Why Thom is wrong...

Started Sep 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,548Gear list
Re: Less moving parts makes more sense
In reply to DT200, Sep 25, 2013

DT200 wrote:

If you can put PDAF on the sensor and get rid of a mirror completely it makes perfect sense to do so. Less moving parts, less things to adjust, less things to break, less cost, less weight and size, less vibration, less noise. LensRentals proved better accuracy too. Once we have a fast electronic shutter or even a global shutter, the mirror will only be an added expense found on specialty cameras.

Remember how old people got upset with phones that didn't have physical keys? They lost that argument too.

PDAF on sensor is being implemented in some interesting ways, so kudos to the ones who are. But as of yet, I don't think it's less cost if you also include an EVF viewfinder. I could be wrong, but it's not as cheap as a mirror box - but no reason to think it won't be eventually. It's like a lot of the designs that have gone into cars over time.

Moving from mechanical to electro-coupled usually requires new tooling, volume and demand. Shutters are probably as cheap as they can be right now - tooling is likely paid for etc. So EVF has to compete with that.

I prefer the viewfinder of the ProX1 most of all. It's very nice to look through.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow