Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Death of the slapping mirror

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Death of the slapping mirror

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2010

"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Also, if you're planning on shooting a lot of video remember that you
> can use the eye-level finder on the Sony while shooting video,


Which is an EVF, not an optical finder

> but you can't on the Nikon (with the mirror up the optical finder is out
> of action).


... so instead you use the LCD to keep the video framed.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2010
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>The big thing is that the Sony has a unique feature set--if you need
>those features it's the only game in town right now.



The past decades are littered with failed camera designs that were
distinguished from their competitors by "unique feature sets". A
unique feature set is not enough - the product needs to satisfy a
demand, or in some cases create a demand that the product then
satisfies. The big question is whether any demand exists, or can be
created, for a pellicle mirror non-DSLR.

Given the well documented problems of pellicle mirrors in the past,
most of which led to the commercial failure of the relevant cameras, I
find it very difficult to see what net benefit is offered by these
Sony SLT cameras.

I am not biased here, because I have purchased and used two pellicle
mirror DSLRs - the Olympus E-10 and E-20 models. I had absolutely no
problems with the mirrors, but that's because the lenses were not
interchangeable so the mirrors could never become contaminated. A
major benefit of this was excellent resistance to moisture and dust.
These were DSLRs whose sensors *never* needed cleaning.

So something I find particularly odd about the Sony SLT bodies is that
the designers have failed to take advantage of the fixed mirror to
protect the sensor from dust ingress. Indeed, the sensor has a
self-cleaning feature. Self-evidently, that means dust can get in.

Of course the pellicle mirror means that cleaning the sensor will be a
complex task requiring removal of that oh-so-sensitive mirror.
Therefore it will be an expensive job - and don't even think of trying
it at home!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2010
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:47:10 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>The big thing is that the Sony has a unique feature set--if you need
>>those features it's the only game in town right now.

>
>
>The past decades are littered with failed camera designs that were
>distinguished from their competitors by "unique feature sets". A
>unique feature set is not enough - the product needs to satisfy a
>demand, or in some cases create a demand that the product then
>satisfies. The big question is whether any demand exists, or can be
>created, for a pellicle mirror non-DSLR.
>
>Given the well documented problems of pellicle mirrors in the past,
>most of which led to the commercial failure of the relevant cameras, I
>find it very difficult to see what net benefit is offered by these
>Sony SLT cameras.
>
>I am not biased here, because I have purchased and used two pellicle
>mirror DSLRs - the Olympus E-10 and E-20 models. I had absolutely no
>problems with the mirrors, but that's because the lenses were not
>interchangeable so the mirrors could never become contaminated. A
>major benefit of this was excellent resistance to moisture and dust.
>These were DSLRs whose sensors *never* needed cleaning.
>
>So something I find particularly odd about the Sony SLT bodies is that
>the designers have failed to take advantage of the fixed mirror to
>protect the sensor from dust ingress. Indeed, the sensor has a
>self-cleaning feature. Self-evidently, that means dust can get in.
>
>Of course the pellicle mirror means that cleaning the sensor will be a
>complex task requiring removal of that oh-so-sensitive mirror.
>Therefore it will be an expensive job - and don't even think of trying
>it at home!


IIRC, someone mentioned in another post that the mirror does flip up
for cleaning.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Death of the slapping mirror Tim Conway Digital Photography 3 08-24-2010 06:23 PM
Re: That slapping mirror Alotta Fagina Digital Photography 21 07-15-2008 07:54 AM
Re: That slapping mirror Don Stauffer in Minnesota Digital Photography 11 07-10-2008 09:03 AM
Re: That slapping mirror Matt Ion Digital Photography 4 07-08-2008 05:23 PM
Re: That slapping mirror Pete D Digital Photography 2 07-07-2008 06:32 AM



Advertisments