Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony translucent mirro vs Canon

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony translucent mirro vs Canon

 
 
Ian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2012
Sony's translucent mirror DSLRs seem to have gained themselves a lot of
publicity.
I recently browsed a magazine's test review of a Sony DSLR with translucent
mirror technology versus a Canon DSLR.

It seems to be rarely pointed out that Canon had similar mirrors back in the
1960s:
- Pellix in 1965,
- F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera in 1972 offering 9 fps,
- New F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera in 1984 offering 14fps,
- EOS RT in 1989 offering 5fps and a shutter lag of 8/1000 second,
- EOS-1N RS in 1995 offering 10fps.

I used an EOS RT and liked it a lot. Nice to hold and easy to use. My
favourite subjects were waterfowl taking off and landing on a nearby pond.
Very easy to track them though the viewfinder.The New F-1 High Speed Motor
Drive camera wasn't exactly like a typical film SLR of that time. Clue -
weight was 2.18kg.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...page=1976-1985

Canon aimed their translucent mirror bodies at the more expensive end of
their SLR ranges (EOS RT being an exception). A challenge with their
translucent mirrors was that (if I remember correctly) around 1/3 of the
light coming through the lens went to the viewfinder instead of the film.

Anyone else remember or use these bodies? Canon's name for the mirror was
"pellicle".

Regards, Ian.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2012
"Ian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Sony's translucent mirror DSLRs seem to have gained themselves a lot of
>publicity.



That publicity has unfortunately not been translated into sales.

The Sony Alpha SLTs are more difficult to sell than any other
DSLR/mirrorless interchangeable-lens bodies except the Sigma SD1.

They also have a high return rate compared with DSLRs.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Max
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2012
On 4/15/2012 12:32 PM, Ian wrote:
> Sony's translucent mirror DSLRs seem to have gained themselves a lot of
> publicity.
> I recently browsed a magazine's test review of a Sony DSLR with translucent
> mirror technology versus a Canon DSLR.
>
> It seems to be rarely pointed out that Canon had similar mirrors back in the
> 1960s:
> - Pellix in 1965,
> - F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera in 1972 offering 9 fps,
> - New F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera in 1984 offering 14fps,
> - EOS RT in 1989 offering 5fps and a shutter lag of 8/1000 second,
> - EOS-1N RS in 1995 offering 10fps.
>
> I used an EOS RT and liked it a lot. Nice to hold and easy to use. My
> favourite subjects were waterfowl taking off and landing on a nearby pond.
> Very easy to track them though the viewfinder.The New F-1 High Speed Motor
> Drive camera wasn't exactly like a typical film SLR of that time. Clue -
> weight was 2.18kg.
> http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...page=1976-1985
>
> Canon aimed their translucent mirror bodies at the more expensive end of
> their SLR ranges (EOS RT being an exception). A challenge with their
> translucent mirrors was that (if I remember correctly) around 1/3 of the
> light coming through the lens went to the viewfinder instead of the film.
>
> Anyone else remember or use these bodies? Canon's name for the mirror was
> "pellicle".
>
> Regards, Ian.
>
>


I took some pictures of Pellicles when we were in Florida...........

Max
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2012
On 15/04/2012 23:42, Bruce wrote:
> "Ian"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Sony's translucent mirror DSLRs seem to have gained themselves a lot of
>> publicity.

>
>
> That publicity has unfortunately not been translated into sales.
>
> The Sony Alpha SLTs are more difficult to sell than any other
> DSLR/mirrorless interchangeable-lens bodies except the Sigma SD1.
>
> They also have a high return rate compared with DSLRs.


Why? I'm quite happy with my a77 so far.


--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2012
Gary Eickmeier <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>> "Ian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sony's translucent mirror DSLRs seem to have gained themselves a lot of
>>>>publicity.


>>> That publicity has unfortunately not been translated into sales.
>>>
>>> The Sony Alpha SLTs are more difficult to sell than any other
>>> DSLR/mirrorless interchangeable-lens bodies except the Sigma SD1.
>>>
>>> They also have a high return rate compared with DSLRs.

>>
>> Why do people return them? To switch to another brand?


> Sounds like rubbish to me. I have been into Sony since the a100 was the
> first DSLR to top 10 MP. The thing about the SLT design is that you are
> looking at a live view image straight off the imaging chip. This means you
> can focus tack sharp precisely by seeing what you are getting beforehand.
> Slap happy mirrors are a thing of the past.


I have Sony's 500mm f8 reflex lens. Not the sharpest of 500mm lenses,
perhaps for reasons inherent in the catadioptric design, which might
be why they've discontinued it. It has been suggested by some that due
to the light weight and short length of long focal length reflex
lenses compared to refractors that they're much more susceptible to
mirror slap smearing.

I've spent a lot of time on Sony DSLRs without mirror lock up finding
ways of reducing the mirror slap image smearing at 500mm. The first
thing I discovered was that it happened at much higher shutter speeds
than the conventional wisdom suggested. The second thing I discovered
was that it probably wasn't mirror slap I was seeing at 1/250th sec on
two tripods (one for camera, one for lens) with my 500mm reflex, it
was probably shutter slap. At 1/250th of a sec it was an image echo a
few pixels vertically shifted. At lower shutter speeds it turned into
a smear which started to spread out horizontally as well.

I'm glad to see that the clattering clockwork mirrors are at last
being consigned to the technological dustbin. But what about the
clattering clockwork shutter?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm says...
> > it was probably shutter slap

>
> Why are there no DSLRs with electronic shutters?


because a physical barrier is needed so the sensor can flush. however,
canon has an electronic first curtain in live view.

> I think one of the
> early Nikon DSLRs (6MP?) had one, then they disappeared.


they disappeared because they weren't very good and they weren't all
electronic, but rather electro-mechanical. one problem was blooming.
 
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
Can I use a translucent picture as a main JFrame's icoimage? ʹ Java 4 02-21-2009 10:49 PM
translucent popups Spitfire Java 2 02-15-2007 03:44 AM
ImageSkill Translucator: new tool for translucent objects extraction info@imageskill.com Digital Photography 0 10-24-2006 09:53 AM
Re: Translucent Everything! * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x x , d 2 0 0 4 Computer Support 2 07-02-2005 12:22 PM



Advertisments