A rumor

Started Feb 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
Keit ll Veteran Member • Posts: 4,186
OK one last try .....

It is very dissmissive to describe the effect of an SLT mirror as making ONLY a half stop difference but what does that actually mean ? When a lens is adjusted by one stop the amount of light , at any given moment , is either HALVED or DOUBLED ! so that for example when a lens is stopped down from F 2.8 to F 4.0 the amount of light is halved , if the same exposure is required then the shutter speed also has to be altered to allow the correct amount of light to reach the sensor so that 1/30sec becomes 1/15sec & so on. Seen in this light half a stop difference in light is very significant in the effect that it has on the signal to noise ratio. If two cameras are compared , one having an SLT miror & one having no mirror in tje light path , then all other parameters being equal ( including the sensor ) then the SLT version will always be at a disadvantage with regard to image noise. That`s a simple fact that no amount of bluff & bluster can discredit.

It`s true that doing away with a swinging mirror may reduce mirror slap induced vibtation but other means can be adopted to achieve the same end result. However damage to mirror coatings & the accumulation of dust are not easily dealt with unless it is claimed that the SLT mirror totally prevents dust from settling on the sensor ?

The second half of my arguement has been ignored, the issue of pricing & its effect on A99 sales. How can Sony respond to Nikon pricing the D800 in the same ball park as the A99 ? They could produce a leap-frogging 48MP sensor but , for the reasons given above , would it be any better than the D800/800E ?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow