high?”

We asked David to give us an answer and if you read this, most of you will realize why Xume is using this pricing… (notice these points: high cost of materials, 5 year development process, patented)

Pricing is tricky and misunderstood, especially when a product seems as simple as our adapters. After all, it’s a magnet and steel, right? Hardly. We have a U.S. Patent, and one of the standards for rejecting patent applications is whether the idea is “obvious,” and what’s more obvious than a magnet and steel? What’s patentable is a design that does something new and innovative, especially when it incorporates existing technologies. Our patent is No. 8014666, and a second one is pending.

Our goal was to create a filter mounting system that was effortless and automatic. We succeeded, but the resulting product represents over five years of design, prototyping, redesign, and still more prototyping, with several failed, clumsy looking and outright wasted efforts along the way. Our products look simple and work great by design, not accident. They are amazingly compact. The adapters and holders together are just slightly thicker than an average step ring.

Our lens adapters utilize low profile neodymium magnets which, we were told, several times by several vendors, could not be manufactured to the specification and tolerances we required. They ultimately could be, but at a price. The material is extremely brittle, nearly impossible to machine, and ridiculously expensive. Google “rare earth magnet prices.” The cost has doubled twice this year alone. The magnets are held in place by an injection molded retaining cover that creates a beautifully finished exterior, but again, it was very expensive to design and prototype, and required expensive tooling to manufacture to our exacting tolerances. Compact + high tolerance + tooling = expensive.

The adapters are made exclusively for us, like iPhones, iPads and iMacs, in China. Manufacturing in China is cheaper, but not cheap. However, it's the difference between offering a product at a price that most working pros find reasonable, and one that would cost more just to manufacture than anyone would be willing to pay.

Our adapters are unique. There is nothing else like them anywhere and they are only available from us. We believe they are fairly priced and offer good value for the utility they provide. Our customers get much greater use from their filters, which for most users is reason enough to justify the cost.

By the way, if you have any concerns about the magnets, please read this Xume magnet info.

Blogger's Disclaimer: I did receive a free basic kit to perform this review and I'm sure as heck not giving it back – these things are “brilliant”! HA had to say it one more time.

(cover photo credit: snap from the xume website)


  1. Thats really a brilliant idea. Very useful.

    Pricing shouldn’t be a problem. Just wait 3-4 months and the market will be flooded with indian and chinese products for as low as 10 bucks like anything else for HDSLRs 🙂

  2. Why wait for four months? Send a link from the Xume website to CoolLCD and/or The CineCity and speed up the process. They could produce the same product in a matter of weeks – at a fraction of the cost.
    These are being made in China anyway, so it’s not as if you’d be hurting the U.S. manufacturing sector – or what’s left of it.

  3. Guys, the price isn’t that high. Don’t be so cheap and selfish. Come on, don’t they deserve to make a profit for innovating the idea and spending 5 years in R&D and testing to make it work properly? If you read about the process, it was a difficult thing to achieve with the rare earth magnets. Also, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a knock off. They have patented the process and have a 2nd patent pending. Xume may not be able to stop all patent infringement in China – but they could certainly block sales in the US.

  4. They should just license this to lens & filter makers, so it can be built straight onto the lenses & filters, alleviating the need for the adapter at all, and reducing vignetting…

  5. Eric,
    That’s the plan. The adapters are bridge technology intended to provide use of the idea until the OEM guys catch up.

  6. XumeAdaptersGuy,
    Like Mitch, I think your product is a brilliant idea. I would love to see you take the concept toward a more complete solution – so that we filmmakers don’t have to cobble together bits and pieces. Matte boxes have their place on certain kinds of projects, but when working in a “stripped down” mode like handheld, I really hate having the extra weight and hassle of rods and a matte box when I only need an ND or pola filter. Would you consider adding collapsable lens shades (that use your magnet technology)? You wouldn’t need an infinite # of sizes if you made different step down rings that could accommodate different lens diameters. That would help the filmmaker on several fronts – less filter sizes, etc. The next logical step in a “magnetic system” would be to create magnetic holders for square and rectangular filters. This would of course necessitate a new matte box design – but I could see the advantages for quickly changing ND filters in changing light conditions by attaching the filter (already in it’s holder) to the inside of the mattebox. This would eliminate the time it takes to slide out the tray, remove the old filter, replace with the new, and slide back into place. This is a tediously slow process when you’re ready to shoot and the sun goes away or comes out. This idea would not necessarily replace trays, just add a new “magnetic stage” inside the mattebox. Trays are still useful for grad filters and rotating polas. Perhaps you are already thinking in these directions… Love your product idea!

  7. Thanks for your comments, Randolph.

    We’re looking for just this sort of feedback as we think about new products. We obviously have additional round filter sizes in the works, but as a former still photographer and not a film maker it’s great to get specific ideas as to what someone would find useful in the video and film world. I have had several inquiries regarding Lee filters and have been lurking around the fringes of matte box systems and glass filter use to see where we might improve things. If it’s OK, perhaps I can pick your brain a little when we get closer to targeting that market.

    Regarding the collapsable lens hood: not sure if you mean a simple rubber hood? I keep a threaded one on a holder now and it works great, albeit, a little dorky looking. I suppose you’re thinking more of a matte box style shade? I know there are some very light ones that fit over the lens. It’s possible that a similar configuration could incorporate our system. I’ll have to do a little research. I welcome any more input.

  8. Xume, glad my comments are helpful. Feel free to pick my brain anytime. Email: [email protected]. I actually meant rubber lens shades just like still cameras. Rubber has the advantage of collapsing for easy storage and if it takes a small bump – might be less likely to dislodge the magnets. If I’m shooting with DSLR cameras or using still camera size lenses for handheld or tight area camera rigging, then a lens shade is usually sufficient for flare protection. I think that your largest primary market will obviously be still camera photogs and DSLR video users. It’s good to have various ring sizes , but a series of larger diameter filter holders (that a round rubber lens shade could attach to) with various diameter step down rings would be optimum. Using slightly larger filters to fit on smaller diameter lenses would cut down the number of duplicate filters sizes that a user would have to own or rent and carry. Of course, you might need a wide angle and normal angle lens shade option. If you can also design something magnetized that would work with light weight clip on matte boxes as well, that would be great.

  9. Randolph—you can use with a 77mm collapsable lens hood now. I do. Just screw it into one of our holders. It’s one of my favorite uses. Just don’t screw a filter into the hood. Gets complicated if you are wanting to quick change filters as well, though. It’s kind of either/or now. It’s not a perfect solution yet, but still pretty dang cool, we think.

    The best solution is going to be when Canon, Tiffen, etc, catch up and incorporate our system into their products to reduce profile, allow stacking, etc. I’m hoping to get their attention soon.

  10. Pingback: Por un futuro más rápido… cambiando filtros | Actualidad Foto

Leave a Comment