I'd like to have an SLT-mirror that flips up during the shot

Started Oct 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
theswede
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,936Gear list
Like?
Re: I'd like to have an SLT-mirror that flips up during the shot
In reply to Prognathous, Oct 1, 2012

Prognathous wrote:

Is the difference between a f/1.4 lens and f/1.7 lens visible in real life photography?

Yes.

Usually not, but people are still willing to pay good money for this advantage, either because they feel the need it or they simply want it.

Or ... because it makes a difference. The DOF difference at close range is quite noticeable.

Same with SLT vs SLR. Wouldn't you pay another $50 or $100 for the ability to lift up the SLT mirror and switch the camera into Mirrorless mode and gain back that half-a-stop or so of light

1. Such a mechanism would cost more than that just to be steady enough to work reliably.

2. It would cost a LOT more to add the quality control to ensure the mirror is seated in the correct position and remains there when flipped up and down.

3. Even allowing for a high quality, expensive mounting unit and excellent quality control the resulting system would be much more fragile than normal mirror boxes and the present SLT systems. It would be very difficult to ensure the thin, light mirror remains still and retains its precise position, making the camera substantially less rugged.

(and extra insurance against dirt and dust)?

How does exposing the sensor and adding a complex, fragile mechanism provide extra insurance against dirt and dust!? Unless by extra insurance you mean extra insurance that some dirt and dust will utterly destroy your camera so it requires professional service instead of sticking to the mirror so you have to use a blow brush to clean it, of course.

I know I would.

What was it P.T. Barnum said ...

BTW, with CDAF (which is the most primitive form of AF, used in cellphones and P&S cameras)

And which requires carefully tuned motors and control loop systems, which incidentally are not found on SLR or SLT cameras.

I would gladly pay another $300.

P.T. Barnum is rubbing his hands in his grave.

It would solve all the AF accuracy issues that I have to deal with when using PDAF, and would free me from having to use MF so frequently.

Do you know how awful CDAF works with PDAF designed lenses? If you have accuracy issues with your PDAF system it needs adjustment (or more likely, your lenses need adjustment). Adding CDAF to a DSLR system has never resulted in anything worth using outside of very narrow circumstances - it will never be as fast or precise as on a cellphone when using the lenses which are available today and the large sensors on SLR/SLT systems.

At best it's an emergency hackjob, hardly worth the lines of code it took to implement it.

Canon and Nikon are doing just fine with real world photography of moving subjects. In fact, most reviews of the A77 mark its C-AF performance as inferior to competing cameras like the D300s and EOS-7D.

Which is a great argument for making it even worse, of course.

With that said, an optional SLR or Mirrorless mode wouldn't change how the camera performs in C-AF when in SLT mode, so this is moot point.

Which again begs the question; why even move the mirror?

None of us know what would be the cost to add it, but most of us know that AF SLR film cameras went as cheap as $150 per body (with many other expensive components)

How many shot per second did you get out of a $150 camera? What kind of AF repeatability and accuracy?

so the flipping mirror can't be that expensive.

Not if you don't care about precision, durability, repeatability, speed, or any of the other advances which a modern SLR/SLT has over a $150 film camera, no. But I would wager that you'd expect a bit better performance out of your A77 than out of a $150 film camera.

Cost should especially not rule this option out when discussing cameras like the A77 and A99.

Yeah, what's a few hundred bucks when people consider them dirt cheap. Just look at all the threads calling for the price of the A99 to be increased.

The fragility of the SLT mirror does seem like a more valid concern, which is why a Mirrorless mode is probably an easier to engineer solution than an SLR one.

And the point of such a mode would be ... ?

Jesper

 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Huh?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow